AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
Lowest? Specifically ESET I'm surprised at... Where are you getting this information? ESET was rated #1 for false positives from the last reports I've seen.
What's the best Antivirus?
- Thread starter Will
- Start date
Lowest? Specifically ESET I'm surprised at... Where are you getting this information? ESET was rated #1 for false positives from the last reports I've seen.
AV-Comparatives False Alarm Test » AV-Comparatives
MSE had 0 false alarms, ESET had 4, Kaspersky 5, Trend Micro 7, Avira 10, Avast 11, McAfee 12, AVg with 36. By far the worst was Webroot, with 210 false alarms.
MSE had 0 false alarms, ESET had 4, Kaspersky 5, Trend Micro 7, Avira 10, Avast 11, McAfee 12, AVg with 36. By far the worst was Webroot, with 210 false alarms.
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
I was looking at this: AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Real World Protection Test Overview
It's been a while since I looked at any AVC reports but then ESET has dramatically improved since the last I seen. Just last year they were reported to be #1 for false alarms. It's hard to see the comparisons being made here, I don't fully trust any of these reports to be honest. I only use them as a guideline because I don't have time to test them in full myself. Various AV's work in different ways, so depending on the malware being tested or files in general, it may favor one or another AV for better results. This also has to do with the configuration of that AV during the test, and again, all AV's can be configured in different ways.
Cool. I still am not a fan of ESET, but they improved. I would still choose Norton (symantec) or BitDefender over AVG or ESET though. MSE is always nice though, I wouldn't compare it to anything else because it's good in many other ways that other's aren't.
It's been a while since I looked at any AVC reports but then ESET has dramatically improved since the last I seen. Just last year they were reported to be #1 for false alarms. It's hard to see the comparisons being made here, I don't fully trust any of these reports to be honest. I only use them as a guideline because I don't have time to test them in full myself. Various AV's work in different ways, so depending on the malware being tested or files in general, it may favor one or another AV for better results. This also has to do with the configuration of that AV during the test, and again, all AV's can be configured in different ways.
Cool. I still am not a fan of ESET, but they improved. I would still choose Norton (symantec) or BitDefender over AVG or ESET though. MSE is always nice though, I wouldn't compare it to anything else because it's good in many other ways that other's aren't.
Triple Helix
Microsoft MVP
Contributor
Well I use Webroot SecureAnywhere 2013 Complete and I Beta tested from the beginning early 2011 as I was a Prevx user and Webroot acquired Prevx in Nov 2010 and WSA is based on Prevx Full Cloud Technology I have not seen a FP in over a year as they keep tweaking the Heuristics and Behavioural Analysis in the Cloud there's nothing lighter 3 to 6MB of RAM 725kb client download with 5 to 6MB on the Disk if you have WSA-Complete as it has a Webroot re-branded lastpast password management toolbar and Back Up & Sync and scans in minutes mine scans in 30 seconds as it only scans where possible threats can hide no need to scan the whole system but you can if wanted it's strength is on execution I would like to invite anyone to give WSA a 2 week trial and it will speak for itself IMHO. AntiVirus Free Trial - Free Malware Scan | Webroot Here is a video if WSA misses a virus: What Happens if Webroot "Misses" a Virus? - Webroot Community
Best Regards,
Daniel
Best Regards,
Daniel
AceInfinity
Emeritus, Contributor
It's a cool concept, but how well it works remains unseen just by that one video; that C++ code is very bad, and this is why I don't have full trust in that AV yet without having done further research about WebRoot. That is a high level function call, not a low level keyboard hook for starters. And there may even be a way to bypass that firewall feature as well from disallowing certain information to be sent out. Depending on the methods being used there, one may try to encrypt the data to have it sent, and maybe inject it into an already running process to carry out the action to make it less suspicious; IE or Firefox for instance. The only hope there would be that webroot detects this activity and stops it before it's executed.
Okay, in sum though, viruses are hardly that simple anymore, they are much more complex. That kind of C++ code may have been used for a REAL keylogger in which was undetected some years ago, but I could write a program to prevent that compiled C++ binary from doing any harm to a person's PC and perhaps many beginner programmers as well to put things into perspective. :grin1:
If this WebRoot allows things to be sent that it deems are okay, over HTTP(S) then their programmers are making the assumption that the keys that were possibly recorded by the protected programs (by configuration), don't reveal the original text. The very first rule in programming for security is that you never make assumptions.
For instance, I wouldn't let a known criminal into my house even if I thought he couldn't do any harm because his gun was taken away or he doesn't have a gun, I would make sure I never let him into my house in the first place. In relation to WebRoot here, allowing this "criminal" into the house, he could still steal stuff, even if our initial worry was solved (not to be harmed), among many other things. And because he doesn't have a gun still doesn't make him dangerous. Thus it's better to stop at the source (the front door to the house in this case), than to assume, and possibly find out the hard way later. By not allowing this criminal into your house, you're automatically protecting yourself against many other bad situations as possibilities. This is the way all good AV's work. :thumbsup2:
To me, the false positives rating given to WebRoot from that report however, tells me that WebRoot has ineffective, or inefficient ways of checking a file for a malicious signature. So although it uses other methods (that may work, I don't know), it's lacking in other areas.
BEFORE, I eliminate the possibility of WebRoot being a good AV though, I may, or would like to test for myself for my own curiosity though to see how effective it is on detection and prevention. So I'm not saying it's a bad AV, but it still has yet to be proven that it is good. This is 100% speculation, but remains to be proven or disproven.
Last edited:
Triple Helix
Microsoft MVP
Contributor
That's all I ask give it a try, also the Cloud consists of 50+ of Terabytes of information in it's Intelligence Network "A new malware protection approach is desperately needed." Real-Time Malware Protection ? Webroot Intelligence Network | Webroot®
And let us know here is the Online Help File: https://detail.webrootanywhere.com/agenthelp.asp?n=OpeningPage
TIA,
Daniel
And let us know here is the Online Help File: https://detail.webrootanywhere.com/agenthelp.asp?n=OpeningPage
TIA,
Daniel
saint_satin_stain
Member
The best three now: Webroot, BitDefender, and Norton. I use, along with family, Webroot SecureAnywhere Complete; it progects several family desktops and smart phones and tablets. Read the PCMag.com reviews.
Deek
Well-known member
I prefer Avast right now...but it changes over time...always keep Malwarebytes Free and Eset online scanner around as well. One scanner will not do it all.
Deek
Well-known member
You missed the "False Postive" part from Will Watts...Eset seems to do better at picking up Java related issue better then anything....Malwarebytes seems best for PUP's and Malware, and Avast is the least troublesome as long as you do a custom install and get rid of all the junk they package with it.
Deek
Well-known member
FYI, a new record was just achieved over here....Malwarebytes dected 75,674 items on a client PC....That shatters the prevfcious record of 37,000ish items
As long as you don't need help from the Avast forums -- still down: avast! blog » AVAST forum offline due to attack
If you or someone at your company use Twitter, they love seeing records like that. https://twitter.com/Malwarebytes
I've been finding myself more and more frustrated with some of the MBAM detections, especially some of the website blocking. That feature finds itself fairly regularly disabled at this point. Not sure why, possibly just been unlucky with false positives, but it's frustrating having to work out why a program has stopped working only to realise it was MBAM.
Last edited:
Malwarebytes has a forum to report False Positives -- both website and file detections.