• AV testing: Is your antivirus app doing its job?

    Home » Forums » Newsletter and Homepage topics » AV testing: Is your antivirus app doing its job?

    Author
    Topic
    #501056


    TOP STORY


    AV testing: Is your antivirus app doing its job?

    By Lincoln Spector

    Using savvy security software is an important part of staying safe online. But just how effective is it? You can’t depend on your experience — or mine.

    The best source for information on the competency of anti-malware apps comes from a handful of independent, virus-testing organizations. Here’s one example.


    The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/av-testing-is-your-antivirus-app-doing-its-job/ (opens in a new window/tab).

    Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

    [/tr][/tbl]

    Viewing 25 reply threads
    Author
    Replies
    • #1516413

      I’m curious as to why some companies are not represented in the test result. For example, I didn’t see any recent testing of Symantec products in the AV Comparative results (apparently last tested in 2010?) or VB100. TrendMicro ranked very high on AV Comparative results, but didn’t appear at all on VB100 testing.

      Can we infer anything from their absence?

      • #1516431

        I’m curious as to why some companies are not represented in the test result. For example, I didn’t see any recent testing of Symantec products in the AV Comparative results (apparently last tested in 2010?) or VB100. TrendMicro ranked very high on AV Comparative results, but didn’t appear at all on VB100 testing.

        Can we infer anything from their absence?

        From the aticle:

        Again, it’s important to note that most products AV-Comparatives tests are from companies willing to pay to play. But the company is also selective, stating that it typically tests “16 – 20 vendors [and] include only good and reliable products.” It has a sterling reputation and has been known to drop vendors that might be gaming the tests.

        Jerry

      • #1516459

        I’m curious as to why some companies are not represented in the test result. For example, I didn’t see any recent testing of Symantec products in the AV Comparative results (apparently last tested in 2010?) or VB100. TrendMicro ranked very high on AV Comparative results, but didn’t appear at all on VB100 testing.

        Can we infer anything from their absence?

        That they are not very good or don’t want to pay.

    • #1516414

      Norton AV not listed?

    • #1516421

      The very best product available, head-and-shoulders above the rest, is Malwarebytes Antimalware Home (Premium.) Everything else is junk compared to it. Perhaps this is why it was not tested. It would make all other products look poor. On my Windows 10 build 10240 Professional x64 installation, I turned off Windows Defender via gpedit.msc, and have aforementioned running. I am well protected, and do not have any issues.

      • #1516462

        The very best product available, head-and-shoulders above the rest, is Malwarebytes Antimalware Home (Premium.) Everything else is junk compared to it. Perhaps this is why it was not tested. It would make all other products look poor. On my Windows 10 build 10240 Professional x64 installation, I turned off Windows Defender via gpedit.msc, and have aforementioned running. I am well protected, and do not have any issues.

        ….yet.

        I use MBAM Premium as well, but I know it’s not a full-spectrum AV, they warn users as such themselves. It will not normally intervene whilst downloading an infected file for example, whilst MSE will kick in and quarantine the downloaded file immediately. I use these two softwares together on my main PC plus a daily quick double-check with Hitman Pro with .Alert enabled. Very lightweight together, no clashes, they complement each other, excellent multi-layer protection.

        On another PC I use Webroot but had one or two issues with it because it works completely differently to any other AV. It’s excellent, but they need to iron out one or two quirks before I will use it more widely. Because it is so different, many AV test companies are not set up to test something as radical and effective as Webroot.

        As for other AV and anti-malwares out there, I’ve probably tried them all in the past few years and most are either not effective or are too problematic and / or diffiult to manage effectively. Just one example that comes to mind, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to use Comodo but I always end up removing it eventually, despite many people saying it works great for them.

    • #1516432

      Excellent article, thanks.

      My experience with AV programs is that the ones I have ditched over the years weren’t bad because they failed to pick up infections (or prevent them), it was because they were either bloated products that slowed my machine down and/or had serious system-breaking false positives. That’s one reason why I use MBAM Free rather than Premium because with the free version there is no automatic quarantine unlike the paid-for version where a couple of rogue definition updates have caused massive problems in the last couple of years for some Premium users. I also now use MBAE and, initially in accordance with the recommendations of my local computer repair shop, MSE which has never given me any problems.

      It seems to me that a concern with these AV program tests is that the results vary from one test to another. It’s a bit like swapping energy suppliers because this month Supplier A is cheaper than Supplier B, only to find out a few weeks down the road that Supplier B has become the cheapest. The most favoured position for AV programs changes the whole time, while most users prefer to find a program they like and then stick with it rather than swap around every time a new test comes out. The best you can hope to do is find one that does fairly well in all the tests, it won’t always be the best but it probably won’t be the worst either.

      Also, everyone has their own particular favourite AV program according to their own personal experience of the various ones they’ve tried. We are no more likely to reach a definitive assessment on which one is the best than we are to agree on which graphics card is best, AMD or Nvidia. People have their personal favourite, and there’s no swaying them from that.

      I’ve always found on other forums that the one topic that is guaranteed to produce the longest and least conclusive thread is the one where someone asks the question – what’s the best AV program?

      • #1516461

        … this month Supplier A is cheaper than Supplier B, only to find out a few weeks down the road that Supplier B has become the cheapest. The most favoured position for AV programs changes the whole time, while most users prefer to find a program they like and then stick with it rather than swap around …

        I guess I’m not most users, I go to the trouble of running several, not all at the same time — it’s a cesspool trying to do that, but the approach has worked several times where one AV program caught something the other two missed.

        I’d like a tool that would deploy several each night out of a larger list — run it, uninstall it, pick the next one, run that, uninstall it, pick the third one ….

        Or, I’d like a kickstarter that would kill off the entire problem somehow. Don’t tell me how, just make it go away.
        If the NSA were able to do that, nobody would care who else they spy on or what else they do (sigh)

        Yeah, yeah, joking …

        • #1516773

          I guess I’m not most users, I go to the trouble of running several, not all at the same time — it’s a cesspool trying to do that, but the approach has worked several times where one AV program caught something the other two missed.

          I’d like a tool that would deploy several each night out of a larger list — run it, uninstall it, pick the next one, run that, uninstall it, pick the third one ….

          Or, I’d like a kickstarter that would kill off the entire problem somehow. Don’t tell me how, just make it go away.
          If the NSA were able to do that, nobody would care who else they spy on or what else they do (sigh)

          Yeah, yeah, joking …

          Actually, multi-engine testing is the idea behind Virus Total, for individual files up to a certain size.

          For whole computer scanning, Hitman Pro ( info ) is one of a few multi-engine products which can be downloaded and used by anyone. Detectionis free, but removal is not. However, enough info and details are shown in the Results screen to allow me to manually clean some adware out of my Windows 7 64-bits Registry, and to know where inside my browsers or my AppData to find much of the rest of any simple adware.

          Full removal as I say does require a subscription fee.

          This is not a full AV product, but it can provide multi-engine second opinions.

          I also use Malwarebytes Free for second-opinions, and I download and run the Microsoft Safety scanner monthly to do a Full system Scan. MSERT is the same engine and definitions as Windows Defender. Its Reports can be found in C:/Windows/Debug on most systems. (Malicious Software Removal Tool can also be run manually, but it is more limited in what it can detect.)

          My primary AV product is Avast Free in aggressive Hardened Mode (not tested by AV Test). Very effective, but Hardened Mode also blocks or flags stuff which is not malicious.

          I may try Avira when my ASUS Tablet comes back from a Warranty Factory Reset (LONG story!).

          -- rc primak

    • #1516457

      Interesting article but I am surprised that you did not take the opportunity to mention that 2 or 3 Chinese AV makers (Qihoo 360, Tencent and I think maybe Baidu?) were recently kicked out by AV Comparatives as well as AV Test and Virus Bulletin for allegedly gaming / cheating! The alleged trick was to provide a version of their software for testing with the Bitdefender engine enabled whilst the standard consumer product used their own much inferior engine!

    • #1516471

      The very best product available, head-and-shoulders above the rest, is Panda Free. Everything else is junk compared to it. Blah, blah, blah…

      Nil illigitimi carborundum

    • #1516473

      This article is interesting, but misses the main point, I think. The most important variable here is user behavior – don’t navigate to bad sites! I run Windows Defender, and have never had a virus flagged. In fact, in many years of using a PC, I only ran into one situation in which systems were being infected – at my work (a very large health insurance company), in which a server had been infected and was passing along the infections to PCs at work. I am not familiar with the rating service mentioned in the article, but PC Magazine used to run these tests on a regular basis, and the relative product ratings used to vary substantially across time – the “best” product now was likely not the “best” 3 months from now. I doubt if anyone wants to switch products every few months.

      And, of course, the other option is to switch over to OS X – which is inherently more secure, and has a much lower attack volume than PCs. I do run a Mac anti-virus product and in/out firewall (Intego), but again, have never gotten an alert to an infection. Many of the OS X experts that I trust still recommend not using anti-virus software (mostly because of system performance impact). I have not noticed any impact on my Macs – including a MacBook Air that is relatively low powered. So perhaps, this is just superstitious behavior on my part.

      So, be careful out there!

      David

    • #1516481

      Thanks for this article.
      Some security software does a good job, Kaspersky Internet Security or Bitdefender for instance, which usually are top notch in most AV tests we see in computer magazines or newsletters over here in Europe.
      However, even these programs have their cons.

      Kaspersky IS 2016 / 2016 beta blocks Haenlein DVR Studio HD3 and the support didn’t manage to fix the bug reported nearly 2 months ago!

      That’s why I installed a Bitdefender trial only to find out that it blocks SNAGIT, the market leading screenshot utility…..

      An informative AV test should check compatibility with standard applications too.

      Juergen

    • #1516484

      I prefer Consumer Reports reviews of Security Software products for the one to use.

      Their last review, 07-15, page 46, rated Eset tops with a score of 69 (paid version) and Avira with a score of 58 (free version). Panda was last, score 43.

      There is no conflict of interest and AV companies can’t buy their way into the ratings. CR is a non-profit, does not have advertising or except free samples, and is funded by its subscribers.

      • #1516495

        I prefer Consumer Reports reviews of Security Software products for the one to use.

        Their last review, 07-15, page 46, rated Eset tops with a score of 69 (paid version) and Avira with a score of 58 (free version). Panda was last, score 43.

        There is no conflict of interest and AV companies can’t buy their way into the ratings. CR is a non-profit, does not have advertising or except free samples, and is funded by its subscribers.

        I don’t know of this publication. However, the huge diversity of hard- and software makes reports given by single consumers a vague base for decisions. Avira (paid version) was used here 5 or 6 years ago and it was by far the AV soft with most false positives and awful database updates I ever used in 25 years of computing. 🙂
        I’ll never forget the day Avira automatically quarantined explorer.exe on 3 of my PCs.

        Juergen

        • #1516541

          CR’s AV security ratings are not vague but based on their lab testing. This is unlike their annual consumer surveys such as for household items that may include owners’ repair experiences in addition to the review and brand comparisons.

          CR helps you and me make a decision (on AV software) just like this website and its newsletters.

          In the next CR report in a year or less, some of the rankings will change due to test results from the latest AV software releases. Brand names or past experiences are not always the best way for decision making in regards to this subject.

          • #1516590

            CR’s AV security ratings are not vague but based on their lab testing. This is unlike their annual consumer surveys such as for household items that may include owners’ repair experiences in addition to the review and brand comparisons.

            CR helps you and me make a decision (on AV software) just like this website and its newsletters.

            In the next CR report in a year or less, some of the rankings will change due to test results from the latest AV software releases. Brand names or past experiences are not always the best way for decision making in regards to this subject.

            Do they give any details of this “lab testing”?
            I tried to look at their report, but it would cost $30 first…

            • #1516594

              $30 is for the year of on-line access. $6.95 is for one month of on-line access, if you want to check it out.

              If you want the AV report “free” your library may have it.

            • #1516602

              $30 is for the year of on-line access. $6.95 is for one month of on-line access, if you want to check it out.

              If you want the AV report “free” your library may have it.

              I was more interested in the credentials of their testing (expertise, qualifications, scope etc.).
              I recently made my choice for the next year, partly by experience and partly by reference to the sources quoted in the article above.

        • #1516595

          Looks to me as if Panda Antivirus is a “free download” with limited use, then costs $49.95. Am I missing something? If it’s not free, this article is misleading.

        • #1517108

          I don’t know of this publication.
          Juergen

          That’s because you don’t live in the US of A.
          Consumer Reports is in the US about as close as you possibly can get to Stiftung Warentest.
          For non Germans Wikipedia’s article about SW.

        • #1517152

          As always, excellent article!

          However, I personally prefer the tests from another site you mentioned, av-test.org, for two key reasons:

          1. They include virtually all the major products (i.e., no pay-to-play). Well, except for Malwarebytes. 🙁

          2. They run their tests on multiple Windows platforms (i.e., XP, 7, 8) as well as MAC, Android and business configurations, to account for variations due to different OS characteristics and performance. And, as it turns out, the results do vary across different platforms. Depending upon which platform you’re using, these differences may be important.

          Still, these sites do provide valuable information and insights. And although nothing replaces users’ safe computing practices, AV software still is an important, must-have tool.

      • #1516900

        I prefer Consumer Reports reviews of Security Software products for the one to use.

        Their last review, 07-15, page 46, rated Eset tops with a score of 69 (paid version) and Avira with a score of 58 (free version). Panda was last, score 43.

        There is no conflict of interest and AV companies can’t buy their way into the ratings. CR is a non-profit, does not have advertising or except free samples, and is funded by its subscribers.

        How many did they rate?

        🍻

        Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.
    • #1516604

      Curious if anyone knows if the ms enterprise av, forefront, is tested anywhere? I never see it mentioned. I used kaspersky back when I was an admin for a small company. I found it easy to admin and it was rock solid. Seems like it is still a top performer. Now at a big company that uses forefront and a file server just got hit with cryptolocker. I personally believe security is not Microsoft’s forte. An enterprise like ours should be using a company that specializes in security such as kaspersky or another top performer. Any thoughts on forefront out there?

      • #1516835

        Now at a big company that uses forefront and a file server just got hit with cryptolocker.

        Your servers have internet access? Are you mad?!

        cheers, Paul

        • #1516876

          Your servers have internet access? Are you mad?!

          cheers, Paul

          I don’t think that’s a factor, as cryptolocker/cryptowall encrypts files on mapped network drives.

          • #1516961

            I don’t think that’s a factor, as cryptolocker/cryptowall encrypts files on mapped network drives.

            In which case there is no server AV that will prevent the attack as encryption is just a file read and write.

            cheers, Paul

      • #1517103

        Curious if anyone knows if the ms enterprise av, forefront, is tested anywhere? I never see it mentioned. I used kaspersky back when I was an admin for a small company. I found it easy to admin and it was rock solid. Seems like it is still a top performer. Now at a big company that uses forefront and a file server just got hit with cryptolocker. I personally believe security is not Microsoft’s forte. An enterprise like ours should be using a company that specializes in security such as kaspersky or another top performer. Any thoughts on forefront out there?

        All Forefront Protection products have been discontinued for several years: Important Changes to Forefront Product Roadmaps

    • #1516829

      I’ve used AVG for years and even though it ranks poorly in these tests, it’s always worked for me. So, this kind of testing isn’t really going to influence me to change. It’s like looking at a test that shows that my car does poorly in a high speed slalom course. The fact is, that my AV software is my LAST line of defense. Way ahead of that are good security practices.

      While I appreciate the value of tests like this, the most valuable tests for me would likely be ease of use and performance. If the product works relatively well in the real world and doesn’t get in my way or drag the performance of my computer down, that’s going to go far in selling it to me.

      • #1516931

        The tests referenced in the article DO test performance and impact on the normal working of the computer!
        Without which, they would be of little practical value. :rolleyes:

      • #1516932

        While I appreciate the value of tests like this, the most valuable tests for me would likely be ease of use and performance. If the product works relatively well in the real world and doesn’t get in my way or drag the performance of my computer down, that’s going to go far in selling it to me.

        If you read the test details you’ll see they do test performance and impact on normal computer usage…without which, they’d be not much use at all. :rolleyes:

    • #1516894

      The best utility, that probably can’t be tested in that lab, is the utility sitting in the chair in front of the computer.

      "Take care of thy backups and thy restores shall take care of thee." Ben Franklin, revisted

    • #1516983

      Thanks for this excellent article. Finally something I can point those (few) of my customers to that want such information.
      And I like the comments that clearly state that many choices will be determined by personal preference. It’s the classical YMMV situation.

      I want to say up front that after 51 years with and “in” computers and after 33 years with and “in” PCs personally I consider AV Comparatives as the only (!) AV testing organization worth my trust.

      One thing really bugs me to no end though: Even AV Comparatives does not differentiate between anti virus programs and security suites.

      IMHO, and I admit I might be wrong, MSE is primarily an AV program. Panda et al are security suites; such suites do much, much more than an AV prog. Just one example: Dynamic link checking.

      MSE is primarily a classic AV program, it does not claim to protect users from themselves. I strongly feel that using MSE as a “baseline” to compare security suites to is besides the point and maybe unfairly misleading.

      And, by the way, on many thousands of customer computers MSE does an unobtrusive, dependable job; no botched updates that I know of and definitely absolutely no discernible impact on performance. The latter even on low powered machines that currently get hawked off to unsuspecting people (1.2 Ghz anybody?).

      Plus the user interface that even the most “non technical” of my customers actually do understand make IMHO for an unbeatable combination of light resources, dependable function and usability.

      All that paired with an occasional on-demand scan with the free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware make for an unbeatable free safety package, IMHO and for my customers at least.

    • #1516984

      Thanks for this excellent article. Finally something I can point those (few) of my customers to that want such information.
      And I like the comments that clearly state that many choices will be determined by personal preference. It’s the classical YMMV situation.

      I want to say up front that after 51 years with and “in” computers and after 33 years with and “in” PCs personally I consider AV Comparatives as the only (!) AV testing organization worth my trust.

      One thing really bugs me to no end though: Even AV Comparatives does not differentiate between anti virus programs and security suites.

      IMHO, and I admit I might be wrong, MSE is primarily an AV program. Panda et al are security suites; such suites do much, much more than an AV prog. Just one example: Dynamic link checking.

      MSE is primarily a classic AV program, it does not claim to protect users from themselves. I strongly feel that using MSE as a “baseline” to compare security suites to is besides the point and maybe unfairly misleading.

      And, by the way, on many thousands of customer computers MSE does an unobtrusive, dependable job; no botched updates that I know of and definitely absolutely no discernible impact on performance. The latter even on low powered machines that currently get hawked off to unsuspecting people (1.2 Ghz anybody?).

      Plus the user interface that even the most “non technical” of my customers actually do understand make IMHO for an unbeatable combination of light resources, dependable function and usability.

      All that paired with an occasional on-demand scan with the free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware make for an unbeatable free safety package, IMHO and for my customers at least.

    • #1517109

      Thanks for this excellent article. Finally something I can point those (few) of my customers to that want such information.
      And I like the comments that clearly state that many choices will be determined by personal preference. It’s the classical YMMV situation.

      I want to say up front that after 51 years with and “in” computers and after 33 years with and “in” PCs personally I consider AV Comparatives to be the only (!) AV testing organization worth my trust.

      One thing really bugs me to no end though: Even AV Comparatives does not differentiate between anti virus programs and security suites.

      IMHO, and I admit I might be wrong, MSE is primarily an AV program. Panda et al are security suites; such suites do much, much more than an AV prog. Just one example: Dynamic link checking.

      MSE is primarily a classic AV program, it does not claim to protect users from themselves. I strongly feel that using MSE as a “baseline” to compare security suites to is besides the point and maybe unfairly misleading.

      And, by the way, on many thousands of my customer’s computers MSE does an unobtrusive, dependable job; no botched updates that I know of and definitely absolutely no discernible impact on performance. The latter even on low powered machines that currently get hawked off to unsuspecting people (1.2 Ghz anybody?).

      Plus the user interface that even the most “non technical” of my customers actually do understand make IMHO for an unbeatable combination of light resources, dependable function and usability.

      All that paired with an occasional on-demand scan with the free version of Malwarebytes Antimalware make for an unbeatable free safety package, IMHO and for my customers at least.

    • #1517155

      Malwarebyte Antimalware (free) app IS NOT an AV program. That is why it is not tested with the AV apps. If you look at some of the times it was tested it did not fare well at blocking infections. Antimalware does a great job at removing and repairing infected systems. That is what it does.

      It is true the paid version is an AV app. It is possible they don’t want to pay to have their app included. That may explain other obvious omissions. Or maybe after not faring as well in the past some AV app do not want to compete.

      —————–

      http://www.oyyas.com/types-of-computer-viruses.php

      Test your AV app and PC on how well it protects here: http://www.amtso.org/

      Antivirus app testing labs:
      https://www.icsalabs.com/
      http://www.virusbtn.com/index
      http://www.westcoastlabs.com/checkmark/vendorList/?techGroupID=27
      http://www.av-test.org/
      http://www.av-comparatives.org/

      http://www.virustotal.com/ Virustotal is a service that analyzes suspicious files and URLs and facilitates the quick detection of viruses, worms, trojans, and all kinds of malware detected by antivirus engines. Submit a file or URL.
      http://www.threatexpert.com/submit.aspx Submit a file and receive a report in email.

      • #1520551

        Fwiw, I’ve been a premium home Malwarebytes user for a couple years.
        It utterly failed at the AMTSO site just now. Software is up to date, using latest Palemoon browser and was able to save the eicar.com file without a problem. My time with Malwarebytes (for me and my family) is coming to an end, I think.

        • #1520555

          Missing the Eicar file isn’t the end of the world; to me, it means nothing, it’s a safe file, always has been.

          I’d much prefer to have Malwarebytes than not to have it.

          Consider upgrading your browser security extensions – you should find some that block the Eicar download by default… and a lot of real threats.

        • #1520571

          Fwiw, I’ve been a premium home Malwarebytes user for a couple years.
          It utterly failed at the AMTSO site just now. Software is up to date, using latest Palemoon browser and was able to save the eicar.com file without a problem. My time with Malwarebytes (for me and my family) is coming to an end, I think.

          Its a huge mistake to judge a Security app based on one bad file. No single anti virus/anti malware app will catch everything. In any event, Malwarebytes is supplemental to an anti virus package and not a sole antimalware solution.

          Jerry

          • #1520577

            Its a huge mistake to judge a Security app based on one bad file. No single anti virus/anti malware app will catch everything. In any event, Malwarebytes is supplemental to an anti virus package and not a sole antimalware solution.

            Jerry

            Sorry, I’m new here, hi all!

            Right, it’s not just that but also some of the karma surrounding the product. I’ve been around the internet since before there was a WWW and am very familiar with EICAR and antivirus of many flavors. What I didn’t include above was a general dis-ease with MalwareBytes as a company. Has anyone looked at their wikipedia page? It’s a wiki-trainwreck (if you read the discussion). Not sure who’s who in the discussion but the matter of objective testing seems to have become, for me, very hazy.

            I did check their forums for this EICAR issue and it has been addressed (sorry for not doing that first) but still, there’s just something about their tone I’m not comfortable with. I’ve seen this kind of indifference before in other companies and have readily switched to something else. I’ve been a premium, multi-pc subscriber to Avast!, F-Prot, Sophos, Dr. Solomon (anyone remember them?), in the past and moved on when I felt they’d lost that critical customer service (or went out of business).
            ~~
            But frankly, this whole discussion is kinda silly (sorry, as is this blog post) when you look at what our NSA and others have done to break AV. Snowden’s disclosures documented how the NSA obtained a warrant to dissemble Kaspersky. Probably they’re not interested in any of us here, but they’ve demonstrated it can be, and has been done and there’s no control over it. We can also assume less hospitable actors can as well too. In the past I looked at geopolitics to choose AV products which led me back to Iceland-based F-Prot, and I may return to them for that reason (even though I realize they were bought up a couple years back).

            • #1520928

              What I didn’t include above was a general dis-ease with MalwareBytes as a company. Has anyone looked at their wikipedia page? It’s a wiki-trainwreck (if you read the discussion).

              There’s no controversy there in the last five years.

    • #1517356

      I, too, thank you for this report. And, like at least a couple of others who commented here, I wonder about interactions. I recall the “received wisdom” from many years ago being that two AV programs running at once was an invitation to trouble.

      But, I have also experienced some times that there could be two (or more) anti-malware programs running simultaneously with no apparent problems. I have run MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials) with SpywareBlaster for years. The only problems I’ve seen is the occasion trojan program that gets in and is only found when MSE does a very deep scan–which I only have it do once a week, normally. I also occasionally run Malware Bytes as a standalone product and it has found a couple of nasties the others let through.

      I believe Spyware Blaster runs in a different manner than all the others…somehow blocking web sites it deems too dangerous, and my prior experience affirms that their judgement of which sites to block is to be honored, as it has “saved my bacon” several times in the past.

      Now I’m contemplating adding Malware Bytes as a resident program with MSE and Spyware Blaster, but I don’t know if this would be safe, or if it even would help protect me better.

      And, your report has caused me to consider dumping MSE in favor of Panda. I’ve not decided to do that yet, but I’m thinking about it–and wondering how it would play with Malware Bytes resident.

    • #1517395

      @JohnMGoodman:

      John,
      You touch on one of my pet peeves.

      For many years in an ancient past I used and recommended SpywareBlaster in the mix of tools I recommended. I don’t even know anymore why and when I gave up on SB.

      Anyway I have found that the occasional on demand scan with Malwarebytes seems to catch and fix (!) everything that MSE misses – which usually are PuPs. Rarely MB finds something that they call a trojan and that other companies call something else. Ah that imbroglio of corporate naming of viruses and malware…

      Additionally: I have seen quite a few systems that were totally bogged down by Panda, good or not; removing Panda made these systems clearly work “reactive” again.

      As far as AV goes there is nothing better integrated and with less overhead than MSE, IMHO at least.

    • #1517456

      The last time I saw Panda bogging down some bright spark had set it to scan everything all the time, on about 50 PCs. The punters were not happy but the fix was easy, back to standard.

      cheers, Paul

    • #1520604

      Hi Chuck and Welcome 🙂

      Wikipedia and MalwareBytes as a company – Wiki’s MB page has historically been updated by some 25-30 now discredited/removed editors. This might indicate that ‘something’s’ not right.

      Does Astroturfing mean anything to you? How about professional/corporate jealousy?

      Perhaps if one were to dig deeper into the Edits on the MB Wiki page, one would end up with a number of other editors who should be added to the red list.

      The people that don’t make any money (or very little, just a few voluntary donations towards site hosting expenses) from the malware cleaning business use the free MBAM version as a front line assessment/cleanup tool – because it’s very good. To suggest otherwise would be an affront, I suggest, to the many hundreds (or is it thousands) of volunteers who give up many hours of their free time to help others in the numerous malware forums.

      General dis-ease – only from those who seek something other than clean computers, I would suggest – back to Astroturfing…

    • #1520638

      Thanks, but a welcome and a scold?

      Questioning Malwarebytes “…would be an affront… to the many hundreds (or is it thousands) of volunteers who give up many hours of their free time to help others in the numerous malware forums.”?

      And you’re sure I haven’t been one of those volunteers?
      Respectfully, if you’re not a skeptic in the security field perhaps you need a different hobby.

      And yes, I know something about astroturfing.

      C.

    • #1520666

      So can I take it that you’re inferring that volunteers using MBAM to help other users are doing so deliberately to waste time?

      And that you believe everything on Wiki is the truth?

    • #1526774

      I’m really pleased I got a notification for this subscribed thread…:rolleyes:

    • #1526775

      P.S. “New Lounger”? I’ve been a registered member as long as anyone else. That designation is misleading at best and discriminatory at worst.

      I’m guessing the description is based on the number of posts, not the date of registration.

    • #1526794

      The best A-V protection money can buy is none. Paying for A-V software is ignorant. None of it will prevent becoming compromised. I’d bet the majority of those who suffer from malware are running a paid-for A-V app and it did nothing to help.

      Why do you think free, or even no, A-V works better than paid A-V?

      No A-V software can guarantee that your system won’t be compromised.

      But you don’t believe that paid A-V prevents thousands of infections every day?

      P.S. “New Lounger”? I’ve been a registered member as long as anyone else.

      Not true. Some members were here nine years before you.

      That designation is misleading at best and discriminatory at worst.

      I’m not sure who would be misled, as everyone sees your Join Date.

      It’s not discrimination, everyone gets the same; titles are based on number of posts, and you’ve only posted less than twice per year on average.

    • #1526809

      Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

      While not perfect–good AV software does work. I can attest to that.

      I have used various brands many times over the years to clear infected files from my clients’ PC’s, including mine (mostly real-time web page infections).

      I have witnessed viruses/malware being blocked over and over again on infected computers by an active virus/malware software utility.

      Then I go to work to resolve the issue.

    Viewing 25 reply threads
    Reply To: AV testing: Is your antivirus app doing its job?

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use all available BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

    Your information: