21 antivirus scanners tested for real world performance – Security essentials outperforms McAfee

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: 21 antivirus scanners tested for real world performance – Security essentials outperforms McAfee[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2015/12/myce-av-compartitives-december-2015-95x75.gif[/newsimage]

A real-world protection test conducted by AV-Comparatives found that Microsoft Security Essentials outperforms McAfee and that on some tests free scanners can score just as good as paid ones. The Austrian test lab AV-Comparatives tested 21 antivirus applications and internet security suites in several different tests and found these remarkable results.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/21-antivirus-scanners-tested-for-real-world-performance-security-essentials-outperforms-mcafee-78129/](http://www.myce.com/news/21-antivirus-scanners-tested-for-real-world-performance-security-essentials-outperforms-mcafee-78129/)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

as helpful as these results are in one way, they lead to confusion, in my opinion, in another. it is supposed to be bad practice to have more than one A/V installed and running on the same machine, as they conflict with each other. how then is anyone supposed to have the best protection with the least ‘false positive’ scares?


#3

Going by the test report, every Antivirus product was installed on its own PC, each PC with a separate firewall and external IP address, along with one PC with no antivirus protection.

I’m surprised they did not include Symantec. I would also be curious to see how MalwareBytes would have done considering it does a pretty good job at catching stuff Antivirus products miss.


#4

In the tests Microsoft Security Essentials performed better than McAfee. Microsoft’s virusscanner blocked 1517 threats, while McAfee stopped 1502.
This is why I tell people the free MSE/Defender works the same or better then the paid version. And you get it free along with free updates since you already own Windows O/S that you use. Some don’t listen or want to hear that. That’s the sad reality of A/V closed minds to something that is free and works for what it does.


#5

“They found that the best three scanners were from Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Panda Security which all failed on one occasion. The first two ones are paid, while the last one is free.”

Panda SEcurity is not free though. There are free trials.


#6

[QUOTE=ivanzeta;2765195]“They found that the best three scanners were from Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Panda Security which all failed on one occasion. The first two ones are paid, while the last one is free.”

Panda SEcurity is not free though. There are free trials.
http://www.pandasecurity.com/usa/[/QUOTE]

That is quite true. The good news however, is that the free version will almost certainly get the same result in these tests, as free and paid AVs from the same company use the same antivirus engine.


#7


“They found that the best three scanners were from Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Panda Security which all failed on one occasion. The
first two ones are paid, while the last one is free.”

Panda SEcurity is not free though. There are free trials.


there is a free version of bitdefender and it runs really well on older (slow) systems,


#8

On reading the test result PDF it appears the original comment from the post author is correct but caused a bit of confusion with the wording. The tested version of Panda was the Free version. Mentioning Panda Security has given people an impression the author was referring to Panda Internet Security when in fact he was referring to the company name “Panda Security”.


#9

I never though I’d see the day when Security Essentials out-performed anything.[QUOTE=kevpc;2765165]as helpful as these results are in one way, they lead to confusion, in my opinion, in another. it is supposed to be bad practice to have more than one A/V installed and running on the same machine, as they conflict with each other. how then is anyone supposed to have the best protection with the least ‘false positive’ scares?[/QUOTE]Chances are, each AV program is installed either in it’s own virtual machine, or on separate physical hardware. I seriously doubt those conducting this test would be foolish enough to pile AV programs on top of each other.


#10

Linux version of BitDefender is free. Good for testing Windows programs being used with Wine (Windows compatibility program).

@kevpc: The real-time (aka “on-access”) scans can conflict but the manual “on-demand” scans won’t. You only enable one to do on-access scanning but use them all when checking a file you downloaded. For the tests they probably used a virtual machine or just reinstalled the OS from a drive image between tests.


#11

I go with the fact my MSE in Windows 7 works just fine. Less RAM Hog and system bloatware is what I need and it does a good job at it. Plus it’s free for Windows owners already but people seem to miss that-it also turns on Windows Update to Auto Update for increased O/S protection.


#12

I’ve been pretty happy with Kaspersky on my Windows partition. In my Linux partition, I don’t even need anti-virus because the OS is designed in a way that it doesn’t need it.


#13

[QUOTE=hogger129;2765796]In my Linux partition, I don’t even need anti-virus because the OS is designed in a way that it doesn’t need it.[/QUOTE]Keep dreaming there…Linux has been hit with Virus already…so your myth was busted here.


#14

[QUOTE=hogger129;2765796]I’ve been pretty happy with Kaspersky on my Windows partition. In my Linux partition, I don’t even need anti-virus because the OS is designed in a way that it doesn’t need it.[/QUOTE]

Designed, built by you or too small/unimportant to be hit by one?
Initially, I am with coolcolors as it would be nothing short of sensational if anyone actually created the very first ever secure OS on earth.


#15

[QUOTE=Xercus;2765856]Designed, built by you or too small/unimportant to be hit by one?
Initially, I am with coolcolors as it would be nothing short of sensational if anyone actually created the very first ever secure OS on earth.[/QUOTE]

Malicious things can attach code to certain stuff but it’s not going to do anything unless it’s executed as root or a sudoer. A little common sense goes a long way.

EDIT: I guess you are right though, nothing is truly secure, but Linux seems to be far more secure than Windows or Mac in my experience.


#16

[QUOTE=hogger129;2765857]Malicious things can attach code to certain stuff but it’s not going to do anything unless it’s executed as root or a sudoer. A little common sense goes a long way.

EDIT: I guess you are right though, nothing is truly secure, but Linux seems to be far more secure than Windows or Mac in my experience.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for answering (I got interested).
Then we agree :flower: - Common sense is in reality your best tool. Nothing to beat that especially when in conjunction with the magic of Linux’ root, at least so far - In reality you do not need any real-time scanner, though I would do regular scans for known threats just to make sure :iagree:


#17

[QUOTE=hogger129;2765857]Malicious things can attach code to certain stuff but it’s not going to do anything unless it’s executed as root or a sudoer. A little common sense goes a long way.

EDIT: I guess you are right though, nothing is truly secure, but Linux seems to be far more secure than Windows or Mac in my experience.[/QUOTE]
You want to know the TRUTH… because the money is in hacking Windows and iOS that is why they target the bigger O/S. So we need some reality check here. Put straight forware- THE BIGGER YOU ARE THE BIGGER THE TARGET YOU ARE. Common sense is not to use black sites or malware infested programs or learn to use “Custom Install” or “let me Choose my Install Options”.


#18

[QUOTE=coolcolors;2765914]You want to know the TRUTH… because the money is in hacking Windows and iOS that is why they target the bigger O/S. So we need some reality check here. Put straight forware- THE BIGGER YOU ARE THE BIGGER THE TARGET YOU ARE. Common sense is not to use black sites or malware infested programs or learn to use “Custom Install” or “let me Choose my Install Options”.[/QUOTE]

That will forever be true it seems, first of all, on the light side you will get paid to find security flaws in Windows and IOS. Then on the dark side, there is nothing to be gained from dropping “sleeping beauties”, “Zombies”, “BotNet”, whatever to a few hundred Linux installs when you can have say 10 million Windows computers to back you up in bringing a website down instead.
There is a black market out there so to gain popularity for your products a short-sighted good move is to bring the competition offline. It will cost you, but if you put enough in it, you could hold them offline for quite some time. The possibilities are endless and darkness spreads at a steady pace as the lambs come all by themselves, they only need one carrot… FREE…

The internet is indeed trustworthy - Smack full of darkness, greed, egoism and short-sighted thoughts just like the rest of the world…


#19

You know, this is in reality simple. First, I make a quick hack to an easy but popular program. Now with the keygen which is in reality an executable CAB file (Microsoft CABinet file/archive executing two programs)…
Then I expand to releasing an all too popular game title, and here I bake the ‘baddie’ in the original installer (None of you are likely to check such things out . Do you even know words like hash checking?)

Then I spend a little time thinking as I watch the numbers of lambs rising… I’ll top it off and hack my way to a popular general utilitiy… Come on, you are not too hard to figure out… on an average…
Then, we have probably reached the millions needed…

[B]Now, how’s that for a recipe to become one of the baddies?[/B]
That is not making you a ‘baddie’ - just reading the information as to how to do it, but you have to admit that this is easy - HECK, IT’S ‘FREE’
(alas, it is not - However, I am a seasoned hacker and I even respect you (If I can use your bandwith ever so little and hence, I go unnoticed for months/years), I promise I will not hog you as it would not be in my interest… Now let us party…) :bigsmile:

The sad part is in reality that you fell for it, and that makes me really sad indeed. It is just in the analogous world we are going to find shortcuts not on the desktop for the most part :rolleyes:

Hopefully, I have managed to give you all a little glimpse into what is at play while hiding roughly all technical details to make it more understandable.