Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Window Defender scores 100% in June Real World Protection Test


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 22,605 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 15 July 2017 - 08:06 AM

AV-Comparatives scored Windows Defender at 100% for June's Real World Protection Test. WD has been steadily improving through out the year. In the below chart use the dropdown box for a specific month.

 

https://www.av-comparatives.org/real-world-protection-test-february-june-2017/

 

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart2&year=2017&month=Feb_Jun&sort=1&zoom=4


Edited by hamluis, 15 July 2017 - 08:30 AM.
Moved from Gen Sec to AV/AM Software - Hamluis.


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Cavehomme

Cavehomme

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:27 AM

Posted 15 July 2017 - 09:02 AM

Really impressive, they are in the top 3 AV vendors now. That's all that most people are going to need now, plus possibly a secondary layer such as MWB Pro, HitmanPro.alert, VoodooShield, SecureAplus and similar. No need for complicated and heavy suites that cause many issues.



#3 jwoods301

jwoods301

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:27 PM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 01:49 AM

It will get even better with the Fall Update.

 

They will include EMET (Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit) as part of Windows Defender.



#4 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 6,828 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:23 AM

And it's not really a surprise, either.   Windows Defender has been slowly and steadily improving since its debut in its current form and, lately, as this article shows the speed of "slowly" is getting a lot quicker.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (my website address is in my profile) Windows 10 Home, 64-bit, Version 1709, Build 16299

       

    Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.
             ~ Lauren Bacall
              

 


#5 Impulse

Impulse

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:56 AM

any impact on performance compared to no AV? My rig is for gaming only so I always have WD disabled.



#6 downloaderfan

downloaderfan

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:57 AM

Posted 20 July 2017 - 01:14 AM

This video gives a really good objective reason as to why you shouldn't use Windows Defender as of now if you want top class antivirus protection -  



#7 Cavehomme

Cavehomme

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:27 AM

Posted 20 July 2017 - 02:51 AM

This video gives a really good objective reason as to why you shouldn't use Windows Defender as of now if you want top class antivirus protection -  

 

Leo makes a good point, but WD is not perfect, no AV is, even those with additional layers included. Most cannot cope with users who browse dangerously or disregard security warnings.

 

On one rig I am using coupled with MWB Pro v3 which add those extra layers of defense against more sneaky malware including ransomware.

 

On another rig I have it coupled with Hitmanpro.alert which IMO is a perhaps better choice for the same purpose of obtaining additional layers over what WD provides.

 

The argument I am making is that now, the core AV engine can now be WD, considering it's excellent detection rates, but I agree that's its wise to have an extra layer or two of protection. For most users the simplest solution may well be to get those extra layers via an Internet Security suite.



#8 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,940 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 20 July 2017 - 05:28 AM

Windows 8/10 Defender is just as good as any other free antivirus solution (and probably easier to use for the novice) without bundled toolbars or nagging popups. The key word being "free".

However, Windows Defender is not enough...meaning it does not provide comprehensive protection and cannot prevent, detect and remove all threats at any given time. This is true for most anti-virus solutions. Anti-virus and anti-malware programs each perform different tasks as it relates to computer security and threat detection. Essentially, they look for and remove different types of malicious threats.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#9 downloaderfan

downloaderfan

  • Members
  • 45 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:04:57 AM

Posted 20 July 2017 - 06:29 PM

First, op says 

 

Window Defender scores 100% in June Real World Protection Test   

 

Not true, it's 98.8%. In most cases, 98.8 is close enough to be approximated as 100, but this is not that case. There are 10 AVs that score above WD.

 

Second, detection rate is just one side of the picture, there is another side. It's called false positives. WD has a wrongly blocked score of 27 while Kaspersky has only 1 & bitdefender scores 5. Trend Micro, which scored 100% in detection rates had the 4th highest wrongly blocked score of 53.

 

Conclusion: Use whatever scanner/scanners you want, but just remember this, WD is still vastly inferior to the likes of Bitdefender & Kaspersky. Basically what quietman7 said  above, just wanted to clear the fact that detection rates alone don't give the complete picture, one must also look at the false positive score to get a better idea about the AV when you read reports like these.


Edited by downloaderfan, 20 July 2017 - 06:30 PM.


#10 Cavehomme

Cavehomme

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:27 AM

Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:02 AM

First, op says 

 

Window Defender scores 100% in June Real World Protection Test   

 

Not true, it's 98.8%. In most cases, 98.8 is close enough to be approximated as 100, but this is not that case......

 

You have mis-interpreted the test results. WD's cumulative result across 5 months of Feb-June was 98.8% and has generally been steadily improving month on month.

 

Its actual detection result in June was 100% (together with only Symantec, Trend and Tencent).

 

It's just one month, but normally the results are shown monthly anyway. Let's see if the trend continues. For quite some time I have noticed that WD has been very good at detecting the macro viruses that are trojan downloaders which download ransomware. I do not use WD alone and have an extra layer or two, but as core AV protection, WD is according to June 2017 results, top of the class for the time being.

 

You can better see both the June month results, as well as all other results, by using the interactive chart rather than the PDF download, which can also be sorted by result rather than vendor, at this link: https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php


Edited by Cavehomme, 21 July 2017 - 06:06 AM.


#11 britechguy

britechguy

    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt


  • Moderator
  • 6,828 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Staunton, VA
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 21 July 2017 - 10:11 AM

Windows Defender, contrary to its detractors assertions, has not been "vastly inferior" to its competitors for some time now, though I will agree that until recently its detection rates were not as good as some.
 
In the final analysis the user is the best defense against infection.  You should always be running an antivirus or security suite with realtime scanning, but even that is not a 100% guarantee (but it is generally more than close enough if you practice basic safety when interacting with cyberspace).
 
The best indicator of whether you're likely to get an infection of any sort is your personal history of having gotten them in the past.   If you are repeatedly having your antivirus and/or antimalware scanners pick up infections then you need to ask yourself what you're doing to invite them in.  Most do not sneak on to a system via some secret back door, but are invited in via user action.
 
I haven't had an antivirus detect anything on any of my systems in well over a decade, and the same for antimalware, but for a slightly shorter period, and I'm "out and about" on the internet all the time.  I simply practice many (though not all) of the things contained in Quietman7's Best Practices.

 

Security is a multi-level undertaking and the user and what they do is the primary level.  Everything after that is mostly after-the-fact cleanup for when the user screws up.


Brian  AKA  Bri the Tech Guy (my website address is in my profile) Windows 10 Home, 64-bit, Version 1709, Build 16299

       

    Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.
             ~ Lauren Bacall
              

 


#12 Impulse

Impulse

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:07:27 PM

Posted 22 July 2017 - 07:55 AM

First, op says 

 

Window Defender scores 100% in June Real World Protection Test   

 

Not true, it's 98.8%. In most cases, 98.8 is close enough to be approximated as 100, but this is not that case. There are 10 AVs that score above WD.

 

Second, detection rate is just one side of the picture, there is another side. It's called false positives. WD has a wrongly blocked score of 27 while Kaspersky has only 1 & bitdefender scores 5. Trend Micro, which scored 100% in detection rates had the 4th highest wrongly blocked score of 53.

 

Conclusion: Use whatever scanner/scanners you want, but just remember this, WD is still vastly inferior to the likes of Bitdefender & Kaspersky. Basically what quietman7 said  above, just wanted to clear the fact that detection rates alone don't give the complete picture, one must also look at the false positive score to get a better idea about the AV when you read reports like these.

 

 

In regards to fals positives. While it's fine for testing when you know you are using a false just to test. In the real world, how is one to actually know for certain that something is a false positive or not? I see people online say it all the time, ignore your AV, it's a false positive....how the heck do they truly know that if it's not open source code? Even if no other AV flags it, that doesn't mean that any closed source software couldn't contain code to do something shady you don't want it to do.

 

You see it a lot on torrent sites. "don't download, it's infected". "No, it's a false positive" or "Virus total only flagged 2/60"....so it must truly be safe then I suppose? Since when is it advised to believe anything you read on the internet?


Edited by Impulse, 22 July 2017 - 07:55 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users