AV-Comparatives evaluated submitted Windows products against more than 500 phishing URLs. To be certified, a product had to detect and block at least 85% of these. To ensure that the security programs do not provide protection at the expense of false alarms, a false-positives test was also carried out. Products had to demonstrate that they do not block any legitimate Internet banking websites. Only six of the tested products were certified. https://www.av-comparatives.org/news/anti-phishing-certification-test-2020/
I would love to see a test with maximized paranoid settings to see if they actually make a difference.
I see that ESET NOD32 did not make the 85% cut, but security is about layers. Two tools I use, Quad9 DNS and AdGuard for Windows, possess anti-phishing capability that should make up for whatever slack ESET may have.
How do you know that Eset participates in this test? Last ref. to Eset in this test series was in 2016. AV Labs charge for certification testing. My guess is Eset feels participation in this test adds no product value.
Hi itman. I don't know if ESET participated or not, hence my response to gery above. When I saw ESET listed at the bottom of the AV-Comparatives page under "Main Test-Series Vendors", I thought that alluded to the vendors tested. Thanks for pointing out that they may not have. Be nice to know.
The AV-C main test series are for example the periodic real-time and malware comparative tests for the most part. Also AV-C has recently introduced comparative subcategory testing of areas included on the aforementioned series tests such as a Performance one here: https://www.av-comparatives.org/com...=2020&chart_month=4&chart_sort=1&chart_zoom=0 that Eset did participate in. Again, AV Labs charge separately for certification tests.
I stated this in my last reply. Clarify if Eset did or did not request Performance certification testing.
Sorry but I only comment on things that are publicly stated on the website. The website does not state those who submitted but failed.
By following this practice you have effectively cast doubt over every vendor, whether they submitted or not. If a vendor is not part of your test, it is a disservice on your part to not disclose the actual participants. The disservice is to both the non-participants and to the viewing public. Just my opinion.
Agreed. This: implies that there were failures. The proper way to state this would be the following test series vendors ............. did not participate or requested that test results not be disclosed. Per se, it does not imply that they failed certification. Better yet since this wasn't comparative testing, don't make the results public at all. Assumed is certified vendors will have no difficulty stating they were. As far as I am concerned the way the report is presented "is veiled coercion" to get all series vendors to get certified. I for one really don't pay attention to AV-C testing anymore.
