15 October 18, 15:32
Quote:TestcasesFull reading: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/re...factsheet/
Over the year we evaluate several tens of thousands malicious URLs. Unfortunately, many of these have to be discarded for various reasons. We remove duplicates such as the same malware hosted on different domains or IP addresses, sites already tested, “grey” or non-malicious sites/files, and malware/sites disappearing during the test. Many malicious URLs carrying exploits were not able to compromise the chosen system/applications because of the patch level. This means that the vulnerabilities in the third-party applications on the system were already patched and the exploits could therefore not deliver their malicious payload. Users should be aware that by always keeping their system and third-party applications up-to-date/patched, they can dramatically decrease the risk posed by exploits.
Test Results
The results are based on the test set of 197 live test cases (malicious URLs found in the field), consisting of working exploits (i.e. drive-by downloads) and URLs pointing directly to malware. Thus exactly the same infection vectors are used as a typical user would experience in everyday life. The test-cases used cover a wide range of current malicious sites and provide insights into the protection given by the various products (using all their protection features) while surfing the web.
Every month (from February to June and from July to November) we update the charts on our website showing the protection rates of the various tested products over the various months. The interactive charts can be found on our website. The chart below shows only the protection scores for the month of SEPTEMBER 2018 (197 test cases). The results of the false-positives test are also shown in the monthly factsheets/graph below.