Malware Protection Test Enterprise September 2022 – Testresult
|Test Period||September 2022|
|Number of Testcases||1,005|
|Online with cloud connectivity|
|False Alarm Test included|
This report is an excerpt of the Business Security Test 2022 (August – November). For more details, please click here.
The Malware Protection Test assesses a security program’s ability to protect a system against infection by malicious files before, during or after execution. The methodology used for each product tested is as follows. Prior to execution, all the test samples are subjected to on-access scans (if this feature is available) by the security program (e.g. while copying the files over the network). Any samples that have not been detected by the on-access scanner are then executed on the test system, with Internet/cloud access available, to allow e.g. behavioural detection features to come into play. If a product does not prevent or reverse all the changes made by a particular malware sample within a given time period, that test case is considered to be a miss. For this test, 1,005 recent malware samples were used.
A false alarm test done with common business software was also performed. All tested products had zero false alarms on common business software.
The following chart shows the results of the Business Malware Protection Test:
|Malware Protection Rate||False Alarms on common business software|
|Acronis, Avast, VMware||100%||0|
|Cisco, Cybereason, G Data, K7, Sophos, Trellix||99.8%||0|
In order to better evaluate the products’ detection accuracy and file detection capabilities (ability to distinguish good files from malicious files), we also performed a false alarm test on non-business software and uncommon files. Results are shown in the tables below; the false alarms found were promptly fixed by the respective vendors. However, organisations which often use uncommon or non-business software, or their own self-developed software, might like to consider these results. From this year onwards, products are required to have an FP rate on non-business files below the Remarkably High threshold in order to be approved (as announced last year). This is to ensure that tested products do not achieve higher protection scores by using settings that cause excessive levels of false positives.
|FP rate||Number of FPs on
|FP rate on non-business software|
|Acronis, Avast, ESET, Kaspersky||Very low|
|Bitdefender, CrowdStrike, G Data, Malwarebytes, VIPRE||Low|
|K7, Microsoft, VMware||Medium/Average|
|Cybereason, Elastic, Sophos, Trellix||High|
It should be noted that Cisco had Remarkably High levels of false positives on non-business files. Administrators should consider whether this might create problems in their respective organisations’ specific environments.
Copyright and Disclaimer
This publication is Copyright © 2022 by AV-Comparatives ®. Any use of the results, etc. in whole or in part, is ONLY permitted after the explicit written agreement of the management board of AV-Comparatives prior to any publication. AV-Comparatives and its testers cannot be held liable for any damage or loss, which might occur as result of, or in connection with, the use of the information provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, but a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives. We do not give any guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a specific purpose of any of the information/content provided at any given time. No one else involved in creating, producing or delivering test results shall be liable for any indirect, special or consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the use or inability to use, the services provided by the website, test documents or any related data.
For more information about AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.