Google Play Protect Stops Less Malware Than Anti-Virus Apps

The security software that protects Google Android devices against malware performs worse than anti-virus apps, according to a test of the German test lab AV-Test. In July , Google launched " Play Protect", security software that checks apps that users want to download and install scans malware and periodically checks the device on malware. Play Protect is present on all Android devices with Google Play.

AV-Test has been comparing several mobile virus scanners for a long time, but also included Play Protect in the September test. For the test, 20 different Android virus scanners and Play Protect were tested with nearly 6000 infected apps. It involved detection of 3000 contaminated apps in real time and detection of 2900 infected Android apps found in the last four weeks of the test.

On average, the tested programs detect 95.7 percent and 98.4 percent of the infected apps. Antiy, Bitdefender, Cheetah Mobile, Sophos, Symantec and Trend Micro score 100 percent in both detection tests. Google Play Protect ends at the bottom. During the real-time detection of apps, Play Protect detected 65.8 percent of malicious apps. Of the malicious apps found in the four weeks before the test, Play Protect detected 79.2 percent.

In total, the virus scanners could collect 13 points. Six points were achieved for detecting malicious apps. The same number of points were divided for usability, such as battery usage, system load, high data traffic, and the unreasonable alert of Google Play clean apps and other official marketplaces. Finally, there was one point to earn for additional security measures, such as anti-theft, encryption and backup.

To achieve six points in detecting Android malware, it was not necessary to score 100 percent. Therefore, ultimately, AhnLab, Antiy, Bitdefender, Cheetah Mobile, G Data, Kaspersky Lab, McAfee Symantec, Tencent and Trend Micro can reach the maximum 13 points. Google Play Protect was evaluated only on malware detection. Due to the low detection score, the software receives zero points. Of the anti-virus applications tested on all components, NSHC and F-Secure end with 9 and 9.5 points, respectively, below.

Test: Ten Tested Virus Scanners For MacOS

German test lab AV-Test has a new test virus put online, this time for anti-virus software for MacOS looked. The amount of new malware for MacOS is not commensurate with those for Windows. However, last year there was an increase in visible , of 819 new units in 2015 to 3033 in 2016.

Most infections MacOS is still doing for social engineering, in which users are tricked into installing malware, although some cases are known where attackers managed to add malware to legitimate programs. That there is little malware for MacOS in circulation is evident from the number of copies that malware-AV-Test used for the test. The lab works on Windows with tens of thousands of malware specimens. 184 specimens were used for the test with Mac malware.

Four products (Bitdefender, Intego, Symantec and Kaspersky Lab) were able to detect all malware instances. MacKeeper ends with a score of 85.9 percent down. Besides the detection was also the tax system looked when copying files. Then put Canimaan Software and MacKeeper down the best performance, followed by Kaspersky Lab and Symantec with one second difference. Intego slows the most systems. Finally, we looked at the false positives. In this case considers a virus if infected legitimate, clean files. During this test item was no virus in error.

Test: How Safe Are Scanners Anyway?

Virus scanners should work against all kinds of malware and other threats, providing protection, but what is it really the security situation of this kind of security suites? That question decided the German test lab AV-Test to answer by looking at both business and consumer products.

Security software should not only be able to detect threats, but also the software required to take security measures in order not to be attacked or make it more difficult for an attacker. Various techniques are available, such as ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) and DEP (Data Execution Prevention). Anti-virus companies have to add this technology to their own software.

Of the 21 tested products for consumers were found six full DEP and ASLR use, namely Avira, BullGuard, ESET, Kaspersky, McAfee and Symantec. Quick Heal, Norman and K7 do so at less than 30% of stocks. Corporate products outperformed, whereby three of 10 scored the maximum 100%, namely two products and one of Kaspersky from Symantec. 8 products were thereby above 90%. Only Bitdefender (79.7%) and Seqrite (29.8%) scored lower.

Certifications

Looked or all files of the security suites can be digitally signed and whether there was a valid digital certificate used for the second part of the test. Ant-virus companies require other software developers to sign their files digitally, which helps in the detection of malware, says AV-Test. In addition, a virus must be able to monitor their own authenticity and integrity, which help digital signatures with valid certificates and hash values.

Among business products showed that possessed 50% of unsigned files. In consumer products it was 60%. According to AV-Test, the results show that some anti-virus companies to be still awake. On the other hand, there are also companies that have taken steps since last year, the last test. "But many have done absolutely nothing," said the German test lab.

AV-Test Lab: Linux User Without Virus

The amount of malware for Linux is still very limited, especially compared to Windows. Nevertheless, even Linux systems with malware become infected. In addition, Linux systems are often used in Windows environments and thus come into contact with Windows Malware. Astute Linux users, however, need to install a virus scanner, according to the German test lab AV-Test.

AV-Test decided 16 different security packages for Linux with both Linux and Windows Malware to test an Ubuntu system.The results are disconcerting for some products, because they are by letting 85% of the Windows Malware and up to 75% of the Malware Linux. Eight of the sixteen security suites able to detect between 99.7% and 99.9% of the 12,000 common Windows Malware. Only Symantec scores 100%. McAfee and Comodo scoring with 85.1% and 83% respectively lower.Much worse are the results from Dr. Web (67.8%), F-Prot (22.1%) and ClamAV (15.3%).

Tested for the second part of the test was 900 malware instances for Linux. Kaspersky'm here solely to detect all malware, followed by ESET with 99.7%. AVG scores 99%, followed by the server versions of Kaspersky and Avast that detect more than 98% of malware. Symantec, which identified all Windows Malware recognizes 97.2% of Linux Malware. The other products scored less well, with ClamAV, McAfee, F-Prot Comodo and finish at the bottom. The detection rates lie between 66.1% and 23%.

Linux And Malware

The question remains to what extent it is necessary for Linux users to install a virus. According to AV-Test, the number of Trojans for Linux has increased recently, but they are of poor quality. This is according to the test lab because attackers are aware of good security practices that Linux offers. There is then also especially the ignorance of users use, for example, which become infected by operational errors.

The most common way to become infected by Malware Linux is by installing software updates or via third parties, according to AV-Test. The software will ask during the installation to temporary root privileges. If the user allows this software to the system will be manipulated and attackers can install a backdoor on the system and is it part of a botnet.

According to AV-Test, most Linux users believe that they are one of the safest systems available use. "This statement is true if you only look at the system and leave the rest aside." Insecure third-party software and user errors can ultimately ensure that a Linux system, like Windows and Mac with malware gets infected.

Research by anti-virus companies shows that many infected Linux servers that are part of a botnet. Linux-based botnets often remain even longer operational because the servers do not use security software, unlike Windows Servers where this is the case. And if there is already software installed are often the wrong products. "In many Linux Forums free Comodo products, ClamAV and F-Prot be recommended to home users. This is not good advice", says AV-Test.

The test shows that home better for the free versions of Sophos or Bitdefender can choose. For server systems, there is the free scanner from AVG. ESET is as a whole out on top, followed by Symantec and Kaspersky. For servers are Kaspersky, AVG and Avast recommended.

Virus Scanner Necessary?

Or Linux Users must install a virus is ultimately to their own behavior. AV-Test says that security suites are only a second line of defense. The main security is in fact the user. Anyone who loves his system up-to-date, no unnecessary ports opens, only install software from trusted sources, prevents the browser to run active content and not open just e-mail attachments will do when it comes to Linux Malware no worries make, according to the testing lab.

Joint Research To Test Fraud Anti-Virus Companies

Three major laboratories engaged in testing of virus scanners have announced a joint investigation into fraud by anti-virus companies to test anti-virus software. This weekend the Austrian test laboratory AV-Comparatives came with the news that it had discovered a product of a yet unnamed anti-virus vendor which was specially adapted for the big test laboratories.

In addition, a second anti-virus company of similar practices is suspected. Adjusting virus scanners to perform better during anti-virus testing is contrary to contract rules. AV-Comparatives shows via Facebook know that with Virus Bulletin and AV-Test, two other large testing laboratories, has consulted and has begun a joint investigation into the fraud. Further details on the two suspect anti-virus companies have not been given yet.

Free Virus Scanners Convince On Mac OS X

Mac OS X has to do with much less malware than Windows, most recently in a report revealed by the Finnish anti-virus firm F-Secure. Yet there are also threats to Apple's operating system, which mainly via pirated software and downloading software from the wrong source managed to spread. The reason for the German testing body AV-Test to test ten paid and free virus for OS X.

"Criminals are always looking for groups that are worthy to steal. The now become big group of Mac users is a good target," said Maik Morgenstern of AV-Test. For the test, we looked at various components such as malware detection, false positives, tax system and features. The detection test worked with an "on-demand" scan and an "on-access" scanning. For these two tests were used in a total of 244 malware instances.

Average know the scanners to detect 91% of malware. This percentage is mainly due ClamXav brought down, which scored 36.6% and 54.7% respectively. The other virus scanners are above 88%, with Avira and Symantec both tests score even 100%. However, Avira is a free product. The free virus scanner Avast convinces with a score of 100% and 98.8%.

When it comes to system load Symantec puts the best score down. Copying files to 26,6GB took no scanner 66.1 seconds.The virus took an average of 75.4 seconds. Symantec sitting there with 66.2 seconds, well below while Intego with 97.9 seconds is the greatest strain on the system. Regarding "false positives," the unjustified considering clean files as malware, no single scanner was in the wrong. On ClamXav after all were virus by AV-Test certification. Below the results of the on-demand scan.