Android Antivirus 2018 Free (Review or Test or Eval)

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the all-time experience on our website.
Please note that by continuing to use this site yous consent to the terms of our Privacy and Data Protection Policy.
Have

• 

---

• Tested Products
• Test Results
• Awards

Introduction

AV-Comparatives' 2017 test of Android antivirus products was inspired past the discovery of an Android app called Virus Shield, which claimed to scan mobile devices for malware, merely in fact did nil of the sort. In reality, running the app just showed a progress bar, supposed to represent browse progress, followed by an annunciation at the end of the "scan" that the device was free of malicious apps. Worryingly, the app had been available on the Google Play Store, and thousands of users had paid money for it (although this was ultimately refunded to them by Google).

Unfortunately, more dubious antivirus apps – ones which announced not to offer any protection at all – have appeared since then. In Jan 2018, Sophos' NakedSecurity weblog reported that a new dubious antivirus app for Android was available from the Google Play Store. The article claimed that the app in question, Super Antivirus 2018, was equally ineffective at blocking malware every bit was Virus Shield, but was more than sophisticated in its study of apps that had been "scanned".

It is clear that dubious antivirus apps for Android accept not gone away, and users should be on their guard against such tricks. Last year'south test demonstrated that there are also some Android security products that are non deliberately deceptive, but are ineffective at protecting the device confronting malware. Of the 100 products tested last twelvemonth, roughly a quarter detected 100% of the malicious apps, but a similar number identified less than 30% of the samples.

To help owners of Android devices to distinguish betwixt genuine and effective Android antivirus apps on the 1 hand, and dubious/ineffective ones on the other, AV-Comparatives take again tested the effectiveness of antimalware programs for Android, in the 2018 Android Test.

Tested Products

For this exam, we searched for and downloaded over 200 antimalware security apps by various different developers from the Google Play Shop.

The following 84 apps detected over xxx% of malicious apps, and had zip fake alarms:

7Labs Antivirus & Security	Spotter Antivirus & Security
AegisLab Antivirus Premium	MalwareBytes Anti-Malware
AhnLab V3 Mobile Security	Max Mobi Secure Full Security
Ali MoneyShield	McAfee Security & Antivirus
Antiy AVL	MobiDev Studio Antivirus
Ariasecure Bornaria security	MobileAppDev Virus Cleaner
Avast Mobile Security & Antivirus	NEWAPPSDEV SmadAV
AVG Antivirus Free	newborntown Solo Security
AVIRA Antivirus Security	NightCorp Super Antivirus
Baidu DU Antivirus Mobile Security & AppLock	NortonMobile Norton Antivirus & Security
BaiSi Mobile Antivirus	NQ Mobile Security & Antivirus
BangStudio Virus Cleaner	One App Super Make clean Speed Security MAX
Bastiv Security Antivirus	Panda Complimentary Antivirus
Best Tools Pro Cleaner	PCVARK Falcon Mobi Cleaner
Bitdefender Mobile Security & Antivirus	Photo Editor Creative Cleaner
BullGuard Mobile Security and Antivirus	PICOO Design Ability Antivirus
Check Point ZoneAlarm Mobile Security	Ability Tools Team Mobile Security
Cheetah Mobile CM Security CleanMaster	PSafe Antivirus
Chili Security Android Security	Qihoo 360 Mobile Security
Comodo Mobile Security	Quick Heal Antivirus & Mobile Security
Defenx Security Suite	REVE Antivirus Mobile Security
DevStudio99 Antivirus	Rising mobile security
PhysicianWeb Security Infinite	Security Apps Studio Virus Cleaner
Emsisoft Mobile Security	Security Cleaner Team ZoneX Security
eScan Mobile Security	Security Aristocracy Antivirus
ESET Mobile Security & Antivirus	Security Mobile Max Clean
ESTsoft ALYac Android	Security Safe Protect Squad Super Virus Cleaner
Fast Runway Super Security Complimentary AntiVirus	Sophos Complimentary Antivirus and Security
F-Secure Mobile Security	Tencent WeSecure Antivirus
G Information Cyberspace Security	TG Soft VirIT Mobile Security
GearMedia G-Antivirus Security Pro	ThreatTrack VIPRE Mobile Security
GizmoLife GizmoSafe Antivirus	ToolsDevelope Antivirus
Google Play Protect	Trend Micro Mobile Security & Antivirus
How-do-you-do Dev Squad Security Antivirus & Privacy	TrustGo Antivirus & Mobile Security
High Security Team Antivirus	Trustlook Premium Mobile Antivirus
Himlamo Super Antivirus	Vitekco 1000 Antivirus
Hyper Speed Antivirus	Webroot Security Premier
Ikarus mobile.security	Wecool Ballsy Secuity
IntelliAV Anti-Virus	WhiteArmor Security Pro
K7 Mobile Security	Z Lock Screen Squad Antivirus
Kaspersky Antivirus & Security	Zemana Mobile Antivirus
LBE Security Chief	ZONER Mobile Security

The antimalware apps from the post-obit 79 vendors detected less than 30% of the Android malware samples, or had a very high simulated alarm charge per unit on popular clean files from the Google Play Store: AndroHelm, ANTI VIRUS Security, ARSdev, AVC Security Joint Stock Visitor, AZ Super Tools, Birdie Antivirus, Best Apps Drove, BKAV, Booster Antivirus, Brainiacs Apps, Bsafe Labs, BSM SECURITY, CA Uber Apps, chkitham, CHOMAR, devapp81, Ellena Rehman, Fast Tool Mobile Apps, fluer-apps.com, Gamma+ Labs, Glagah Studio, Become Security, Gotechgo, GPaddy, AV Antivirus Security Ltd, Green Booster, H2, Militarist App, Hornet Mobile Security, Iobit, ITIanz iT Solution, Itus Mobile Security, Kara Inc., K-TEC Inc., lal bazai, LINE, looptop, Master VPN, Max Antivirus Lab, Max Security, Mobi Fox, MobiCluster, MSYSOFT APPS, Muel Dev., My Android Antivirus, NCN-NetConsulting Ges.chiliad.b.H., NetLink, NOAH Security, Nozzle Ltd, NP Mobile Security, Octa apps, OG Kush, Oriwa, Power Antivirus, Pro Tool Apps, Puce, Radiant Apps World, Rgamewallpaper, Security & Antivirus for Android, Security and Protector for Mobile, ShieldApps, But Fantabulous, smallapp, SmartToolsApps, Super Security, TAPI Security Labs, Topi Maxi Group, ToTo Studio, TransApp, UFGAMES, Vasa Pvt Ltd, VSAR, W4VN Team, We Make Information technology Appen, Wingle Apps, Womboid Systems, xplus apps, ZeroApp Ltd., and Zillya! Mobile.
We consider those apps to be risky, equally they are either dubious/deceptive or dangerous/ineffective. In a few cases the apps are simply buggy, e.g. because they have poorly implemented a third-political party engine. Some apps are conspicuously dubious, detecting only a handful of very sometime Android malware samples, and assuasive all apps which contain certain strings, making them likely to pass some quick checks and thus be accustomed by the app stores.

A number of the in a higher place apps take in the meantime already been recognized as Dubious AVs/Trojans/PUA by several reputable mobile security apps – it is to exist expected that Google will remove nearly of them from the Google Play Store in the upcoming months (and hopefully enhance their verification checks, thus blocking other such apps from the store). We would recommend the vendors concerned to remove their apps from the store until they tin provide genuine and reliable protection.

The antimalware apps of the post-obit 41 vendors take in the meantime (in the last two months) been removed from the Play Store: androiddeve, Antivirus inc, App-lab, AppsGesture, BestCode, Bethanyzrqcr Zimmermanzisr, Devo669kaptchiia, Diana Randall, DIMOgamesL, Gayle Billick, GoLogix, Joanwy Hartmanebe, JRMedia, katana apps, LHC Lab, Lopez ops Dev Ap Hirox, Millicent Whitehead, Mobile Solution: Antivirus Security, Mobilead Inc., MPSecurityLabs, MtStudio, NCK Corp, now King Apps, Octappis, Ostro Apps, Plus App, prodev2017, Security Lab, Shreeji Tech World, Simple Soft Alliance, SoHDev, Solo Antivirus, SPAMfighter aps, SuperApps Dev GmBH, Superozity, Organisation Security Inc, Tools Security for Mobile, Toolsdev, Total Defense, Uptotop33, and Zexa Software.

Most of the apps removed, as well equally the very buggy, unsafe and ineffective apps, announced to accept been adult either by amateur programmers or by software manufacturers that are not focused on the security business. Examples of the latter category are developers who make all kinds of apps, are in the advertising/monetization business organization, or just want to have an Android protection app in their portfolio for publicity reasons. Apps made past amateurs can be oft spotted in the Google Play Store by looking at the options for contacting the authors. Typically, hobby developers volition non provide a website address, only an e-mail accost (commonly Gmail, Yahoo, etc.). Additionally, most such apps practise not provide whatsoever sort of privacy policy. Google tries to purge from the Play Shop all apps which lack a privacy policy, which helps to get rid of some low-quality apps. Of grade, i should bear in heed that not all apps fabricated by amateur developers are necessarily ineffective.

Exam Procedure

Description of test system

The Android security solutions tested were checked for their efficacy in protecting against the 2,000 most common Android malware threats of 2017. Manually testing 200+ security products against two,000 malicious apps is not practicable. Considering of this, the examination was run on our automated Android testing framework.

Even though the testing process is automated, the framework realistically simulates real-world conditions. This includes testing on concrete Android devices (as opposed to emulators), every bit well every bit simulation of realistic device usage patterns.

The framework consists of two components: a client app on each of the test devices, and a server application. The client app monitors the status of the device and sends its findings to the server at the end of a exam case, to document the testing procedure. The customer monitors file and process changes,  newly installed apps and their permissions, as well as reactions of the installed security software to malicious activities on the device. The server remotely controls the exam devices via WiFi and organizes the results received by the client applications.

The system scales well with the number of continued clients. This allows a big number of security products to be tested in parallel. To ensure even chances for all participating products, connected clients can be synchronized to commencement the execution of a exam case at the same fourth dimension. This is especially important for testing recent malware samples, which security vendors may non have encountered all the same.

Methodology

The test was performed in Jan 2018, on Nexus 5 devices running Android 6.0.1 ("Marshmallow"). Each security app was installed on a separate physical exam device. Earlier the exam was started, the software testbed on all exam devices – Android itself, stock Android apps, plus testing-specific third-political party apps – was updated. Later this, automatic updates were switched off, thus freezing the state of the test system. Next, the security apps to be tested were installed and started on their corresponding devices, updated to the latest version where applicable, and the malware definitions brought fully up to engagement.

If any security application encouraged the user to perform sure actions to secure the device, such equally running an initial browse, these actions were performed. If the application offered to activate additional protection functions such as on-install scanning, cloud protection, or detection of Potentially Unwanted Applications (PUA), these features were activated likewise. To ensure that all security products could access their respective cloud analysis services, each device was continued to the Net via a WiFi connectedness.

One time these steps were taken, a clean snapshot of each device's storage was created, and the exam was started.

Each test case was conducted using the aforementioned process:

1. Open up the Chrome browser and download the malicious sample
2. Open the downloaded .apk file using a file explorer app
3. Install the malicious app
4. Execute the installed app

Subsequently each of the above steps, the installed security awarding was granted enough time to analyze the malicious sample and notify the user of malicious activity on the device.

If, at whatsoever point during the execution of a examination example, the installed antivirus application detected and blocked the malicious sample, the sample was considered "detected" and the test case was concluded (apps detected after installation were non executed, for instance).

At the end of each test example, the device was reset to a clean land. If the malicious sample had non been executed on the device, the sample was uninstalled and/or deleted from the device storage. If the malicious sample had been run, the clean device snapshot was restored before starting the next exam case.

When computing the protection score for each product, nosotros did not consider at which phase a malware sample was blocked, i.e. whether it was blocked on download, on installation or on execution. The just factor influencing the protection charge per unit is whether the security solution protected the device from being compromised by the malicious sample.

A bones faux-alarm test was done, only to check that none of the antimalware products "protects" the system by simply identifying all apps as malicious. Several shady and depression-quality apps detected as malware a number of the 50 clean and popular apps from the Google Play Shop.

Testcases

For this test, the 2,000 well-nigh mutual Android malware threats of 2017 were used. With such samples, detection rates of between 90% and 100% should be easily accomplished by 18-carat and effective antimalware apps.

Number of tested apps	204
Number of tested malicious APKs	2000
Number of tested clean APKs	50

In total, around 400,000 test runs were performed for this report.

Examination Results

Vendor	%
AegisLab	100%
AhnLab
Alibaba
Antiy
Avast
AVG
AVIRA
Baidu DU Apps
BaiSi
Bitdefender
BullGuard
CheckPoint
PhysicianWeb
Emsisoft
ESET
F-Secure
G DATA
Kaspersky Lab
McAfee
Norton Mobile
PCVARK
Quick Heal
Security Mobile
Security Safe Protect
Sophos
Tencent
Trend Micro
TrustGo
ESTsoft	99.9%
Ikarus
Webroot	99.seven%
Ariasecure	99.5%
Qihoo 360	99.3%
IntelliAV	99.two%
K7
eScan	99.0%
Bastiv	98.8%
VIPRE
REVE	98.seven%
Security Apps Studio	98.iv%
WhiteArmor	98.three%
Chili Security	98.ane%
PSafe	98.0%
Hullo Dev	97.3%
Chetah Mobile	96.two%
Panda	95.7%
Comodo	94.5%
Lookout	93.9%

Vendor	%
Fast Track	93.4%
Hyper Speed
LBE
One App
Photo Editor Creative
Power Tools Team
Security Elite
Wecool
BangStudio	92.5%
MalwareBytes	87.2%
Max Mobi Secure	82.vii%
TG Soft	82.one%
Zemana	78.8%
Rising	78.1%
Google Play Protect	75.3%
GizmoLife	73.2%
Defenx	70.iv%
Best Tools Pro	63.ix%
DevStudio99
MobileAppDev
MobiDev Studio
ToolsDevelope
Z Lock Screen Team
NQ	55.ane%
Trustlook	51.4%
Himlamo	44.half-dozen%
NEWAPPSDEV
NightCorp
7Labs	44.iv%
GearMedia
Loftier Security Team
Vitekco
Security Clean Team	43.8%
newborntown
PICOO Design	43.6%
ZONER	37.half dozen%

The table above shows the protection rates reached by the 84 products that blocked over 30% of samples. We consider apps that cake less than 30% of common Android threats (listed on page 4) to be unsafe to use.

Anti-malware apps detecting under 30% of the ii,000 malicious Android apps are not listed in the chart above – partly for display reasons, merely too because nosotros consider them ineffective and unsafe.

Notes

Some products make use of other vendors' engines (see examples below). While some score the aforementioned as the engine vendor's own product, some exercise not. According to the licensing developers, this may exist caused past several factors, such every bit different internal settings used by the third-party apps, the utilise of older engines or different secondary engines, engine implementation and bugs.

• Cheetah Mobile uses an Antiy engine for "heuristic" scans (deactivated by default). The English language/International version of Cheetah Mobile would have scored 100% if the "heuristic" engine had been activated. The Chinese version appears to have a bug in the implementation of the Antiy engine.
• CA Uber, Fast Track, Hyper Speed, IOBit, LBE, ONE App, Photo Editor Artistic, Ability Tools Team, Security Aristocracy, WeCool Security, WeMakeItAppen, and Womboid Studio employ the OpenAVL scan engine of Antiy. The quality of the engine implementation varies amid the apps.
• Security Mobile and Security Safe Protect use the Tencent scan engine.
• AVG and PSafe use the Avast Qihoo is a major investor in PSafe.
• Chili Security and Emsisoft use an engine made by The Chili Securityapp is basically a rebranded version of an older Bitdefender mobile product – encounter screenshots below:

During our exam, we found that quite a few apps seem to be closely related variants of the same matter, or use a common "AV app template". In some cases, only the proper noun, logo and colour scheme are different. Examples are shown beneath:

• 7Labs, GearMedia, High Security Team, Himlamo, NEWAPPSDEV, NightCorp and Vitekco:

  

• Best Tools Pro, DevStudio99, MobiDev Studio, MobileAppDev, ToolsDevelope Inc, Z Lock Screen Squad:

  

• Become Dev Squad, newborntown, Power Antivirus Security, Security Cleaner Team:

  

• Hyper Speed, ONE App Ltd., Ability Tools Team:

  

• AZ Super Tools, GPaddy Mobile Security, Principal VPN, Mobile Antivirus & Security by Netlink, Puce Ltd, Topi Maxi Group, W4VN Team (all of which blocked nether 30% of samples):

  

• Security Elite, Wecool Security Lab

Risky Security Apps

As mentioned in the Tested Products section, some apps were not included in the results table, because nosotros consider them risky. About half of those apps were excluded considering of their low malware detection capabilities. The other one-half blocked many of the malicious samples used in the test, merely should in our opinion notwithstanding be considered risky; in the section below, we explain why nosotros came to this conclusion.

When opening the packet files of any of those apps, one can find a suspicious text file in the "assets" subfolder named "whiteList.json". The following effigy shows some of the content of this file:

{   "data":   [     {       "packageName": "com.google.android.*"     },     {       "packageName": "com.adobe.*"     },     {       "packageName": "com.booking"     },     {       "packageName": "com.facebook.*"     },     {       "packageName": "com.instagram.*"     },     {       "packageName": "com.twitter.*"     },     {       "packageName": "com.whatsapp"     },     [...]   ] }

The content of the "whiteList.json" file is consequent with the results we institute during our simulated-positive tests: all apps whose bundle proper name match this white-list are considered "trusted applications" past these "AV apps". For example, the whitelisted parcel name "com.adobe.*", matches all packages, whose names showtime with "com.adobe.". While this entry means that all 18-carat apps made by Adobe (such as the Acrobat Reader app) volition be regarded as safety, this mechanism also allows whatsoever malicious app to bypass the security scan, simply past using "com.adobe.*" as its package name.

Apart from the apps on their respective whitelists, the risky "AV apps" cake almost all other apps, regardless of whether they were installed from the official Google Play Store or non. Some of them do not even carp to add together their ain packages to their whitelists, and so even block their own app. If using such an AV app, users can never be certain if whatsoever of the other apps on their device are actually malicious, because of the AV app's "block unless whitelisted" policy. Therefore, we do not consider the protection capabilities of these apps to be advisable.

In addition to using the same "detection" mechanisms, the user interfaces of these apps wait very similar too. Oft only differing in color, the apps in this category mainly use 1 of just a few different layouts:

We consider the apps made by the post-obit 38 developers to be deceptive: AV Antivirus Security Ltd, AVC Security, All-time Apps Collection, Booster Antivirus, BSM SECURITY, chkitham, Ellena Rehman, Gamma+ Labs, Glagah Studio, Gotechgo, Green Booster, ITIanz iT Solution, lal bazai, Kara Inc, looptoop, MobiCluster, Mobi Play tricks, MSYSOFT APPS, Muel Dev, NOAH Security, Nozzle Ltd, NP Mobile Security, Octa apps, OG Kush, Oriwa, Radiant Apps World, Rgamewallpaper, Security & Antivirus for Android, Only Fantabulous, smallapp, SmartToolsApps, Super Security, ToTo Studio, TransApp, UFGAMES, Wingle Apps, xplus apps, and ZeroApp Ltd.

Conclusion

Some of the Android security products in our examination blocked so few of the malware samples– in some cases literally none – that they cannot exist recommended as anti-malware apps. Additionally, this year we saw a large increase in apps that apply questionable detection mechanisms. Combining ineffective and risky anti-malware apps, we consider the majority of the exam apps to be unsafe to utilise.

Some of the apps that were ineffective at blocking malware may accept been abandoned by the developer and are thus no longer being updated in the Google Play Store. Whilst such cases cannot be regarded every bit scams, nosotros consider it irresponsible of the developers not to remove these apps from the Shop.

A few products from relatively well-known vendors did not score very well. Information technology is possible that the manufacturers have developed them purely for marketing reasons. That is to say, there is not much money in the Android security-app market, but having an Android app visible in the Google Play Shop helps to keep the vendor visible, and may thus promote their other, more profitable products such equally Windows security programs.

28 of the products we tested detected 100% of the malware samples; considering that the most common malicious Android apps of 2017 were used, this is what they should practice. Most of the vendors that usually take part in independent tests score highly, as their products are regularly scrutinised, and they actively develop them to ensure they are effective.

When information technology comes to choosing an Android security app, we recommend considering the post-obit factors. Using user ratings is clearly non effective, every bit the vast bulk of users will give their rating based solely on the user experience, without having any thought equally to whether the app offers effective protection. Some other reviews will have been faked by developers. Most of the 200 apps nosotros looked at had a review score of four or higher on the Google Play Shop. Similarly, the number of downloads can but be a very rough guide; a successful scam app may be downloaded many times before information technology is found to be dubious. Using well-known and reputable, verified vendors is recommended. As well equally participating in tests by independent test institutes, such vendors will have a professional website with contact information and a privacy policy. Information technology should also be possible to attempt the app – typically a few weeks' trial use is allowed – before purchasing. Users tin can and then assess the usability and any additional features of the production. A number of vendors make very constructive free versions of their apps; mostly these are more likely to display advertizing than the paid version, though this is not e'er the case.

For additional Android security app tests and reviews, please run across:
https://www.av-comparatives.org/mobile-security/

Copyright and Disclaimer

This publication is Copyright © 2018 by AV-Comparatives ®. Any utilise of the results, etc. in whole or in office, is ONLY permitted subsequently 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 every bit event of, or in connection with, the use of the data provided in this paper. We take every possible care to ensure the correctness of the basic data, only a liability for the correctness of the test results cannot be taken by any representative of AV-Comparatives. We do not requite whatsoever guarantee of the correctness, completeness, or suitability for a specific purpose of whatever of the information/content provided at whatever given time. No ane else involved in creating, producing or delivering examination results shall exist liable for whatever indirect, special or consequential damage, or loss of profits, arising out of, or related to, the apply or disability to utilise, the services provided by the website, exam documents or whatsoever related information.

For more information virtually AV-Comparatives and the testing methodologies, please visit our website.

AV-Comparatives
(March 2018)

millshareplity.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/android-test-2018-200-apps/

Share this post