Most antivirus for Android are not to be trusted

The bad known is better than the good to be known. That could be one of the devastating conclusions reached after reading the study carried out by the German security institute. AV-TEST. Another is that most antivirus solutions for Android detect less than 65% of malware.

"The popularity of Android systems over the past year has caused malicious software for Android to increase considerably," the report begins. Although malware is distributed by other vendor markets, Google's Android Market cannot guarantee that all applications on its lists are free from threats. From this institute they remind that users should not blindly trust applications and that there is a wide range of protection programs.

The problem is that many of these programs do not protect as much as they should. AV-TEST has examined the results of 41 Android virus scanners. Almost two-thirds of those tested do not yet serve as trusted gatekeepers and recognize less than 65% of the 618 malicious software tested. Mobile variants of known computer products have largely performed well or very well.

Most traditional antivirus vendors, like Avast, Dr. Web, Dr Capsule and F-Secure or Karpersky, they are the most effective, with average detection results for malware families of more than 90%. The specific Zoner and Lookout also appear.

Distribution of the solutions analyzed by AV-TEST with the percentage of detection.

Products with a detection rate of between 90% and 65% are also very good and can climb to the top of the list depending on changes in the group of tested malware. Some of these products have only missed one or two malware families. There are only two products from vendors specializing in mobile security: AegisLab and Super Security. The rest come from well-known vendors in the computer industry, such as AVG, Bitdefender, ESET, Symantec, or Trend Micro.

In the third category are, with a degree of protection between 40% and 65%, solutions such as Bullguard, Comodo, G Data or McAfee. For authors, these vendors may not have sufficient infrastructure to gather a wide range of malware, or they may focus on a local market. Well, they offer reliable protection against some families, but have some problems with others.

Lastly, no traditional antivirus vendor is listed among those that protect against less than 40% of malicious software. From AV-TEST they go so far as to say that they cannot clearly determine whether or not they have scanned the malware groups correctly or if they are even capable of detecting something.

The full report can be viewed here.