Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Of LoLBins, 0-Days, ESET, and Microsoft Defender
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Practical Response" data-source="post: 1083406" data-attributes="member: 109138"><p>The method is flawed because it's not realistic and does not test the product as designed. This is not other lolbins and the file is benign.</p><p></p><p>If there is so much faith in it, then do it justice by placing a payload in it, place it in a file sharing site where you can mimic real world route of infection by user downloading and see if the malicious code is spotted either before or even post execution once it hits the machine, then you have a legit test. If it does, I wouldn't say a word, as it's tested properly.</p><p></p><p>Faulting eset for allowing a tool that's used for security purposes that in this case is benign and calling it a strike against the product is just incorrect.</p><p></p><p>Marcos points out himself that they do not block these kind of tools and it contained no malicious code.</p><p></p><p>As already stated zero day excuse doesn't hold water either, not only are they not prevalent but there are other modules in the suite for monitoring and detecting unknowns. As well as rules that can be written considering this application has advanced features for manual rules creation.</p><p></p><p>Speaking of, I've noticed CIS always gets tweaked in these tests yet everything else is tested at defaults, why is that?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Practical Response, post: 1083406, member: 109138"] The method is flawed because it's not realistic and does not test the product as designed. This is not other lolbins and the file is benign. If there is so much faith in it, then do it justice by placing a payload in it, place it in a file sharing site where you can mimic real world route of infection by user downloading and see if the malicious code is spotted either before or even post execution once it hits the machine, then you have a legit test. If it does, I wouldn't say a word, as it's tested properly. Faulting eset for allowing a tool that's used for security purposes that in this case is benign and calling it a strike against the product is just incorrect. Marcos points out himself that they do not block these kind of tools and it contained no malicious code. As already stated zero day excuse doesn't hold water either, not only are they not prevalent but there are other modules in the suite for monitoring and detecting unknowns. As well as rules that can be written considering this application has advanced features for manual rules creation. Speaking of, I've noticed CIS always gets tweaked in these tests yet everything else is tested at defaults, why is that? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top