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: 1083456" data-attributes="member: 109138"><p>Because the products modules are designed to respond a certain way to real world route of infection. Some venders harden real world route of infection modules as that's were the threats actually come from.</p><p></p><p>This vendor stated above they do not block these tools because they can be used for good and bad. Have you looked up and discovered what this tool is and how it's used. It's a security tool. This vendor also stated that if there was a payload in it, it would be detected or stopped post execution either way.</p><p></p><p>Real in the wild malware for a payload you ask, because that is what's out there. It's testing realistic.</p><p></p><p>I get it, cruelsis is popular so you all are going to gang jump me to protect this user. Hell Lenny it sounds as if you would hold that users hand walking down a beach in which I say, have at it.</p><p></p><p>All personal aside, when Marcos stated those two things above that should have been enough for all to understand this method of testing with no payload, from the wild, or no route of infection proved nothing other then MS defender nailed it with a generic signature. Which btw there is a vendors test floating on the board where defender and eset scored the same score with exception that defender had 3 false positives and eset had none. This due to those aggressive "possibility" generic signatures. They both scored pretty high on default settings.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Practical Response, post: 1083456, member: 109138"] Because the products modules are designed to respond a certain way to real world route of infection. Some venders harden real world route of infection modules as that's were the threats actually come from. This vendor stated above they do not block these tools because they can be used for good and bad. Have you looked up and discovered what this tool is and how it's used. It's a security tool. This vendor also stated that if there was a payload in it, it would be detected or stopped post execution either way. Real in the wild malware for a payload you ask, because that is what's out there. It's testing realistic. I get it, cruelsis is popular so you all are going to gang jump me to protect this user. Hell Lenny it sounds as if you would hold that users hand walking down a beach in which I say, have at it. All personal aside, when Marcos stated those two things above that should have been enough for all to understand this method of testing with no payload, from the wild, or no route of infection proved nothing other then MS defender nailed it with a generic signature. Which btw there is a vendors test floating on the board where defender and eset scored the same score with exception that defender had 3 false positives and eset had none. This due to those aggressive "possibility" generic signatures. They both scored pretty high on default settings. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top