- Dec 17, 2014
- 1,346
WinAntiRansom Plus Review (by Britec09)
- Thread starter Andrew999
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,767
Is something wrong with settings or something else in this video test, because when @cruelsister tested this program it block very good?
- Aug 30, 2015
- 1,928
Honestly I am a little disapointed seemed like it was a pretty good product. However some security products, updating OS and software, and common sense can be enough to protect a computer from harm. 
- Mar 1, 2014
- 1,708
Whether the test was done properly or not, Britec09's advice (and according to him, his main objective) is still applicable. Never put your whole trust to a single security program.
Let's assume that WAR was installed but wasn't working properly, then you're definitely doomed against ransomware. I wonder how many personal PCs out there that have broken security programs (i.e. security softwares are installed but not working as expected).
Let's assume that WAR was installed but wasn't working properly, then you're definitely doomed against ransomware. I wonder how many personal PCs out there that have broken security programs (i.e. security softwares are installed but not working as expected).
Britec09's test of the Bitdefender product showed it failed miserably also. The results of that and the WAR testing should be disqualified.
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
By analyzing its concept of the video, we cannot really determine if WAR definitely failed it that time. However its up to the user configuration to make it effective + ransomware/malware behavior protection needs time to make it perfect from numerous pattern.
- Apr 13, 2013
- 3,151
My issue with B's video was the samples used that indicated bypass. I have loads of CTBlocker and all sorts of Tesla variants and this does not happen. And as neither CTB or Tesla are being actively produced lately, and even if they were would still work by the same mechanism I can't understand how this could be valid.
I'm not above being proved wrong and I certainly don't dislike breach videos, but this one must be questioned especially as B has ignored numerous PM's from me discussing this.
I'm not above being proved wrong and I certainly don't dislike breach videos, but this one must be questioned especially as B has ignored numerous PM's from me discussing this.
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,767
He made a new video with licensed WAR and it blocked it all.
When the trial licence is activated WAR doesn't work the same way like it is activated with key.
When the trial licence is activated WAR doesn't work the same way like it is activated with key.
^ WAR's website says explicitly that without a paid liscense no prot is provided. Doesn't he read? If he's honest, he'd take down his first video, because it's deceiving potential customers. =p
- Nov 19, 2014
- 2,346
He used the trial. Assuming it's not a bug in the trial and it's like you say then what use does the trial have if not for testing. See the pretty images?
I'm not sure if the WAR trial works at full potential, but if it doesn't, I see no reason even having a trial.
- Nov 19, 2014
- 2,346
Exactly. I bet it's a bug and i can't blame the tester for it.
Not really, but I still wouldn't keep the video up if it came to light that the program wasn't functioning properly (if indeed that was the case at all).
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,767
I was testing free trial and it is a big fail.
I don't know what is the point of free trial if doesn't work like it should.
I don't know what is the point of free trial if doesn't work like it should.
- Mar 1, 2014
- 1,708
I would rather assume it's a bug, rather than intentional.
I don't think anyone thinks it's intentional. If indeed it's a bug, WAR needs to work on that. But the fact that that B's results have yet to be re-produced by any tester for the ransomware varients in question... I don't see the logic in keeping up the first video, because it just makes WAR look weak, and it most certainly is not.
- Nov 19, 2014
- 2,346
I don't see war devs rushing to fix the bug either.
Anw in his last video he said he will redo the test now that he has a license and if results don't match he will bin the video.
- Sep 22, 2014
- 1,767
He is done the new video and WAR work like it should.
He tested licensed version.
He tested licensed version.
Last edited:
- Mar 15, 2011
- 13,070
So the trial and license have different result? If that case then the person who reviewed does not commit any fault but rather from developers.
It is interesting that a bug will change a huge picture on the result.
It is interesting that a bug will change a huge picture on the result.
The other video was a licensed version also.
No trial version was ever tested.
The contentious Windows 7 test posted above on May 30 used a license Britec09 "had to" purchase. Apparently he wasn't/isn't aware there is a trial version. (An FYI for the discussion newcomer: there is no free version.)
There might be a bug, but it ain't with WinAntiRansom.
Cheers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
