Absolutely the most powerful antivirus?

[Digmor Crusher]

1.Some do, not all, many come here to learn.

2. Some vendors push, not all. Outside of a couple of security forums I frequent I rarely see any vendors pushing anything. Of course I don't look at my phone 24/7.

3. Some paranoids compete, the rest of us just sit back and laugh at them.

 

[Venustus]

[

People coming here already have some degree of paranoia

Agreed, we all need to be sanctioned!!

 

[SeriousHoax]

Stay safe, not paranoid!

I always love it when oldschool says it

 

[Andy Ful]

Defender did horrible in this test, I wonder how it would fare using Configure Defender, this test is making me re-think my use of Defender now.

You could get the stellar results in this test with any AV, when using Edge Dev with SmartScreen (block downloads with low prevalence). In the test, the malware samples were downloaded to the system through the Chrome browser from a temporary server and next executed.

This test shows what could happen if the AV Lab testers have joined the Dark Side. The way of preparing the malware is rarely used in the wild (python script to EXE). Also, the delivery method of Banking malware is different in the wild. The infection chain in the wild is more complex. It uses several infection stages and many suspicious actions, which can be detected by non-Banking AV modules before the Banking payload will enter the system.
If you would apply ConfigureDefender settings for WD, then in most cases the infection chain in the wild will be broken before the Banking payload could enter the system.

So, this test is similar to testing what will happen if you will drive 120 km/h in town when ignoring traffic lights. That would be very helpful as a crash test, but it will not be helpful to show which car is safer when driving with 60 km/h and respecting traffic lights.

The test (in the case of WD) showed that WD was not especially efficient in mitigating the post-infection techniques used by Banking malware. These results are probably not valid anymore, because soon after this test Microsoft extended WD protection and added many important post-infection behavioral features. Most of them will break the infection chain before loading the Banking payload, but some can also fight the payload directly.

In hot pursuit of elusive threats: AI-driven behavior-based blocking stops attacks in their tracks | Microsoft Security Blog

Two new machine learning protection features within the behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP specialize in detecting threats by analyzing behavior, adding new layers of protection after an attack has started running.

www.microsoft.com

If you use WD on the well updated Window 10 + ConfigureDefender MAX Protection level + native Edge only for Banking activities and Edge Chromium for daily browsing, then your are probably as safe as with 3rd party AV with dedicated Banking module.

If you seek something similar to Windows built-in Banking module, then you can run native Edge in Windows Sandbox (Windows 10 Pro, Enterprise or Education editions) and only for banking activities (no other web browsing during banking session).

Still, using the paid solution like for example Norton Security will be both safe and more comfortable.

 

[notabot]

You could get the stellar results in this test with any AV, when using Edge Dev with SmartScreen (block downloads with low prevalence). In the test, the malware samples were downloaded to the system through the Chrome browser from a temporary server and next executed.

This test shows what could happen if the AV Lab testers have joined the Dark Side. The way of preparing the malware is rarely used in the wild (python script to EXE). Also, the delivery method of Banking malware is different in the wild. The infection chain in the wild is more complex. It uses several infection stages and many suspicious actions, which can be detected by non-Banking AV modules before the Banking payload will enter the system.
If you would apply ConfigureDefender settings for WD, then in most cases the infection chain in the wild will be broken before the Banking payload could enter the system.

So, this test is similar to testing what will happen if you will drive 120 km/h in town when ignoring traffic lights. That would be very helpful as a crash test, but it will not be helpful to show which car is safer when driving with 60 km/h and respecting traffic lights.

The test (in the case of WD) showed that WD was not especially efficient in mitigating the post-infection techniques used by Banking malware. These results are probably not valid anymore, because soon after this test Microsoft extended WD protection and added many important post-infection behavioral features. Most of them will break the infection chain before loading the Banking payload, but some can also fight the payload directly.

In hot pursuit of elusive threats: AI-driven behavior-based blocking stops attacks in their tracks | Microsoft Security Blog

Two new machine learning protection features within the behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP specialize in detecting threats by analyzing behavior, adding new layers of protection after an attack has started running.

www.microsoft.com

If you use WD on the well updated Window 10 + ConfigureDefender MAX Protection level + native Edge only for Banking activities and Edge Chromium for daily browsing, then your are probably as safe as with 3rd party AV with dedicated Banking module.

If you seek something similar to Windows built-in Banking module, then you can run native Edge in Windows Sandbox (Windows 10 Pro, Enterprise or Education editions) and only for banking activities (no other web browsing during banking session).

Still, using the paid solution like for example Norton Security will be both safe and more comfortable.

Chrome also puts MotW - shouldn't they be blocked, at least from running, in this setup as well ?

 

[LDogg]

None. Because what works for one configuration or laptop. desktop et al, will not work for someone else. Plus ease of use, paranoia, resource uptake (CPU usage as well), GUI etc etc.

The question should be, outside of paranoia what do you think if the best AV you've experienced?

~LDogg

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

if i had to use an Av suite again: Symantec EP...sadly the update bug is very annoying.

 

[Andy Ful]

Chrome also puts MotW - shouldn't they be blocked, at least from running, in this setup as well ?

They were blocked by SmartScreen, but testers bypassed the SmartScreen alert to show the capabilities of tested AVs.

 

[Antus67]

In your opinion, which is the most powerful antivirus ever?

I would have to go with BitDefender, rock solid protection

 

[Burrito]

You could get the stellar results in this test with any AV, when using Edge Dev with SmartScreen (block downloads with low prevalence). In the test, the malware samples were downloaded to the system through the Chrome browser from a temporary server and next executed.

This test shows what could happen if the AV Lab testers have joined the Dark Side. The way of preparing the malware is rarely used in the wild (python script to EXE). Also, the delivery method of Banking malware is different in the wild. The infection chain in the wild is more complex. It uses several infection stages and many suspicious actions, which can be detected by non-Banking AV modules before the Banking payload will enter the system.
If you would apply ConfigureDefender settings for WD, then in most cases the infection chain in the wild will be broken before the Banking payload could enter the system.

So, this test is similar to testing what will happen if you will drive 120 km/h in town when ignoring traffic lights. That would be very helpful as a crash test, but it will not be helpful to show which car is safer when driving with 60 km/h and respecting traffic lights.

The test (in the case of WD) showed that WD was not especially efficient in mitigating the post-infection techniques used by Banking malware. These results are probably not valid anymore, because soon after this test Microsoft extended WD protection and added many important post-infection behavioral features. Most of them will break the infection chain before loading the Banking payload, but some can also fight the payload directly.

In hot pursuit of elusive threats: AI-driven behavior-based blocking stops attacks in their tracks | Microsoft Security Blog

Two new machine learning protection features within the behavioral blocking and containment capabilities in Microsoft Defender ATP specialize in detecting threats by analyzing behavior, adding new layers of protection after an attack has started running.

www.microsoft.com

If you use WD on the well updated Window 10 + ConfigureDefender MAX Protection level + native Edge only for Banking activities and Edge Chromium for daily browsing, then your are probably as safe as with 3rd party AV with dedicated Banking module.

If you seek something similar to Windows built-in Banking module, then you can run native Edge in Windows Sandbox (Windows 10 Pro, Enterprise or Education editions) and only for banking activities (no other web browsing during banking session).

Still, using the paid solution like for example Norton Security will be both safe and more comfortable.

Yes, this is it.

Words of wisdom from Andy.

 

[notabot]

They were blocked by SmartScreen, but testers bypassed the SmartScreen alert to show the capabilities of tested AVs.

ok, on one hand it's fair if they want to test the AV in isolation, on the other hand Microsoft does not ship the AV in isolation and there are several modules preventing the execution of this payload.

Btw the infection chain would likely also be stopped by ASR rule on prevalence, age, trusted list criteria.

Still it's a fair point, that post-infection, there's less damage mitigation for this sort of trojan, whether that's interesting or relevant in real-world situations is a different matter.

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

1- Showing a product's capabilities is one thing.
2- showing how it performs in real world with all the variables (OS features, tweaks, etc...) is another.

Taking point 1 as measure fof effectiveness is a mistake.

 

[Aggravatorx]

I remember awhile back cant remember which security company did it but they were caught putting out a virus so people would all be in a
panic and start purchasing security software and the frenzy began you need anti virus so many viruses out there and 100 + security programs
appeared who is better ect we all know this were here reading everyday for the average person just going online i say common knowledge
for the person in moms or dads basement 15-40 and porn addict or pirate software then yes you need the big guns but no matter what i use
i have not every seen a virus only fp and thats from king zemana (omg time to leave the basement) lol

 

[notabot]

I remember awhile back cant remember which security company did it but they were caught putting out a virus so people would all be in a
panic and start purchasing security software and the frenzy began you need anti virus so many viruses out there and 100 + security programs
appeared who is better ect we all know this were here reading everyday for the average person just going online i say common knowledge
for the person in moms or dads basement 15-40 and porn addict or pirate software then yes you need the big guns but no matter what i use
i have not every seen a virus only fp and thats from king zemana (omg time to leave the basement) lol

I haven't seen a virus in recent years and I've only used macs (without an AV) or mostly Windows Defender, and back when it was Microsoft Security Essentials it wasn't the security powerhouse that it is today.
Safe habits, use only licensed (or open source) software, always update your software, prefer webmail to a local client, use a mainstream browser and be weary of sites you've never heard of before, this will keep the vast majority of infection sequences away.

 

[blackice]

I haven't seen a virus in recent years and I've only used macs (without an AV) or mostly Windows Defender, and back when it was Microsoft Security Essentials it wasn't the security powerhouse that it is today.
Safe habits, use only licensed (or open source) software, always update your software, prefer webmail to a local client, use a mainstream browser and be weary of sites you've never heard of before, this will keep the vast majority of infection sequences away.

This is almost my exact same experience.

 

[Andy Ful]

I haven't seen a virus in recent years and I've only used macs (without an AV) or mostly Windows Defender, and back when it was Microsoft Security Essentials it wasn't the security powerhouse that it is today.
Safe habits, use only licensed (or open source) software, always update your software, prefer webmail to a local client, use a mainstream browser and be weary of sites you've never heard of before, this will keep the vast majority of infection sequences away.

Some other things can be probably added, but I would like to mention the knowledge about recognizing the spam, especially in businesses and organizations.

 

[Antus67]

I've been on the web since1999 gone thru 4 computeers used numerous antivirus software have not been infected once...........luck of the Irish as the saying goes.
Andy Ful said it all safe habits and surfing

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

The only "virus" I saw was 20cyears ago, in factit was just a PUP and Avast failed to remove it...
Since all I know about malware were those I collected in MDL (famous at that time) and put on my system lol.

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

I remember awhile back cant remember which security company did it but they were caught putting out a virus so people would all be in a panic and start purchasing security software and the frenzy began you need

Was a Chinese big name vendor, CEO was sentenced to death penalty but finally just jailed.

 

[Antus67]

Umbra made a good point Avast could not remove a PUP