AV testing!

[Deleted member 178]

You're getting wiser by experience.. love your paronoid mindset it helps others to understand sometimes the simplest thing are better.
Take care my metal brother.

Thanks, i could just use only two softs of my huge list , and i will still have better protection than any AVs; but i love all the softs in my config, without them my computer life will be boring

take care you too

 

[omidomi]

Baidu is vulnerable View attachment 78175

Trend Micro is vulnerable View attachment 78177

Avast is vulnerable View attachment 78178

Bullguard is vulnerable View attachment 78179

Bitdefender is not vulnerable View attachment 78181



Might test more AV's later on today if some are still missing.

thanks
these AVs remain:
Dr.Web
G Data
or another av u think

 

[OokamiCreed]

The human mind is more powerful than any software. Cyber criminals can break ANY software but they can't break your mind unless you let them. AV, AE, etc all the same to me. They all require common sense and user intervention to be truly effective otherwise you mind as well cross your fingers and hope for the best.
-------------------------------

Anyway thought I'd mention that I don't use Firefox. I use Chrome for these test but IE also has gotten the same results. Skipping Dr. Web for slow download speeds (400MB file makes it worse) and G Data due to annoying sign up process just to get a free trial. Not feeling 100% today so I'm just not in the mood. Sorry. Could someone else do Dr. Web and G Data?

McAfee is not vulnerable

Agnitum is not vulnerable

SecuraLive is not vulnerable

 

[Hangtooth]

New data point and summary to date (all testing done on Win 10 64 bit):

Avira AV Pro + Firefox = not vulnerable
Avira AV Pro + Chrome = vulnerable

Avira AV Pro + HitmanPro.Alert + Firefox = not vulnerable
Avira AV Pro + HitmanPro.Alert + Chrome = not vulnerable

Avira + HMPA = looks like my new real-time protection dynamic duo - HMPA even seems to patch up Chrome's security hole.

This finding also makes me think all testers should also add what other real-time protection is running if they did not already do so.

 

[jamescv7]

I'm not sure if I was clearly expressed in the last post.
Test with IE8 is vulnerable and test with FF is not.

Maybe I misunderstood what you want to say.

Still IE8 on my Windows 7 VM mentioned to pass the test without AV protection.


Overall it seems definitely programs that contains exploit techniques may help to improve the protection and vulnerabilities at all so test are way interesting.

 

[omidomi]

The human mind is more powerful than any software. Cyber criminals can break ANY software but they can't break your mind unless you let them. AV, AE, etc all the same to me. They all require common sense and user intervention to be truly effective otherwise you mind as well cross your fingers and hope for the best.
-------------------------------

Anyway thought I'd mention that I don't use Firefox. I use Chrome for these test but IE also has gotten the same results. Skipping Dr. Web for slow download speeds (400MB file makes it worse) and G Data due to annoying sign up process just to get a free trial. Not feeling 100% today so I'm just not in the mood. Sorry. Could someone else do Dr. Web and G Data?

McAfee is not vulnerable View attachment 78239

Agnitum is not vulnerable View attachment 78241

SecuraLive is not vulnerable View attachment 78242

thank u very much

 

[omidomi]

list updated help me to complete list

 

[doruk]

Bitdefender Internet Security 2016 Build 20.0.24.1290 is VULNERABLE with Windows 10.0.10586.17 & Google Chrome 47.0.2526.80 m

 

[AtlBo]

Tested 360 TS + Firefox in the 360 sandbox and failed.

Added EMET to the PC and Firefox to the protected processes in EMET and passed the test the second go round. Thanks to Umbra's layered security post here:

Umbra's Concept of Layered Config

EMET is super light-weight and gives users the ability to target vulnerability points on their PC for special protection, so that a broad variety of zero day type scripts will be blocked. This is like NoScript for entire programs and even parts of programs. Learned alot today, and based on that I recommend looking at Umbra's post and read up on EMET...

 

[Deleted member 178]

if you can afford to pay Malwarebyte's Anti-Exploit premium or Hitman Pro Alert Premium , both do the dame job (and even more) and are stronger than EMET.

 

[AtlBo]

if you can afford to pay Malwarebyte's Anti-Exploit premium or Hitman Pro Alert Premium , both do the dame job (and even more) and are stronger than EMET.

How much more would you say they do? I mean, is EMET a waste of time in comparison? I have EMET 5, which doesn't look much different than 4 from what I have seen of that program. Also, do you have a preference between the two?

I have the trial version of MBAE on another PC, but I can tell it doesn't do much. I assume it's much weaker than MBAE premium. A little confused if the issue is only that it cannot be configured for any program or if it is a functionality issue.

Gonna run the AVulnerability test on the other PC for knowledge sake...

 

[Deleted member 178]

MBAE free protect just the browser while the premium version for all application you want. HMP Alert paid add additional protections and include their famous malware on-demand scanner. if you can pay , you would go for HMPA.

 

[AtlBo]

Well, for what it's worth, MBAE free does protect Firefox. The other PC fails the AVul test without it running on that PC. Firefox passes with MBAE on...

 

[Hangtooth]

Am running HMP.A + Avira and feel like I am in Fort Knox =) Loving HMP.A, hope there's a sale before the end of the year so I can grab a couple licenses.

 

[AtlBo]

MBAE free protect just the browser while the premium version for all application you want. HMP Alert paid add additional protections and include their famous malware on-demand scanner. if you can pay , you would go for HMPA.

OK, thanks very much...