Battle Avira Browser Safety vs Bitdefender TrafficLight for Anti-Phishing?

[SearchLight]

I am quite familiar with the names Avira and Bitdefender, and to give my Chrome Browser extra protection against phishing and the like, which of these two extensions posted on the Chrome Webstore would you use?

It seems that Avira is being used by over 9 million users. BD a much smaller amount.

However, I have been reading elsewhere, that BD usually offers the best anti-phishing, and malware protection in its products.

If not these, what do you use or recommend?

 

[Nestor]

Avira extension is one of the best for malware and phising threats.On the other hand BD Traffic Light has nothing to do with the antivirus web protection, which is very good especially at phising.It scores almost zero.You can also consider Malwarebytes extension,scores top high and K9 web security,you have to insrtall it, it's not an extension, but it's better from all of them together, imo.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

best for malwares: malwarebytes >> avira >>>>>>>> BD trafficlight = 0
BD can't block malwares because of how it works

best for phishing : netcraft >>> BDTL~avast > avira = malwarebytes

BDTL is only good against phishing but it has noticeable resource consumption and it can't block malwares, totally not recommended

avast online security has the most users but it can't block malwares because it's designed to supplement avast AV for phishing, not recommended

the absolute best for phishing is netcraft, no competition, but it can't block malwares, too

 

[SearchLight]

best for malwares: malwarebytes >> avira >>>>>>>> BD trafficlight = 0
BD can't block malwares because of how it works

best for phishing : netcraft >>> BDTL~avast > avira = malwarebytes

BDTL is only good against phishing but it has noticeable resource consumption and it can't block malwares, totally not recommended

avast online security has the most users but it can't block malwares because it's designed to supplement avast AV for phishing, not recommended

the absolute best for phishing is netcraft, no competition, but it can't block malwares, too

So to be clear, your recommendations are Avira or Netcraft or Malwarebytes(although in Beta)? Which one would you use to prevent both malware and phishing?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

So to be clear, your recommendations are Avira or Netcraft or Malwarebytes(although in Beta)? Which one would you use to prevent both malware and phishing?

malwarebytes is the best in overall + your browser protection and your AV web filter => enough

I gave you some recommendatiosn based on the pros and cons of each extensions so you can choose what you need

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

malwarebytes is the best in overall + your browser protection and your AV web filter => enough

I gave you some recommendatiosn based on the pros and cons of each extensions so you can choose what you need

What about K9 web protection? Net craft is champ against phishing follows Norton safe extension closely
What is your opinion on K9?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

What about K9 web protection? Net craft is champ against phishing follows Norton safe extension closely
What is your opinion on K9?

norton safe web has been falling to the ground for months => no longer recommend it

K9 is the best web filter I have ever used. It almost always blocks everything even without signatures. It heuristics is really strong. But the only downside is it's a installed program, not extension
K9 may perform as good as netcraft, no joke

I'm not frequently testing phishing because most MT users don't care about them

 

[imuade]

norton safe web has been falling to the ground for months => no longer recommend it

K9 is the best web filter I have ever used. It almost always blocks everything even without signatures. It heuristics is really strong. But the only downside is it's a installed program, not extension
K9 may perform as good as netcraft, no joke

I'm not frequently testing phishing because most MT users don't care about them

I agree, K9 is really strong and doesn't slow down anything.
Being a SW to install is a plus to me, it works system-wide thus protecting any app, not only the browser

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

norton safe web has been falling to the ground for months => no longer recommend it

K9 is the best web filter I have ever used. It almost always blocks everything even without signatures. It heuristics is really strong. But the only downside is it's a installed program, not extension
K9 may perform as good as netcraft, no joke

I'm not frequently testing phishing because most MT users don't care about them

Seem to be Symantec is always ahead in acquiring and making innovation.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Seem to be Symantec is always ahead in acquiring and making innovation.
Surprised you right? even me..)
View attachment 194471

symantec acquired K9 for while but their webfilter is still crap
only download insight is working but very prone to FPs

 

[LDogg]

From my tests:
- Netcraft = best for Phishing, whilst also utilising XSS protection too as standard
- Malwarebytes Browser Extension = the best for everything else

BD Trafficlight seems very much redundant and Avira takes up way too CPU.

Hope this helps.

~LDogg

 

[Moonhorse]

From my tests:
- Netcraft = best for Phishing, whilst also utilising XSS protection too as standard
- Malwarebytes Browser Extension = the best for everything else

BD Trafficlight seems very much redundant and Avira takes up way too CPU.

Hope this helps.

~LDogg

Yep, netcraft + mb ( ad/trackers disabled) + comodo online security for me takes less resources than avira takes alone.

Malwarebytes + netcraft should be must have and rest done by av filter you have

k9 works on system level , so its nice for parental filtering, also overpowered against anything compared to resources it takes ( low)

 

[SearchLight]

Yep, netcraft + mb ( ad/trackers disabled) + comodo online security for me takes less resources than avira takes alone.

Malwarebytes + netcraft should be must have and rest done by av filter you have

k9 works on system level , so its nice for parental filtering, also overpowered against anything compared to resources it takes ( low)

7

From what I have seen in the Chrome store, Malwarebytes is still in Beta, and K9 offers a free download.

So despite MWB being in Beta, you would still use it, or download the free K9 for install to cover phishing and malware?

 

[Nestor]

7

From what I have seen in the Chrome store, Malwarebytes is still in Beta, and K9 offers a free download.

So despite MWB being in Beta, you would still use it, or download the free K9 for install to cover phishing and malware?

K9 covers everything,filters are customisable and scores better from MWB especially at phishing.

 

[Moonhorse]

7

From what I have seen in the Chrome store, Malwarebytes is still in Beta, and K9 offers a free download.

So despite MWB being in Beta, you would still use it, or download the free K9 for install to cover phishing and malware?

Beta or not, its just extension. Malwarebytes anti-exploit been beta for years aswell.

k9 is nice, but i would use it only for parental control since most avs have web protection against phishing/malware domains

Seen netcraft compete better against phishing sites than those avs,
Malwarebytes can prevent downloads , and its best against pups/ puas

so:
netcraft - phishing
malwarebytes - pup/puas
antivirus - malware
adblocker - ads

k9 as backup, if you can run it

 

[Ink]

While you're on about Anti-Phishing, what about the one from Microsoft?

helps protect you against online threats, such as links in phishing emails and websites designed to trick you
Chrome Web Store: Windows Defender Browser Protection

Afaik, it's not in beta.

 

[LDogg]

Someone could do a test Netcraft vs WDBP to see which one does better over a certain period.

~LDogg

 

[Moonhorse]

They are pretty lightweight, i cant see any difference if i disable them all or enable into my browsing speed, maybe on old pcs you could see the difference

 

[LDogg]

They are pretty lightweight, i cant see any difference if i disable them all or enable into my browsing speed, maybe on old pcs you could see the difference
View attachment 194508

I see you're using Comodo's extension as well.

~LDogg

 

[Moonhorse]

Seems bitdefender has improved their extension, i can remember it being memory hog

These pictures wont tell anything, but OP should check Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

@LDogg yup, since im using sophos free + cf ( poor web filter) for now, doesnt use much resources