ichito

Level 6
Verified
Content Creator
This is our next test from the series of comprehensive tests of various types of products for protection of computers and workstations.
In February 2019, we tested dozens of solutions to protect the Windows 10 operating system, paying particular attention to the possibility of blocking malicious software and resisting attacks that are aimed at operations on online banking accounts.
Less than half of the tested software has so-called special components for protection of online payments which have various names such as “Safe Money”, “Banking Mode”, or “Banking Protection”.
Most of these modules are directly integrated with security suites, and thus can’t be used as separate software.
These components add another layer of security, useful in situations when there is a need for confidential data protection while using online banking.
We assume that a user has probably installed an antivirus product, so he entrusts the security of his finances to the developer who doesn’t necessarily provide to software dedicated and specialized modules for the protection of online purchases.
Therefore, we decided to check which of the most popular solutions guarantee an unrivaled level of security, regardless of whether they have such technologies.
The test was designed to simulate over a dozen different scenarios of attacks that had focused on theft of important data entered into a browser or data stored in Windows 10 with a security suite installed.

Full report
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Full scores for Norton Security 22.5 and SpyShelter Firewall 11.2

As far as I know, Windows Defender Antivirus does not provide advanced Online Banking Protection compared to the other tested security software. Thoughts? How do you perform Online Banking with WDA?
 

Bill K

Level 3
Strange that in the description section for Panda Dome Advanced the text refers to Kaspersky and appears to be an exact copy of the text from the Kaspersky section. Looks like an editing mistake, but makes me question whether the posted results are correct... :emoji_thinking::cautious:
 

Dave Russo

Level 8
Verified
Full scores for Norton Security 22.5 and SpyShelter Firewall 11.2

As far as I know, Windows Defender Antivirus does not provide advanced Online Banking Protection compared to the other tested security software. Thoughts? How do you perform Online Banking with WDA?
Could it be these 2 products do not have the option not to use their banking protection ,is it always on? For example others like Kaspersky shows results with off then in blue when on .Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Interesting results.

If I am not mistaken, all the tests are under the assumption that the host computer is infected and not the website server? If that's the case, I don't think any of these protections will matter as they will get your info anyways.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
I am more curious to see if anyone puts their money where their mouth is and steps forward to justify and defend Microsoft and Windows Defender on this one - since there is a large contingent here that more or less keeps saying default WIndows and Windows Defender are sufficient. Well that's just isn't true.
I'll take a stab at it.

Quite simply MS doesn't have "banking protection" built into WD. One thing I didn't see with the test is which browser did they use? If they didn't use Edge, maybe MS has that capability in Edge not WD. I don't know for sure, but it's something worth noting. Another thing to remember is that when it comes to W10 and WD, MS doesn't have all their security as part of WD. What I mean is, if you take web traffic scanning as an example, WD doesn't have this in the traditional sense. It does have network protection that you can turn on, but it"s web traffic scanning is really smart screen built into Edge, not WD. Furthermore, many of these protections require some hooking into the browser and from what I can see MS doesn't hook into the browsers. Both Google and Mozilla hate this as well, hence why you have seen them recently talk about blocking the way programs hook into their browsers.

I've been using WD for a long time now and have remained malware free. Like it or not WD has come along ways on the protection front. All this banking protection stuff is just snake oil anyways. While there are still keyloggers and such, hacker tend to focus more on infecting servers, rather than individuals, as they will get more bang for their buck. Just as both you and I have said, if the server is compromised, it doesn't matter how much protection you have.

Quite frankly I don't stress about test results, nor do I stress about getting infected. Personally I think there is too much fear and paranoia about security to begin with. Does that mean WD can't improve, sure it can, all products can, but it doesn't mean it can't do a good job in the real world. Let's look at it this way, many other products scored well in this test, but when it comes to stealing your info, all it takes is one to get missed by any product. At that point it doesn't matter how well it did in a test, it still missed it and your data still got compromised.

All in all, your habits are just as important than anything. IMHO, people aren't getting infected left, right and center, as much as some may think. Unless you start going to doggy sites, clicking on every link/ad, opening every email attachment, etc..., you probably won't get infected. Keep everything up to date, only use programs you need, use a password manager and where can 2FA, chances are you will be good.

I know people still have this hatred towards WD for what ever reason, some of which is legit, i'm not denying that, believe me, I know full well that it's not perfect and it has it warts, but I don't think it's no where near as bad as some make it out to be. Quite frankly and I mean this in a very respectful way, essentially and indirectly calling out people who use and recommend WD as fanboys and painting them as stupid/wrong is just plain ignorant. I'm sorry, but people are free to use what they like and as I've said above, like it or not, WD has come a long ways on the protection front. No one is forcing anybody to use a particular product, pick and choose the one works best for you.(y)
 
Last edited:

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
If I were to carry out financial transaction using an android phone I wonder how they perform?
It's a good question.

I'm not very well versed in this, but it may be more secure than Windows from an OS side, but as I've mentioned in my previous post, if the server is compromised, your done. Furthermore, when it comes to mobile anyways you also have the potential of someone essentially eaves dropping on your wireless connection and steeling it that way. As I've already said, I'm not well versed in this, but it would be interesting to see the results. (y)
 

HarborFront

Level 46
Verified
Content Creator
It's a good question.

I'm not very well versed in this, but it may be more secure than Windows from an OS side, but as I've mentioned in my previous post, if the server is compromised, your done. Furthermore, when it comes to mobile anyways you also have the potential of someone essentially eaves dropping on your wireless connection and steeling it that way. As I've already said, I'm not well versed in this, but it would be interesting to see the results. (y)
I wonder if using a VPN will help? Not sure whether VPN can work with banking software?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AtlBo and Raiden

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
I wonder if using a VPN will help? Not sure whether VPN can work with banking software?
I would assume if you are going through their website, it should work like any other site. I am not sure about apps, but I would think it should be the same. One thing I am not sure about is if banks use some form of geo-location to help spot potential attacks? Meaning that if the VPN says your outside your country, would the bank flag it as suspicious? If they have/use such a thing.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
My post was meant as a joke. I didn't think anyone would actually defend it.

No one mentioned fanboy. No one thinks people who use WD are stupid. I don't know where that is coming from, but it is coming all from you bro.

The test results speak for themselves. WD is an atrocious product when it comes to protecting against banking trojans - a fact that a small core of us knew for ages.
That's fair.

Reading words sometimes can be mis-interpreted, so I do apologize if I seemed harsh, but to be fair, it didn't read as a joke, so you can see how one can mis-interpret your meaning.;)
 
Last edited:

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
There's too much sensitivity and an intolerance of the opposition point of view on this forum. That's the problem. This forum is has become focused on censorship for the sake of preserving the feelings of those that are sensitive and easily offended by the slightest criticism of their favorite software.

There is no more discussing facts. The trend here is to rabidly defend software and attacking anyone who reveals the truth, instead of dissecting software and accepting reality for what it is. I think it is both unfortunate and shameful because it does everyone a disservice.

I agree whole heartily.

Again I am not against people posting facts and I am not overly sensitive to discussions, quite frankly I could care less. As I've mentioned, your original post didn't come off as a joke, not initially to me at least, but I do understand and agree with what you are saying. In addition to what you are saying, I think there is too much over thinking when it comes to security and side from the products/programs one chooses to use, people still need to remember security 101, as it's just as important.
 
If I were to carry out financial transaction using an android phone I wonder how they perform?
i went to the webpage results to look for a smaller summary (instead of that clunky pdf), and they had recommendations for security, and in those recommendations they said:
"5. NEVER install unnecessary software from Google Play. The official Android repository contains many banking trojans that are hidden in the form of regular applications. "

OUCH!!!

 

Burrito

Level 20
Verified
The test results speak for themselves. WD is an atrocious product when it comes to protecting against banking trojans - a fact that a small core of us knew for ages.

What I think the primary problem is with this forum is that there is quite a number of highly sensitive, easily provoked people who are over-attached and over-react. It's very immature and ruins it for all of us that want the brutal truth. Like I posted elsewhere on this forum, emotions have no place in discussing software or any product for that matter. A few people who cannot effectively cope with discussions ruin it for everyone else. The person posting facts is not a basher. They're posting the truth. The ones who cannot handle the truth turn it around and invariably mess-up the threads for everyone else.
Ain't that the truth.

'Ground truth' in the evaluation of security is often is based on test results. To assert otherwise is stupidity. If it's just opinion based... there is virtually no point in discussion. Whether it's Malwarebytes, Webroot, McAfee, Windows Defender.. each of those capabilities (and others) sometimes gets hammered in testing.

And the oversensitive defenders come out defensively.... and the tune is often the same. Attack the test. Something is wrong with the methodology. Some other test had a good result. And my favorite.... "I've been using it forever and have never been infected." And often those capabilities attempt to stop being tested. Good strategy... as the emotional fanboys don't have as many poor results to make excuses for.

The best products rarely test at the bottom. Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Norton... you almost never see them at the bottom of any test.

And then yes... in this forum, the defensive people with bias ruin threads with their defensiveness.