To be fair, I think the problem has more to do with people not always respecting one another's opinions, rather than people not listening to the facts. A good conversation takes at least two people and they don't necessarily have to share the exact same opinion. I'm not for anyone pointing fingers one way or another, just because they don't agree. Again, to be fair, calling others fanboys and emotionally attached isn't helping things either. It doesn't make you more right.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.
That's a good question. It very well may improve things, but if I had to take a guess they may add that type of protection to the browser rather than WD itself. Most of the other product do this by hooking into the browser in order to provide this type of protection. MS doesn't really like hooking into the browser, nor do Google and Mozilla. My guess is that if they do improve on this it will come in the form of an extension, built into the browser and potentially exploit guard, or maybe all 3.
YES and NO....
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.
OK so I'm discussing it loosely. Does it replace Windows Firewall or just a door keeper like Windows Firewall Control.????I get it - but this thread is not about discussing the capabilities of SpyShelter in particular, maybe more loosely, but not specifically.
I was waiting for someone to talk about Emsisoft. Norton killed the test of course but Emsisoft did really well with the default settings. Very impressive.Erm... I thought Emsisoft did reasonably well & Norton excellent (within the parameters of the test of course)
We're just going to have to agree to disagree than. I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate on the matter.It's not about right or wrong. The facts are the facts.
If one is behaving like a fanboy or one is obviously way too emotional and causing problems on a thread, please tell me how it is inappropriate to openly state those facts ? Giving a person a verbal que to grow up whenever they are acting like a man-baby is never inappropriate.
Whose fault is it that threads degenerate into bedlam ? It sure isn't the original poster. It is the fanboys, the ones who are sensitive, the ones who go ballistic running around across forums, that time and again create the dramas. Just because a person doesn't like what is posted does not give them the right to create such havoc. However, far too often the original poster is the one targeted and labeled provocative.
Well, people talk online in different styles, just like people have different personalities. I submit that if someone reacts to a provocative post, it isn't the fault of the original poster, the person who is reacting needs to learn to control themselves - they cannot control themselves and because they cannot, they want to throw blame back onto the person who made the post. It is a childish smoke screen tactic and it is shameful that so many allow it to happen.
If people no longer have the right to express their opinions here, then close up shop. Let's all go home.
Fanboys and emotional types will continue on-and-on until they get what they want on the thread - which most of the time it is to censor those posters that post things that they do not like. They cannot handle the facts, so they will do their utmost to censor. Forums should not be about censorship, no matter how much you personally disagree with or dislike the poster. So it is absolutely appropriate call fanboys and those who cannot emotionally cope with the thread out.
One need look no further than the same thread topics - how many problems Windows causes, Windows Defender, any form of Voodooshield criticism - and the very same overly-attached people show up and cause all the problems.
Because of fanboys and the emotionally over-attached is the reason Wilders banned "What is best AV ?" discussions ages ago.
100% agreed. Opinions must be respected. No product can guarantee 100% protection. It is true in theory and test results only. If all the test results are correct and represent real world scenarios then why there was a Wannacry massacre a few years back? Who is responsible for Billions of Dollars in loss? Simple answer is 'no one is responsible' except the creators of the nasty worm. NOne of the security firms can be held responsible for not stopping or detecting the worm in the first place. All of the security software companies are doing the right things to make the world safer for us. No one is 100% right but at the end they are contributing to make the world safer.To be fair, I think the problem has more to do with people not always respecting one another's opinions, rather than people not listening to the facts. A good conversation takes at least two people and they don't necessarily have to share the exact same opinion. I'm not for anyone pointing fingers one way or another, just because they don't agree. Again, to be fair, calling others fanboys and emotionally attached isn't helping things either. It doesn't make you more right.
Tests should be taken with a huge grain of salt any ways. They often do not represent what happens in the real world. I am in no way suggesting people ignore facts, but at the end of the day, it's just one data point. We cannot always take everything point blank because a test says so. There are way more reasons to choose/use a particular product such as ease of use, customer support, performance, etc...
Everyone is free to like and dislike products, but it needs to be done in a respectful way. A lot of these discussions go side ways, not because people may share a different point than the test results, but because people accuse others for this and that. Again calling people fanboys, emotionally attached and saying others have something wrong with them for liking a product such as WD is being very disrespectful. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you are 100% correct.
As I've said WD has come along ways on the protection front. Its not perfect, but then again nothing is. I can point to many tests where WD does very well, but you will have some people who think WD is dumb call the test stupid because WD scored well. They are doing the same thing they accuse others of doing.
Again, tests aren't everything, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Pick and choose which ever product you like. At the end of the day everyone should just respect each other and their opinions.
I just wanted to say that I've updated my previous post as it came across as being an (enter you own word) lol. I do apologize, I didn't mean for it to come across that way. I really should post until I've had my coffee in the morning.
Weren't some of them, like ESET and Kaspersky, able to detect WannaCry/EternalBlue at its early stage though?100% agreed. Opinions must be respected. No product can guarantee 100% protection. It is true in theory and test results only. If all the test results are correct and represent real world scenarios then why there was a Wannacry massacre a few years back? Who is responsible for Billions of Dollars in loss? Simple answer is 'no one is responsible' except the creators of the nasty worm. NOne of the security firms can be held responsible for not stopping or detecting the worm in the first place. All of the security software companies are doing the right things to make the world safer for us. No one is 100% right but at the end they are contributing to make the world safer.
Yes! you are right they may have stopped the worm. Dr. Web claimed that none of their users machines were compromised. I have already said that they are all doing the right thing. None of them is 100% protective and none of them is 100% crap on the other hand too.Weren't some of them, like ESET and Kaspersky, able to detect WannaCry/EternalBlue at its early stage though?
Prepared threats were not exploits. It will not make a difference result.
This test is based on the specific procedure:
- never seen banking malware created with python and compiled to an exe file;
- the malware is downloaded manually in Chrome web browser;
- the malware is then executed by the user and SmartScreen is bypassed by the user;
- WD is on default settings (no other advanced settings available in Windows 10 Home);
I think that it could make difference in 'DLL Injecting Attack'.Prepared threats were not exploits. It will not make a difference result.
That is true. The problem can be with delivery method. But, this can be accomplished by using the known scripting methods. I performed AVs anti-script test (on max AVs settings) against the simple scripts which downloaded and next executed an EXE file. The results were not good for any AV (some were terrible) except mks_vir Internet Security (blocked Internet connection for WSH and PowerShell) and specially tweaked KIS (script Interpreters highly restricted by Application Control). I tested only eight AVs but the results would be similar, except when script Interpreters are specially restricted like in mks_vir or Kaspersky (ESET HIPS can do it).It's amazing how was easy bypass protection with a script compiled to EXE.
In a real attack, criminals should be interested in Python scripts compiled for Windows.
- the malware did not have a digital signature
- it was not compressed (no packers, obfuscators used)
- most firewall modules did not react to sending stolen information to the server
- often malware can be run without problems