Thread destroyed (yet again) by prolonged rants & it's not difficult to see why you were obviously banned, & I wonder have you taken your medication, that is serous. BTW there are members other than the male sex here & some references are sexist & have no place today - (IMHO)The test does not involve an exploit, therefore Windows Security Exploit Guard would not make a difference.
No. Neither one has a banking protection module. Both products have better protection by design. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that Norton fails miserably against MRG Effitas' online banking simulators.
At default settings. As Adrian explained, the point of the test was to test the products at maximum settings because default settings do not provide the requisite protection.
No one creates their own firewall to replace the Windows firewall in this day and age. Except for a few utility-type firewalls, all the publishers use WFP. A custom firewall won't provide any greater protection than using WFP.
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.
And I want to further qualify the above statement. It is inappropriate to attack the original poster because you happen to not like the subject matter. All one need do is visit any of the Windows sucks threads on this forum to see how many times the person who created the thread is the one who is attacked en-masse.
Whose fault is it that threads degenerate into bedlam ? It sure isn't the original poster. It is the fanboys, and the ones who are sensitive, the ones who go ballistic running around across forums, crying to staff, that time and again create the dramas. Just because a person doesn't like what is posted or who posted it 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.
People cannot control their emotions and everyone else has to pay for it. I can create a single thread here using entirely innocent, legit language but because of what is said, I can guarantee you total chaos would ensue. People will report the post, there will be an open fight, people will run over to other forums to tattle-tale, people will complain to staff, and the thread will be shutdown and the original poster will be issued ban points. It is all because of the fan-boys and man-babies here. It is as simple as that.
The use of python is irrelevant. As the test shows, none of the third party solutions had a grave problem with it.
Either a security software protects or it does not. Making adjustments, rationalizing away the test results on the basis of it not being real-world or some other condition, that is the stuff of which Cylance is made - and does those who are interested in the real facts a great disservice.
The facts are the facts.
One cannot control what a security software will face in the real world. Therefore, the only thing that matters is its absolute protection within the scope of what it is designed to do. And what this test proves is that Windows Security has another gaping hole in its protections. It is unable to protect an active banking trojan protection. Game over. It's a disgusting wart of a product (in many more ways than are covered here).
And a word on prevalence testing. Tests that use only prevalent malware, more or less - that is like testing a person to see if they will get smallpox if they area already vaccinated against smallpox.