AVLab Feb 2019 - Online Banking Protection Test (Windows 10)

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

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.

Absolutely!

It's basically a war zone out there and is really a big fight between the various security companies and the bad guys/gals. Each trying to one up each other. It's the reason why IMHO people shouldn't really stress too much about test results. It's not about defending, or making excuses one way or another about a product, or products, but simply the realization that nothing is perfect and you cannot guarantee 100% all the time. Wannacry is a perfect example, initially bypassing everything, some were able to respond faster than others, but when you step back and look at it, the rate that it spread virtually had all security companies freaking out, if you know what I mean.

Home users really aren't subject to these types of things anyways. Not saying home users cannot get infected, but the reality is home users really shouldn't worry about these types of things all that much. Habits are everything, if you practice safe habits, there's a very high chance that you will remain malware free. Doesn't mean something still can't happen, but your odds are much better.

 

[Andy Ful]

...
The perspective of advanced users that is so prevalent here is not the reality out there in user-land.
...

I did not notice such a prevalence. Most people on MT has a similar standpoint as you about Windows security, so you do not need to defend it.
It is also useless to prove that you are right in everything you post, because:

• this is probably not true,
• your posts are based on personal experience (others can have a different experience),
• the proof will not be accepted by some users anyway.

I share your point in many aspects, but it does not mean that others are wrong.

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)

You went too far, it would be nice to say sorry. Both you and Pixy Stix have the tendency to get emotional. I understand this, but it is not good for the readers who are not interested in quarrels on MT, but seek information about security. The emotional/defensive posts can bloat the thread. Please guys, let's our discussion be kind and not personal.:emoji_pray:

 

[Andy Ful]

Adrian Ścibor
It is nice to see you on MT. Please, share your knowledge with other MT members.

 

[ichito]

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

I don't know how it's in Norton but in SpyShelter there is no special module for online banking protection...actualy all components/features in this program are enabled by design and by this way it can be good in such tasks. Additionaly you can enable one useful feature called restricted app that can reduce dangerous influence of apps facing internet or suspicious files like documents, pictures, etc.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

It doesn't matter why I am posting what I am posting. I feel like it. And there is nothing inappropriate about it - in any way.

You're the one who is shutting down the debate. Not me. So if anyone is displaying intolerance here, then it is you. I'm not being anything other than respectful. You don't like my position and what I am posting, so your response is that I'm the problem. You are displaying some of the exact behavior that I am talking about.

I am able to conduct myself like a grown, mature adult. The facts on this forum are the facts. What I am saying is all based upon fact because every single thing I've stated here has actually happened.

I can create a post in the most polite and gracious manner. All it takes is for a single fanboy or sensitive person to not like it, and all manner of trouble starts. It happens all the time here. No one can deny it.

Let's pull an example out of the air that substantiates everything that I am saying. Just post something negative - no matter how legit - about Voodooshield and watch what happens. The fanboys immediately descend upon that thread and create problems both openly as well as behind the scenes. And it is very childish that the Voodooshield publisher stalks both MT and Wilders for comments, and when he finds a post he doesn't like, he makes rant posts and the fanboys copy-pasta them here. The ones who cannot handle the truth complain. And then staff feels compelled to act as umpires and almost invariably shut down the thread. It is fact and publicly open for all to see.

The above is just a single example of countless episodes I have observed. It's the reason I stayed on Reddit and kernelmode for so long. There two people who disagree openly and debate. Things that get stupid - the person who is getting all bent out of shape - they are the ones who get booted. And who is it that gets bent out of shape ? It's the fanboys and the emotional ones.

Personally, saying that I am being disrespectful merely because I post something that others don't like is just plain intolerant and rude. Fanboys and emotional types are so sensitive that even the slightest hint of negativity makes them create problems. Because people cannot control their emotions, everyone else has to suffer for it. And if we have to "speak" online as if we are in a first grade religious instruction class, well that just speaks volumes... because polite society rules are a control mechanism. In short, a censorship mechanism.

I was a member of Wilders way back when it was first started. And I was present when the debates took place. The clear problem were those that would over-react. They could not handle statements, became way too emotional and caused problems for Wilders staff. Only a schoolchild becomes upset because someone said something they did not like about their favorite toy. Only a schoolchild goes running to the teacher when something is said that they don't like. Reporting posts and running to staff is infantile. I happen to be the mother of four boys and I would always allow them to sort out their fights and arguments between themselves. I never babied them.

It does not take two to tango. If you post the facts, the truth, then that is exactly what they are. They speak for themselves. But I have observed that despite all the real data one can provide on forums - no matter who it comes from - there are a lot of sensitive people who just cannot handle the truth. And those types ruin it for everyone else.

It's people who say "He\she posted something that is disrespectful" that cause the problem. Go over to Wilders and post even the slightest thing about Sanboxie. Just watch Bo Elam descend on that thread and immediately call you a basher. Say anything negative about Webroot. And Webroot fanboys will immediately claim you are bashing the product. It happens every single time. Here and other places.

At the end of the day, I'm not disagreeing with the test results or the facts. My whole point is simply to say not is everything is as black and white as you make it out to be. Malware and security in general isn't easy, nor is it simple, it's very complex and is always evolving.

Again, you acuse others of name calling, but calling people fanboys and emotionally attached is the same thing. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and everyone should be respected. Threads are closed and people are banned because people don't get along and don't respect each others opinions. It's not just one side that's the cause of it.

Everyone has different experiences and levels of knowledge. You don't always have to constantly try to prove your point and always be right. It's obvious you have alot of skill and knowledge, but it doesn't mean it's ok to talk down to people and call others fanboys and emotionally attached because they don't agree with you.

As I've said before, no one is ignoring the facts or the test results. It's just one data point, but there's much more to it than one test. People are free to choose, use and recommend any product they see fit. Everyone's needs are different and they don't need to be told indirectly that they are stupid. I do apologize for my part in any of this, but at the end of the day it's about respect for one another's opinions and not about one side being right and one side being wrong.

Like @Andy Ful said, alot of people including myself agree with you when it comes to security and windows in general, so we're not your enemy. We just may have different ways of dealing with secuirty and what works for each of us.

 

[Andy Ful]

Raiden

I do not think that Pixy Stix had in mind to offend you or show disrespect. It looks rather that she suspected this from your side (and some other members) and tried to defend. I did not see in your posts anything that could indicate disrespect or require defense, so most discussion between you both, is simply misunderstanding. I know that it will not be easy, but let's forget about it, and go back to the topic. You know that I like many of your posts. Both of you, have interesting thoughts which are unnecessarily bloated by defense on the opponent defense.
:emoji_innocent::emoji_pray:

 

[Threadripper]

Weren't some of them, like ESET and Kaspersky, able to detect WannaCry/EternalBlue at its early stage though?

ESET's OP firewall and business grade intrusion detection stopped it dead. This is why I disagree with anybody who says firewalls/IPS aren't important these days.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

Raiden

I do not think that Pixy Stix had in mind to offend you or show disrespect. It looks rather that she suspected this from your side (and some other members) and tried to defend. I did not see in your posts anything that could indicate disrespect or require defense, so most discussion between you both, is simply misunderstanding. I know that it will not be easy, but let's forget about it, and go back to the topic. You know that I like many of your posts. Both of you, have interesting thoughts which are unnecessarily bloated by defense on the opponent defense.
:emoji_innocent::emoji_pray:

Thank you and you are absolutely correct! I didn't mean to offend anyone, nor do I think @Pixy Stix ment it either. Sometimes it is hard for each side to see what the other is trying to say. To be honest I do have Italian blood in me, so I can be stubborn at times. Again, I do apologize for my take in the matter, at the end of the day we're all here because we love technology and security. As I've said there is more than one way to approach things and we all just need to respect each others opinion. Arguing back and forth isnt helping anyone.

 

[Janl1992l]

The fact of the matter is that all software sucks.

Simply no? thats nonsense.

If someone promotes their software as being superior in every way to every other product, then that developer is dishonest and people would do well to boycott it on the basis of ethics and principle.

In generaly. A devloper can say it. Nothing wrong with it. If a Kaspersky employer says Kaspersky is in every aspect better like for example, Immunet well, than im 100% with the employer because its the simple fact.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

My intent is not to offend anyone. Yet I admit I am an in your face kinda gal. I'm definitely not the girly-girl type. I'm highly educated, strong willed.

There is no right or wrong. There is no winning.

The fact of the matter is that all software sucks. If someone promotes their software as being superior in every way to every other product, then that developer is dishonest and people would do well to boycott it on the basis of ethics and principle. No publisher can substantiate that their users have not had problems, including security issues, with their product.

Here, here.

Like I've said we're on the same side, but may have some differing opinions on certain things and that's totally cool. I can see your very knowledgeable and look forward to reading your posts. It is really nice to see more females in this male dominated field (coming from a male) and I sincerely mean this.

Sorry we got off on the wrong foot.

Cheers.

 

[AtlBo]

If what you say is reality, then please show us a single example of a perfect software. One without problems.

LOL, please I have this answer. My long and short list of perfect apps (well at least close to perfect):

1. Smart Power (sleep mode control wrapper)
2. Virtual Clone Drive (DVD emulator)

Together about 4 mb. Honorable mention albeit not perfect goes to:

1. WinMerge (folder comparison)
2. Active@ Partition Manager
3. TeraCopy (verify on of course)
4. Everything
5. Firemin (memory chopper)

OK, I just like the app:

1. Paint.net
2. Inkscape
3. FSViewer
4. TreeSizeFree
5. FortiClient (not fair but had to pick one security app) or substitute Revo portable if you like

Dare we say that some devs take a different view of perfection than others...ahem :emoji_fearful: AHEM (now that I think about this topic)

Just glad banking protection has made it to the forefront. Security companies are winning the slow war it seems to me, although the fast one has sure left its share of scars...

 

[Andy Ful]

The AVLAB tests show, that any AV on settings usable for most users (default settings) is not a panacea. The user should be educated about safe behaviors in relation to computing and using the resources from the Internet, friends, etc.. This is usually neglected because the chances to get a computer malware is comparable to get a flu infection.

 

[vaccineboy]

Very cool. Good job Comodo.

 

[Andy Ful]

In generaly. A devloper can say it. Nothing wrong with it. If a Kaspersky employer says Kaspersky is in every aspect better like for example, Immunet well, than im 100% with the employer because its the simple fact.

It is not the same as claiming that Kaspersky is better than all other AVs.
Kaspersky developer has never said such a thing, guess why?
Kaspersky employer is not a developer, so he can say so.
Usually, If the developer says such things, it is wise to be very suspicious about his product.

...
The fact of the matter is that all software sucks.
...

Yes, If the user has veeery high standards, or is a pesimist.
It is impossible to prove such a statement anyway.
Did you try to say that most software are not perfect?:emoji_innocenty)

 

[Andy Ful]

I meant all software sucks from the perspective of most users. Software cause problems. Users do not care. A problem is a problem. It does not matter that they do not understand the nature of software development or that their expectations are wrong. To them those details are irrelevant. When something annoys them sufficiently, they stop buying or using it.

You guys on these security soft forums need to stop the tunnel vision. The rest of the world is not a security forum full of geeks. For most people, software sucks.

I have in mind many answers, but all of them would be off topic. Can I PM my answer to you?

 

[Exterminator]

Please be civil to each other and stay on topic or a this will be closed.Thanks

 

[Freki123]

Can you run Spyshelter FW with other AV's? Maybe with Norton ???

Haven't tried Spyshelter in some time but in the older versions there was a button to disable the firewall. (Backup pc before any experiment)
On second thought what would be the difference in the test when used the spyshelter version without the firewall? (Can't answer that sorry)

I just wanted to write why not just use a optical chip tan generator, when wikipedia told me only two countries use it

A ChipTAN generator is not tied to a particular account; instead, the user must insert their bank card during use. The TAN generated is specific to the bank card as well as to the current transaction details. There are two variants: In the older variant, the transaction details (at least amount and account number) must be entered manually. In the modern variant, the user enters the transaction online, then the TAN generator reads the transaction details via a flickering barcode on the computer screen (using photodetectors). It then shows the transaction details on its own screen to the user for confirmation before generating the TAN.
As it is independent hardware, coupled only by a simple communication channel, the TAN generator is not susceptible to attack from the user's computer. Even if the computer is subverted by a Trojan, or if a man-in-the-middle attack occurs, the TAN generated is only valid for the transaction confirmed by the user on the screen of the TAN generator, therefore modifying a transaction retroactively would cause the TAN to be invalid.

 

[RodM1956]

Haven't tried Spyshelter in some time but in the older versions there was a button to disable the firewall. (Backup pc before any experiment)
On second thought what would be the difference in the test when used the spyshelter version without the firewall? (Can't answer that sorry)

I just wanted to write why not just use a optical chip tan generator, when wikipedia told me only two countries use it

A ChipTAN generator is not tied to a particular account; instead, the user must insert their bank card during use. The TAN generated is specific to the bank card as well as to the current transaction details. There are two variants: In the older variant, the transaction details (at least amount and account number) must be entered manually. In the modern variant, the user enters the transaction online, then the TAN generator reads the transaction details via a flickering barcode on the computer screen (using photodetectors). It then shows the transaction details on its own screen to the user for confirmation before generating the TAN.
As it is independent hardware, coupled only by a simple communication channel, the TAN generator is not susceptible to attack from the user's computer. Even if the computer is subverted by a Trojan, or if a man-in-the-middle attack occurs, the TAN generated is only valid for the transaction confirmed by the user on the screen of the TAN generator, therefore modifying a transaction retroactively would cause the TAN to be invalid.

This.... All of this, is way above my pay grade.