App Review BITDEFENDER FREE's bad results

[Khushal]

Content source

https://youtu.be/_gL-zua6UPI

 

[Bot]

I can’t reliably evaluate a YouTube video from the embed alone.

Safe next steps

• Share the video title, channel name, and what specific claim or behavior you want checked.
• If the video recommends a tool, command, or download, verify it against the official vendor website before trying it.
• Do not run files, scripts, or registry changes shown in a video unless they come from a trusted official source.
• If the concern is whether a linked file is safe, submit the file or URL to VirusTotal and wait for additional analysis.

Without more context, the safest conclusion is that the embed by itself is not enough to determine whether the content is trustworthy.

 

[Parkinsond]

Go B, Go

 

[oldschool]

Another freak show of a tester on YT. OMG these people are desperate.

 

[Parkinsond]

Another freak show of a tester on YT. OMG these people are desperate.

I dislike B, so I like the show

 

[Parkinsond]

@rifteyy
Running 258 malware samples at once will cause problems with performance and therefore it will negatively alter the test results. Antiviruses aren't built to conquer 250 different threats at the same time

There isn't a proper monitoring - good that we can see running processes but that does not tell us whether any data has been successfully exfiltrated

Tests only the detection engine itself - no URL detection which remains a very important module

If there was an attempt to scan the folder prior, it will eliminate samples that were hit statically. That would eliminate plenty of them and prevent the popups about inaccessible file

There was a decent attempt on checking persistency but the person who recorded the video probably is not that familiar with Autoruns

Results are based on what other second opinion scanners find and that isn't really the best idea because second opinion scanners can often miss malware because they contain only static engine

No link to hashes, no zipped folder of the samples so we have no clue what kind of malware that was

Bonus points only because there were different file formats tested, not just executables but other than that, it is just a classic "entertaining video" type of test which doesn't really follow testing standards and that should be taken seriously.

 

[LinuxFan58]

Okay let's be honest, when you spouse/partner/friend has a bad day, you don't divorce. On top of that nobody in his right mind would film a malware gangbang and if you would, you end up in jail, so . . . my advice: don't look to those video's

 

[Khushal]

Running 258 malware samples at once will cause problems with performance and therefore it will negatively alter the test results. Antiviruses aren't built to conquer 250 different threats at the same time

Atleast those 258 weren't run by malex.py like TPSC and is more in line with tests conducted by @Shadowra.

There isn't a proper monitoring - good that we can see running processes but that does not tell us whether any data has been successfully exfiltrated

Agreed

Tests only the detection engine itself - no URL detection which remains a very important module

yes but that's doesn't render the test bad i would say it is incomplete.

If there was an attempt to scan the folder prior, it will eliminate samples that were hit statically. That would eliminate plenty of them and prevent the popups about inaccessible file

Exactly like @Shadowra does

There was a decent attempt on checking persistency but the person who recorded the video probably is not that familiar with Autoruns

Agreed but it is possible that the tester might have looked deeper off camera.

Results are based on what other second opinion scanners find and that isn't really the best idea because second opinion scanners can often miss malware because they contain only static engine

Agreed but after NPE, KVRT is the best second opinion scanner and if it is missing anything else then we might have to give some credit to the malware as well.

No link to hashes, no zipped folder of the samples so we have no clue what kind of malware that was

Agreed again

Bonus points only because there were different file formats tested, not just executables but other than that, it is just a classic "entertaining video" type of test which doesn't really follow testing standards and that should be taken seriously.

Agreed regarding bonus points but i wouldn't completely discard the test and would say that it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[lokamoka820]

So, which antivirus program can withstand this massive malware attack in the final episode?

 

[Zero Knowledge]

Another freak show of a tester on YT. OMG these people are desperate.

At least they left out the stupid constipated pose

 

[Trident]

The tester is putting effort into it but it still remains a test that prioritises views and engagement, rather than a test that really outputs meaningful results.

Btw the paid editions have some features that are not in the free product.

Also, remediation for BD is a bit slow.