App Review Bitdefender IS vs Malwarebytes with latest samples.

[nickstar1]

Content source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7G4DzDAWX0

 

[Bot]

Indeed, Malwarebytes has a strong reputation for web blocking. The combination with Browser Guard further enhances its capabilities. Thanks for sharing the video!

 

[nickstar1]

Was great to see how powerful Malwarebytes web protection is. Now standing up to the big guns!

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Ugh, 31 minutes of torture, anyone care to summarize?

 

[Trident]

Was great to see how powerful Malwarebytes web protection is. Now standing up to the big guns!

I am not very convinced that this tester is doing a good job but Malwarebytes always had strong web protection.

 

[nickstar1]

gh, 31 minutes of torture, anyone care to summarize?

Malwarebytes came into a tie with Bitdefender did very well in the test. beating Bitdefenders web protection by a few.

 

[Shadowra]

I didn't want to react, but my tester's side woke up.

I find it mind-boggling and completely pointless to compare Bitdefender and Malwarebytes. Here's why:

- Bitdefender has a firewall, Malwarebytes doesn't
- Bitdefender offers AVC, its behavioral blocker. Malwarebytes does not
- Bitdefender can remedy Ransomware if it has already encrypted... Malwarebytes doesn't, it simply blocks...

Should I continue?

I'd also like to remind ALL TESTERS that running a Batch/Python or other script to bombard the interceptor in gang-band mode is also useless.
Malware detected by the anti-malware engine can slip through and infect the machine, because the interceptor will be busy processing threats in large numbers (just do a test with the Expiro virus... Leo got the trick in one of his tests with Kaspersky).

 

[Trident]

Yes, Bitdefender combines very strong pre-execution and post-execution detections plus the effective web protection and malicious actions reversal.
Malwarebytes merely does OK job pre-execution, post-execution detections there don’t exist.

At this point the two are not to be compared.

 

[likeastar20]

Yes, Bitdefender combines very strong pre-execution and post-execution detections plus the effective web protection and malicious actions reversal.
Malwarebytes merely does OK job pre-execution, post-execution detections there don’t exist.

At this point the two are not to be compared.

Tell that to all the normies on Reddit and they will lynch you for saying Malwarebytes is a bad antivirus .Malwarebytes' job is as an on-demand scanner.

 

[Practical Response]

-Comparing two different type products= rediculous.

-running batch scripts instead of giving time for each sample to provide full effect of products ability= rediculous.

-Inability to see actual details through tabs or execution allowing tester to do what ever behind the scenes=rediculous

-Route of infection or lack of displaying true infection routes again not allowing true strength of products to shine through= rediculous

-wasting 31 minutes of my life I will never get back with misinformation= rediculous

-test conclusion= rediculous

 

[cruelsister]

.Malwarebytes' job is as an on-demand scanner.

Not really, as it also leaves a great deal to be desired (like actual System infection detection).

 

[cruelsister]

It's hard to tell since no one tests these products how they are intended to be used against real time routes of infection and real samples from the wild instead of outdated misleading script modifications and hokus pokus acts from the desktop. I don't know what's more corrupt anymore, the bad guys taking advantage of people or a lot of the so called good guys doing the same. I'm sure the tester above is at least gaining his YouTube traffic, so there's that.

MB is a product that is totally blind to a great deal of malware that do not come as .exe files. It does not matter where such malware come from (the web, email, torrent, Desktop) as it will ignore these simply because it is not coded to detect them (and no tricky modification is needed- old or new, in the Wild or in the Zoo, it is a sub-optimal choice for protection).

 

[Practical Response]

MB is a product that is totally blind to a great deal of malware that do not come as .exe files. It does not matter where such malware come from (the web, email, torrent, Desktop) as it will ignore these simply because it is not coded to detect them (and no tricky modification is needed- old or new, in the Wild or in the Zoo, it is a sub-optimal choice for protection).

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't mbam an additional security measure not a full suite as a standalone security application.

Is it's web filter feature relevant? Route of infection has everything to do with product strengths. They all have their strengths and weaknesses of modules.

Setting the record straight here, i don't use mbam, I'm not a fanboy, I'm not even on a windows machine, but I fully understand real world testing scenarios and procedures, and that above, was not it, so there is no way to judge either product from that correctly.

Modifying scripts on a desktop is the same thing, no route of infection, I.e. Was it social engineering, infected webpage ect.

So to state " it sucks as you first did and corrected" is a biased opinion from testing not accurate.

 

[Zartarra]

The past month I tested some AV products and Malwarebytes was a really ... disappointing. Even the webprotection had problems againt phisingsites. Alot of YT testers are using malware- and phishingsites from abuse.ch, phishtank and/or OpenPhish. Most of the AV-products scores excellent againt these sites, but it is sometimes an another story when using malicious sites that are not on these public sites. The past 3 months I collected a list of sites that have been send to enterprises. Some home products are really disappointing.
So as with every YT test, take the results with a grain of salt.

 

[Trident]

Most of the AV-products scores excellent againt these sites, but it is sometimes an another story when using malicious sites that are not on these public sites. The past 3 months I collected a list of sites that have been send to enterprises. Some home products are really disappointing.

You should try Check Point Zero Phishing.

 

[Shadowra]

The past month I tested some AV products and Malwarebytes was a really ... disappointing. Even the webprotection had problems againt phisingsites. Alot of YT testers are using malware- and phishingsites from abuse.ch, phishtank and/or OpenPhish. Most of the AV-products scores excellent againt these sites, but it is sometimes an another story when using malicious sites that are not on these public sites. The past 3 months I collected a list of sites that have been send to enterprises. Some home products are really disappointing.
So as with every YT test, take the results with a grain of salt.

I'm interested in your sites that store unknown phishing in MP

 

[LennyFox]

-wasting 31 minutes of my life I will never get back with misinformation= rediculous

Indeed, but why did you watch the full 31 minutes?

 

[Trident]

Indeed, but why did you watch the full 31 minutes?

I didn’t watch at all
As soon as I saw the tester channel…

 

[Practical Response]

Indeed, but why did you watch the full 31 minutes?

Simply because watching partly and claiming I understand what happened in the video is not possible. It's like not being somewhere physically and claiming you know what happens by hearsay aka word of mouth.

 

[Shadowra]

I didn’t watch at all
As soon as I saw the tester channel…

Indeed, but why did you watch the full 31 minutes?

Personally, I try to keep it to between 5 and 8 minutes, not because I don't have the time, but to make the video more dynamic.
I could also do a 30min video, but I know everyone will fall asleep... (and I put on some good music ^^ )