The length is really not relevant unless it's a waste of that time. Actually applying time individually running each sample properly aka route of infection/allowing the product time for its methods, could produce a long video, but it would be done correctly and therefore not a waste of time.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^^ )
Bitdefender IS vs Malwarebytes with latest samples.
- Thread starter nickstar1
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Mar 2, 2023
- 1,154
And I appreciate it. It's the same with @cruelsister videos. Succinct and to the point, with a summary.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
While the effort and entertainment value are certainly appreciated by the members keep in mind there is a reason there is a disclaimer at the top of all these app reviews.
What is also important is to add a conclusion at the end. Many VT don't (forcing people to watch to whole boring video). Cruel sister always adds a script in the beginning (what was tested). Your video's sort of always follow the same procedure, so after having watched many of your video's I know by now.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
May I be so cheeky to suggest a change? You video's are of a better quality than all other YT I have seen, but you are still following the same procedure those Youtube Testers do. To set yourself apart from them, you should consider a change of testing procedure. May I suggest a small adoption and a major addition?
The procedure most Youtube testers follow is
- a manual 1-by-1 URL block test
- a scan on a folder with malware (a 'malware ZOO')
- a scripted gangbang on the remainder of that folder (not removed by the scan)
- run some second opinion scanners to check what is left/missed
- release the video
Small adoption: What I would like to know is how the missed downloaded samples would be handled by the tested product
- a manual 1-by-1 URL block test
- add the downloaded samples of the missed URL blocks to the folder of your malware collection
- a scan on a folder with malware
- a scripted gangbang on the remainder of that folder (missed by URL block and scan)
- run some second opinion scanners to check what is left/missed
- add a Cruel Sister recap with found traces and infections (of the above scans) plus active processes with a VT-score (using process explorer) of +1 (possible FP) and +5 (malware)
- release the video (luckily you fast forward and edit your video's
)Major addition: I know one professional testing agency also checks what samples are recognized a day later
- wait a day and bring virtual box back to the 'after the URL test' state
- a text intro (like Cruel Sister always does) summarizing the results of previous test
- a scripted gangbang on the remainder of that folder (missed by URL block and scan)
- run some second opinion scanners to check what is left/missed
- a text conclusion/summary (like Cruel Sister always does) on the differences in results between 0-day and 1-day
- release the follow up video
This way you could re-use some of your hard work and double your content production (and hopefuly traffic also).
Last edited by a moderator:
@Shadowra to stand out from the rest I have some real suggestions for you instead of nonsense.
Real in the wild samples, no POCs no modified scripts. Samples that users actually stand a chance if coming into contact with.
You already know the script for running samples at the light of speed is idiocy.
Attempt "keeping safe" to replicate route of infection. Downloading samples from the direct source you obtain them would simulate clicking an attachment in an email for example. It would give the web filters a chance to do their job.
Demonstrate habits, like before clicking each sample to execute, upload it to VT to see if it is detectable.
When executing samples do each one at a time giving the product proper time to evaluate and function. For shorter vids edit video in parts to show execution and real world analysis by product while shorting the vid during action.
Using tools as we discussed before to show detail of interaction between product and file as you seen is beneficial for everyone watching.
You want to stand out from the rest, then don't do this for entertainment, or for site traffic, do it to be thorough and realistic as possible.
Real in the wild samples, no POCs no modified scripts. Samples that users actually stand a chance if coming into contact with.
You already know the script for running samples at the light of speed is idiocy.
Attempt "keeping safe" to replicate route of infection. Downloading samples from the direct source you obtain them would simulate clicking an attachment in an email for example. It would give the web filters a chance to do their job.
Demonstrate habits, like before clicking each sample to execute, upload it to VT to see if it is detectable.
When executing samples do each one at a time giving the product proper time to evaluate and function. For shorter vids edit video in parts to show execution and real world analysis by product while shorting the vid during action.
Using tools as we discussed before to show detail of interaction between product and file as you seen is beneficial for everyone watching.
You want to stand out from the rest, then don't do this for entertainment, or for site traffic, do it to be thorough and realistic as possible.
No max90 you are doing this but thanks for pointing it out.
Similar threads
