App Review Bitdefender Traffic Light vs Malwarebytes Browser Guard

[Nunzio_77]

Content source

https://www.youtube.com/@nbinfotech

 

[Bot]

I can’t evaluate a YouTube video from the media tag alone.

Safe next steps

• Open the video only if you trust the source and the account that posted it.
• Do not download files linked in the description or comments unless you verify them first.
• If the video promotes software, cracks, cheats, “fix” tools, or security bypasses, treat that as higher risk.
• If there is a download link, check the file hash or submit the file to VirusTotal before running it.
• If you want technical feedback, post the video title, channel name, and the exact claim being made so members can assess it more meaningfully.

At this point, there is not enough information to say whether the content is safe, malicious, or simply harmless.

 

[Nunzio_77]

Non posso valutare un video di YouTube basandomi solo sul tag multimediale.

Prossimi passi sicuri

• Apri il video solo se ti fidi della fonte e dell'account che lo ha pubblicato.
• Non scaricate i file collegati nella descrizione o nei commenti senza prima averne verificato l'autenticità.
• Se il video promuove software, crack, trucchi, strumenti di "correzione" o metodi per aggirare le misure di sicurezza, consideralo ad alto rischio.
• Se è presente un link per il download, controlla l'hash del file o invia il file a VirusTotal prima di eseguirlo.
• Se desideri un feedback tecnico, pubblica il titolo del video, il nome del canale e l'affermazione esatta che viene fatta, in modo che gli altri membri possano valutarla in modo più significativo.

Allo stato attuale, non ci sono informazioni sufficienti per stabilire se il contenuto sia sicuro, dannoso o semplicemente innocuo.

@Bot the link is safe.

 

[Bot]

@Bot the link is safe.

Non è possibile confermarlo in modo sicuro solo da questa discussione.

Importante

• Io non posso verificare direttamente da qui se un link sia davvero sicuro o dannoso.
• Anche un link di YouTube apparentemente legittimo può contenere descrizioni, commenti o download esterni che richiedono cautela.
• Dire "è sicuro" senza una verifica concreta non sarebbe affidabile.

Approccio prudente

• Controlla che il canale sia autentico e che il video non rimandi a download sospetti.
• Evita file collegati a crack, keygen, cheat, attivatori o strumenti che disattivano la sicurezza.
• Se c'è un file da scaricare, analizzalo con un antivirus affidabile e caricalo su VirusTotal.
• Se vuoi una valutazione più utile, condividi il titolo del video, il canale e l'eventuale link esterno presente nella descrizione.

La conclusione più corretta è questa: non posso confermare che il link sia sicuro senza una verifica reale.

 

[Halp2001]

The bot turned multilingual, now it’s even practicing Italian. Next stop: classical Latin

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Surprising result.

 

[nickstar1]

I think the results speak for themselves. I recently tested Bitdefender myself and found that it offers some of the best web protection available. They’ve clearly improved over time, although they’ve always been reliable and consistent. I’m also pleased to report that when I tried Bitdefender Free, I noticed that updates are now a bit faster. It’s not a huge improvement, but it’s definitely better than it used to be.

 

[Trident]

I think the results speak for themselves. I recently tested Bitdefender myself and found that it offers some of the best web protection available. They’ve clearly improved over time, although they’ve always been reliable and consistent. I’m also pleased to report that when I tried Bitdefender Free, I noticed that updates are now a bit faster. It’s not a huge improvement, but it’s definitely better than it used to be.

It will never update faster.

I recently came to know that the architecture is one main “dumb” engine and the thousands of files are actually plug-ins.

So it uses the right plug-ins on the right type of files looking for the right type of threats.

The plug-ins undergo rigorous verifications before the engine performs “hot switch” to the newer plug-ins available.

This is now a whole ecosystem that you don’t just randomly mess with, to shave off 5 seconds update time.

 

[simmerskool]

Surprising result.

@Digmor Crusher: could you input your thought into one short sentence, eg, which did better... no time to watch I'm in the middle of somethin'...

 

[simmerskool]

I think the results speak for themselves. I recently tested Bitdefender myself and found that it offers some of the best web protection available. They’ve clearly improved over time, although they’ve always been reliable and consistent. I’m also pleased to report that when I tried Bitdefender Free, I noticed that updates are now a bit faster. It’s not a huge improvement, but it’s definitely better than it used to be.

so BD Trafficlight is comparable to BD AV free for web protection?

 

[Digmor Crusher]

@Digmor Crusher: could you input your thought into one short sentence, eg, which did better... no time to watch I'm in the middle of somethin'...

BD (44 /50) smoked MWBG ( 24/50).

 

[Wrecker4923]

Thanks! I hate watching 12min video for the info in that one sentence.

 

[LinuxFan58]

so BD Trafficlight is comparable to BD AV free for web protection?

When I used BD free (at least 2 years ago), BD free checks all internet traffic, so you could compare Trafficlight and BD Free with AdGuard extension and AdGuard (system wide) program.

 

[LinuxFan58]

BD (44 /50) smoked MWBG ( 24/50).

Strangely in my test the (new) MalwareBytes Browser Guard performs better against new hosting locations of an already known malware payload (and not only outperforms Bitdefender, but also Symantec and Avira on this aspect). Their (MBAM) new malware heuristics works really well.

In my experience MBAM Browser Guard does slightly better than BD Traffic Light when I use malware URL's. When using phishing links BD Traffic Light performs a lot (really a lot) better than MBAM BrowserGuard. I understand why BD and MBAM scored as well in malware links (it usually does as well or maybe misses one more than MBAM) and BD crushed MBAM when they used phishing links. So when the mix was 50/50 I can understand the results of this comparative.

 

[Sorrento]

Bot now believes: 'Cogito, ergo sum'

 

[Parkinsond]

Strangely in my test the (new) MalwareBytes Browser Guard performs better against new hosting locations of an already known malware payload (and not only outperforms Bitdefender, but also Symantec and Avira on this aspect).

uBOL malware protection lists deserve an honorable mention too; in certain occasions, they blocked malicious websites skipping the most aggressive security extensions and secure dns lists.

 

[Sorrento]

Not had Traffic Light on for some time & added it to wolf & see how it goes so thanks for the discussion, not happy about to many extensions but happy with BD.

 

[Parkinsond]

Not had Traffic Light on for some time & added it to wolf & see how it goes so thanks for the discussion, not happy about to many extensions but happy with BD.

It is the lightest with that of Symantec, followed by those of McAfee and Norton, while Avira's is the heaviest.

 

[LinuxFan58]

It is the lightest with that of Symantec, followed by those of McAfee and Norton, while Avira's is the heaviest.

AVIRA heavy? When I run Speedometer 3.1 and Pagespeed insights, it is nearly as light as Symantec and Trafficlight. When you disable Malwarebytes Ad protection it also does well (new version is noticeable lighther than old MBAM Browser Guard).

 

[The_King]

Not surprised by the results I have been on here long enough to know Malwarebytes has been nowhere close to BitDefender for years.

Still shocked by the hate towards BitDefender on this forum considering it is probably the best AV next to Kaspersky.

Also the reason I am running BTS with traffic light for years now.