Avira is heavy and MBAM browser guard is heavy too; I will believe my eyes rather than the speedometer
Bitdefender Traffic Light vs Malwarebytes Browser Guard
- Thread starter Nunzio_77
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Status
It would be interesting to see a head to head comparison between Bitdefender Trafficlight and McAfee Webadvisor from a protection and performance point of view.
Last edited:
In my experience, I’ve generally tested using URL-Haus, and Bitdefender is well ahead of McAfee and Kaspersky. Even if McAfee WebAdvisor misses a link, it moves the malware to quarantine once the download is complete. Bitdefender blocked all the links I tested. Kaspersky missed a few.
That is bcoz bitdefender has api integration with abuse.ch so does Kaspersky but kaspersky doesn't flag the url just bcoz it is on urlhaus.
I checked MalwareBazaar | Export in the latest additions hash list there are 836 files but below 180 files are not detected despite K having them.
Yes, I’m aware of that. I uploaded this file to VT about three days ago, having downloaded it from the URL I last tested with Kaspersky. Of course, the small test I carried out can’t be compared to real-world tests; all three pieces of software are top-tier.
MalwareBazaar | Checking your browser hash not on bazaar It's a DLL so did you run it will rundll?Yes, I’m aware of that. I uploaded this file to VT about three days ago, having downloaded it from the URL I last tested with Kaspersky. Of course, the small test I carried out can’t be compared to real-world tests; all three pieces of software are top-tier.
For its performance impact and bugs, rather than efficiency.
and it's slow update times
This URL was associated with a ClearFake attack. The downloaded file, disguised with a .google extension, employs DLL injection or process injection techniques. VirusTotal identified it as a DLL file. I only performed an on-demand scan and did not execute the file.
Ok so if the initial powershell is detected then one should be fine.
Wacatac was defender detection. Never saw it with Mcafee before.
Looks like McAfee is evolving… today it discovered Wacatac, tomorrow it might start cooking breakfast!
Not a bug but it is a design flaw.Included in bugs
I would like to know whether, during this test, the Malwarebytes Browser Guard setting to block “TLD domains” was enabled. This setting provides additional protection by increasing detection of potentially unknown or suspicious domains.
Looks like McAfee is evolving… today it discovered Wacatac, tomorrow it might start cooking breakfast!
defender be like :
B is good for thosw who can live with its inconveniences.
But malwarebytes is going back:Looks like McAfee is evolving… today it discovered Wacatac, tomorrow it might start cooking breakfast!
Look what someone in their forum posted saying that Malwarebytes realtime protection was ON.
If I’m not mistaken, @Trident mentioned in a post that McAfee was going to use an AI-generated name; perhaps that’s why it’s been named this way.
- Status
You may also like...
-
Security Advice to keeping my PC safe from Cybersecurity.
- Started by taga
- Replies: 10
-
-
Browser vs. Third-Party Password Manager: Which Is Best For You?- Started by lokamoka820
- Replies: 24
-
Malwarebytes vs Kaspersky: Real Malware Test Will Shock You
- Started by nickstar1
- Replies: 14
-
Beware of Fake Traffic Ticket Portals that Harvest Your PII and Credit Card Data- Started by Parkinsond
- Replies: 1