Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 847446" data-attributes="member: 32260">Why should he complain if Avast scored 100%. Simply, CyberCapture was not needed.Here is the fragment from Avast FAQ:&quot;What conditions lead to a file being locked and uploaded by CyberCapture?Currently, CyberCapture triggers when you run or download suspicious files from the Internet that CyberCapture has not previously encountered. We plan to expand this condition in the future to cover more sources.&quot;[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://support.avast.com/en-en/article/150/[/URL]I tested this feature recently and confirmed that it works only if the file has MOTW with the information about the Internet zone, similarly to WD &quot;Block at First Sight&quot;. I think that SmartScreen integrated with Explorer can be disabled in the test (most AV Labs do it). But, disabling SmartScreen in the web browser (IE, Edge, Edge Chromium)&nbsp; or using another web browser without WDBP, would be controversial to me in the real-world test. In my opinion, it is natural to use the web browser extension if such an extension was intentionally prepared by the vendor for users who do not like IE or Edge. Microsoft would like much to force installing WDBP in Chrome-based web browsers, if this would not be forbidden by the Anti-Monopoly Law. The second problem can be the &quot;Block at First Sight&quot; feature which works only when the files are downloaded from the Internet, or originate from the Internet zone (files with MOTW). Normally such files are checked via the cloud backend (heuristics, machine learning, and automated analysis). If the file is recognized as malicious, then it is automatically quarantined. This is the strongest detection feature of WD and it obviously does not work with CheckLab&#039;s methodology, because the malicious files could be executed in the test.Finally, the most appropriate would be contacting with Microsoft to see what is their opinion. Maybe they will accept the methodology as it is (like in the case of Avast).<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 847446, member: 32260"] Why should he complain if Avast scored 100%. Simply, CyberCapture was not needed. Here is the fragment from Avast FAQ: "[SIZE=5][B]What conditions lead to a file being locked and uploaded by CyberCapture?[/B][/SIZE] Currently, CyberCapture triggers when you run or download suspicious files from the Internet that CyberCapture has not previously encountered. We plan to expand this condition in the future to cover more sources." [URL unfurl="true"]https://support.avast.com/en-en/article/150/[/URL] I tested this feature recently and confirmed that it works only if the file has MOTW with the information about the Internet zone, similarly to WD "Block at First Sight". I think that SmartScreen integrated with Explorer can be disabled in the test (most AV Labs do it). But, disabling SmartScreen in the web browser (IE, Edge, Edge Chromium) or using another web browser without WDBP, would be controversial to me in the real-world test. In my opinion, it is natural to use the web browser extension if such an extension was intentionally prepared by the vendor for users who do not like IE or Edge. Microsoft would like much to force installing WDBP in Chrome-based web browsers, if this would not be forbidden by the Anti-Monopoly Law. The second problem can be the "Block at First Sight" feature which works only when the files are downloaded from the Internet, or originate from the Internet zone (files with MOTW). Normally such files are checked via the cloud backend (heuristics, machine learning, and automated analysis). If the file is recognized as malicious, then it is automatically quarantined. This is the strongest detection feature of WD and it obviously does not work with CheckLab's methodology, because the malicious files could be executed in the test. [B]Finally, the most appropriate would be contacting with Microsoft to see what is their opinion. [/B]Maybe they will accept the methodology as it is (like in the case of Avast).(y) [/QUOTE]

Verification