App Review ChineseRarypt ransomware VS Kaspersky and Bitdefender

[stefanos]

Content source

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

Bitdefender Internet Security 24.0.3.15 (latest version)
ChineseRarypt does not encrypt files as typical ransomware does, instead, it places them in password-protected files, which users cannot access unless they pay the ransom fee demanded by attackers, the Bitdefender modules ( Advanced Threat Defense / Ransomware Remediation / Safe Files), failed to protect the files.



Kaspersky Internet Security 20.0.14.1085 (latest version)
ChineseRarypt does not encrypt the files as typical ransomware does, instead, it places them in password-protected files, which users cannot access unless they pay the ransom fee demanded by the attackers, Kaspersky failed to block the New ransomware



Kaspersky Free Antivirus 20.0.14.1085 (latest version)
ChineseRarypt does not encrypt the files as the typical ransomware does, instead, it places them in password-protected files, which users cannot access unless they pay the ransom fee demanded by the attackers, Kaspersky Free failed to block The new ransomware.

 

[Andrew3000]

Is it the same sample that had been analyzed in the malware hub? Because Kaspersky blocked it if I remember correctly.
Why didn’t wait longer, disinfect and restarted the PC, which would most likely have rolled back the files?

 

[harlan4096]

Probably a different variant... anyway, with a proper tweaked settings probably that malware will be blocked without issues, or with TAM enabled...

 

[stefanos]

Probably a different variant... anyway, with a proper tweaked settings probably that malware will be blocked without issues, or with TAM enabled...

Agree

 

[bribon77]

ChineseRarypt good specimen, I would like to try it ... Thank you for sharing.

 

[stefanos]

ChineseRarypt good specimen, I would like to try it ... Thank you for sharing.

I am to my country (Greece) for vacation. When i will come back to Belgium i want to test it with 360 TS

 

[Wraith]

This video once again proves that in case of a ransomware attack, only a proper offline backup can protect the user. Even the best behaviour blocker can be bypassed using one trickery or the other. But does this bypass make Kaspersky a bad choice? Absolutely not. It's still one of the best around.

 

[bribon77]

These tests are valid to some extent.
Why? because in real world Kaspersky Free with its web filter maybe I would have detected it before it reaches the desktop. Despite all the best it is to have a backup ready.

 

[davisd]

And once again, possible malware just out of the blue appears on the system. Users should not make a decision between which AV software to buy/use based on these younoob tests, they are innacurate source of how different security products works.

 

[Zorro]

The test was conducted on the beta version of the antivirus, which is already 4 months old, and which is no longer relevant for a long time (this was noted by users of the antivirus from Russia). Why the tester took not the current version of the antivirus, but the old beta version, is a big question.

 

[N31R]

The test was conducted on the beta version of the antivirus, which is already 4 months old, and which is no longer relevant for a long time (this was noted by users of the antivirus from Russia). Why the tester took not the current version of the antivirus, but the old beta version, is a big question.

It's the latest version available from the main website.

 

[Zorro]

It's the latest version available from the main website.

Can not be. In the test, a version of Kaspersky Internet Security Technical Prewiew 20.0 was installed, which has long been outdated. This is evident from the text on the command line. The current version of the antivirus at the time of testing was Kaspersky Internet Security 20.0.14.1085 (b). This version was released on July 18, and the test was posted on the channel on July 19.

 

[low L!fe]

Test McAfee or Bitdefender on Windows 10 last version

 

[alakazam]

the Bitdefender modules ( Advanced Threat Defense / Ransomware Remediation / Safe Files), failed to protect the files.

My friend, can you test this on K7 Computing?

 

[L0ckJaw]

i dont think @stefanos made the video's he copied them from Youtube.

 

[N31R]

Can not be. In the test, a version of Kaspersky Internet Security Technical Prewiew 20.0 was installed, which has long been outdated. This is evident from the text on the command line. The current version of the antivirus at the time of testing was Kaspersky Internet Security 20.0.14.1085 (b). This version was released on July 18, and the test was posted on the channel on July 19.

I noted the version number in the video description, although the tester never showed the version in the video. It's still possible it was a beta channel of the 20.0.14.1085 version, hence the different folder names as you've noticed. The beta version of 20.0.14.1085 was released a while back and is effectively the same as the released version sans the different licensing.

What's more interesting is if the result would be any different if the tester allowed the Advanced disinfection to take place, instead of trying to disinfect without reboot.

 

[motox781]

And why do people test with Windows 7 instead of 10??

It just seems logical to test with 'everything' up to date.

 

[blackice]

And why do people test with Windows 7 instead of 10??

I always wonder this as well, as I haven’t used windows 7 in a few years at home or work.

 

[Wraith]

Can someone test this sample against Cylance?

 

[Dave Russo]

Wish Kaspersky would have been tested with Trusted Application Mode enabled,also agree why no restart?