Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Clyance (Home) vs Sophos (Home) vs Voodoshield
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NullByte" data-source="post: 521178"><p>On a first look, this product looks amazing. If you start testing it and also watch the video that they made you will notice that is useless or in the best case, a cheap version of SecureAPlus.</p><p></p><p>First let's talk about the video. It doesn't matter what AV you will test, VoodooShield will always win because the test is made that way. The person who did this test is using deception and unethical behavior to show how bad other products are (don't get me wrong they are bad, but not as bad as they showed in the video), they use this tool to count the "EfficacyTest" and the results are inaccurate because if you look at the video from start to finish you can see that a PUP or other type of maware that shows a pop-up message will count as fail and this is not true and also, products like Avast and other product that requires time to analyze the sample will fail by default.</p><p></p><p>The second issue is with the product itself, they have two ways of detecting malware. The first one is VirusTotal and it's good but the amount of false positives is beyond any limit (I will talk about this in detail) and the second way of detecting malware is the AI, form what I've seen and tested the AI is not an AI and it's not learning anything, it's just a simple way of checking the file (if the file is signed, location, if it requires admin rights and so on), an IA engine QVM by Qihoo. Another issue with the AI engine is the "score", when you execute a malware you know it's a malware and the score is not that relevant, but if you execute some clean files and the score says it's 50% clean and 50% malware what you will do? how do you judge when you allow and when you block ?</p><p></p><p>In the end, the story is the same as with other products and that is a shame. If you take this software and you make a test (it's questionable how you decide that a file is a malware and not) and after the test you do a false positive test and add to the final result you will notice that this product blocks everything and it doesn't learn that a file is good or bad. PS: if you make a file in C that will say "hello world" this product will flag it as malware and if you use a portable application it will say the same even if the file is safe.</p><p></p><p>If you don't have an active internet connection this product is useless. I think that SecureAPlus is way better and if you wanna use an Anti-Exe program you have AppGuard or NVT ERP.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NullByte, post: 521178"] On a first look, this product looks amazing. If you start testing it and also watch the video that they made you will notice that is useless or in the best case, a cheap version of SecureAPlus. First let's talk about the video. It doesn't matter what AV you will test, VoodooShield will always win because the test is made that way. The person who did this test is using deception and unethical behavior to show how bad other products are (don't get me wrong they are bad, but not as bad as they showed in the video), they use this tool to count the "EfficacyTest" and the results are inaccurate because if you look at the video from start to finish you can see that a PUP or other type of maware that shows a pop-up message will count as fail and this is not true and also, products like Avast and other product that requires time to analyze the sample will fail by default. The second issue is with the product itself, they have two ways of detecting malware. The first one is VirusTotal and it's good but the amount of false positives is beyond any limit (I will talk about this in detail) and the second way of detecting malware is the AI, form what I've seen and tested the AI is not an AI and it's not learning anything, it's just a simple way of checking the file (if the file is signed, location, if it requires admin rights and so on), an IA engine QVM by Qihoo. Another issue with the AI engine is the "score", when you execute a malware you know it's a malware and the score is not that relevant, but if you execute some clean files and the score says it's 50% clean and 50% malware what you will do? how do you judge when you allow and when you block ? In the end, the story is the same as with other products and that is a shame. If you take this software and you make a test (it's questionable how you decide that a file is a malware and not) and after the test you do a false positive test and add to the final result you will notice that this product blocks everything and it doesn't learn that a file is good or bad. PS: if you make a file in C that will say "hello world" this product will flag it as malware and if you use a portable application it will say the same even if the file is safe. If you don't have an active internet connection this product is useless. I think that SecureAPlus is way better and if you wanna use an Anti-Exe program you have AppGuard or NVT ERP. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top