Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 1036664" data-attributes="member: 7463">Speaking of those deserving much respect, your videos and production skills are superb (even without text boxes). However for the Comodo video that was posted, I think the issues with the BSOD&#039;s and infections may have been the result of how that malware was introduced to the VM. As you kindly supplied to me that malware used for verification I actually ran this test twice although it took a few hours to do so without any evidence of systemic infection. This being the case I gave thought on why we have this discrepancy in results. In my testing the VM was set up with sufficient resources although not overkill by any means. Also I broke the 302 (I think that was the amount) into packets of 10-15 (although even running 10 consecutive malware files is not something that any user will even see) and allowed them to run for 5 minutes. After that time the sandbox was reset and I moved to the next packet.&nbsp; Even though the CF VirusScope module detected and deleted some before they could run contained, there was still left ~160 (if memory serves) and I could easily see how gang-banging a bunch could cause system instability. Actually I did attempt to do just that, first by bleeding resources out of the VM and banging through 50 at a time (didn&#039;t ever get to the ransomware), and the system did indeed crash (actually froze).Anyway, with no criticism of your videos intended (Broń Boże), this may be the difference in the results between us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 1036664, member: 7463"] Speaking of those deserving much respect, your videos and production skills are superb (even without text boxes). However for the Comodo video that was posted, I think the issues with the BSOD's and infections may have been the result of how that malware was introduced to the VM. As you kindly supplied to me that malware used for verification I actually ran this test twice although it took a few hours to do so without any evidence of systemic infection. This being the case I gave thought on why we have this discrepancy in results. In my testing the VM was set up with sufficient resources although not overkill by any means. Also I broke the 302 (I think that was the amount) into packets of 10-15 (although even running 10 consecutive malware files is not something that any user will even see) and allowed them to run for 5 minutes. After that time the sandbox was reset and I moved to the next packet. Even though the CF VirusScope module detected and deleted some before they could run contained, there was still left ~160 (if memory serves) and I could easily see how gang-banging a bunch could cause system instability. Actually I did attempt to do just that, first by bleeding resources out of the VM and banging through 50 at a time (didn't ever get to the ransomware), and the system did indeed crash (actually froze). Anyway, with no criticism of your videos intended (Broń Boże), this may be the difference in the results between us. [/QUOTE]

Verification