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
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Cylance Articles & thoughts
Message
<blockquote data-quote="artek" data-source="post: 800154" data-attributes="member: 22897"><p><strong>Some quotes I cherry picked:</strong></p><p>“It does not cover ALL types of malware and threats, and is much more prone to false positives,” Pedro Bustamante, the VP of Products & Research at Malwarebytes, told us. “[We] implement machine learning as one of the detection layers in its protection stack. It is not the main layer, but it is an important layer.”</p><p></p><p><strong>And the verdict from the SElabs test:</strong></p><p>"For this reason a version of CylancePROTECT from early 2015 was used against threats from 2016, 2017 and 2018."</p><p>"Generally speaking it was effective, without updates, against threats just over two years into the future."</p><p></p><p>I guess I might get a little vitriolic here but it's sort of twinged my lesser nature that a company that's gotten a 27% protection accuracy rating on the SE Labs endpoint test is going to start throwing out accusations that another company isn't going to cover ALL types of malware and threats. I guess if you have it listed as a feature somewhere in the settings that a product detects scripts, exploits, word documents, loaded pdf files, it doesn't actually matter that you demonstrate that your product can do so effectively. It just matters that it's there, listed somewhere in the feature set so that any tom, dick, and harry can go to your website and proclaim that you cover those areas better than another product. 27 percent is so abysmal that I'd be willing to bet money that you could pull someone at random off the street and have them get a higher score than the malwarebytes product, and I think they should be held up as the poster child for bloated and useless anti-malware features.</p><p></p><p>Sort of like how most of the Internet security products circa 2014 all had their own independent firewall modules before that single, and rather brutal AV-Comparatives expose on how dreadful the majority those firewall implementations were versus the windows firewall. Many of their products are now using addons to the windows firewall, but they're still happy to charge you those hefty internet security prices.</p><p></p><p>I guess my point is this: Just because a vendor is slathering and heaping features into an internet-security implementation, doesn't mean that it will protect you any better than a product that's not participating in the feature-set list wars.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="artek, post: 800154, member: 22897"] [B]Some quotes I cherry picked:[/B] “It does not cover ALL types of malware and threats, and is much more prone to false positives,” Pedro Bustamante, the VP of Products & Research at Malwarebytes, told us. “[We] implement machine learning as one of the detection layers in its protection stack. It is not the main layer, but it is an important layer.” [B]And the verdict from the SElabs test:[/B] "For this reason a version of CylancePROTECT from early 2015 was used against threats from 2016, 2017 and 2018." "Generally speaking it was effective, without updates, against threats just over two years into the future." I guess I might get a little vitriolic here but it's sort of twinged my lesser nature that a company that's gotten a 27% protection accuracy rating on the SE Labs endpoint test is going to start throwing out accusations that another company isn't going to cover ALL types of malware and threats. I guess if you have it listed as a feature somewhere in the settings that a product detects scripts, exploits, word documents, loaded pdf files, it doesn't actually matter that you demonstrate that your product can do so effectively. It just matters that it's there, listed somewhere in the feature set so that any tom, dick, and harry can go to your website and proclaim that you cover those areas better than another product. 27 percent is so abysmal that I'd be willing to bet money that you could pull someone at random off the street and have them get a higher score than the malwarebytes product, and I think they should be held up as the poster child for bloated and useless anti-malware features. Sort of like how most of the Internet security products circa 2014 all had their own independent firewall modules before that single, and rather brutal AV-Comparatives expose on how dreadful the majority those firewall implementations were versus the windows firewall. Many of their products are now using addons to the windows firewall, but they're still happy to charge you those hefty internet security prices. I guess my point is this: Just because a vendor is slathering and heaping features into an internet-security implementation, doesn't mean that it will protect you any better than a product that's not participating in the feature-set list wars. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top