Umar.18

Level 2
A so so performance from F-secure. Deepguard seems to be in-effective. F-secure is struggling for reducing false alarms by lowering the level of protection of deep guard component.
 

Umar.18

Level 2
@Umar.18 If you look at F-secure security performance in the malware hub, you'll see that it does quite a good job for protecting your system. Of course F-secure is not perfect, but still it does a better job than many other products.
!00% agreed. I completely agree with you and I am aware of the fact that there is no silver bullet to rule all cyberthreats. F-Secure is really a good product proven by the strong track record of the company. I was just surprised by the fact that the ransomware was active for a longtime in memory without raising any flag from F-secure Safe.
 

Mr.Pr

Level 6
Malware Tester
yet even Malware Hub is not real-world since in real world you just don't download a ransomware and execute it, they need to access to your system somehow, maybe from external devices or your network or while you are surfing online so here is F-Secure LABS thinks:
We believe in a layered protection approach and we will use our different existing technologies to detect and block malicious threats.
so if the thing is about protecting your cyber life well you probably should just send undetected samples to your vendor and they'll add it to DeepGuard database or any other module that your vendor is using

F-Secure does a pretty good job in adding the undetected samples by their DeepGuard me myself everytime send an undetected sample by DeepGuard ask them to make sure that it will catch this kinda malware in the future.

yet we realy need to think why the whole real guys working in cybersecurity out there, tell us to not care "that much" to these tests that will publish in youtube, etc..

even Av-Test and Av-Comparatives based on words from one of the guys who are somehow effective on our computer security field Fabian Wosar, have not that much effect on their market so people are getting it thanks god, it is not real-world. in real-world no state-sponsored malware gonna attack us just like that, no ransomware gonna popup in our desktop just like that, they will happens to the businesses and when it happens for sure we can trust the companies that got a powerful 24/7 monitoring services for their business customers like Symantec Kaspersky F-Secure so they probably get it sooner and we're all safe by that time. so the other option is better to look when you are gonna get your AV is to look what services they provide to their business customers and how good they are at it. even if you are just a home user.

these words was not only for the F-Secure we can consider it for any av out there
 

Robbie

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Holy, Juan Diaz's tests are so brutal, so few survive..

This is why I always say 1st generation antivirus are not meant to be used alone. At least some complement/configuration/hardener say OSArmor, Hard_Configurator. 80% of infections can be covered tweaking policies and Windows functions. Reduce the attack surface in order to correctly cover the basics.

After so much time using Kaspersky/ESET, I've switched three days ago to Windows Defender + @Andy Ful's Hard_Configurator and I've had signatures, low impact, and really effective/light default deny. I am using this on my main PC, and still using ESET on my secondary PC.
 

Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Holy, Juan Diaz's tests are so brutal, so few survive..

This is why I always say 1st generation antivirus are not meant to be used alone. At least some complement/configuration/hardener say OSArmor, Hard_Configurator. 80% of infections can be covered tweaking policies and Windows functions. Reduce the attack surface in order to correctly cover the basics.

After so much time using Kaspersky/ESET, I've switched three days ago to Windows Defender + @Andy Ful's Hard_Configurator and I've had signatures, low impact, and really effective/light default deny. I am using this on my main PC, and still using ESET on my secondary PC.
Default-deny setup is safest by design, but requires more skills & knowledge when configuring/adjusting the security to the concrete machine and to the concrete user.
Such AVs as F-Secure Safe are more usable and are adjusted by design to the needs of most users (more universal). There is always some cost of usability and universality.
 

bribon77

Level 28
Verified
Default-deny setup is safest by design, but requires more skills & knowledge when configuring/adjusting the security to the concrete machine and to the concrete user.
Such AVs as F-Secure Safe are more usable and are adjusted by design to the needs of most users (more universal). There is always some cost of usability and universality.
But it can also be combined, and if a person has experience it is difficult to get infected.:giggle: