- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
- Content source
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLgd9d3Aymo
F-SECURE Safe 2019
- Thread starter stefanos
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
F-Secure is a Finnish company offering their antivirus named Safe.
For years, the editor used the Bitdefender engine, now AVIRA is used.
F-Secure promises smart threat protection and enhanced in-the-cloud detection.
On the Web, nothing to say, F-Secure protects very effectively.
On the pack, F-Secure detects several but why it does not remove everything ... A bug?
But black dots ruin:
Aside from its good performance, DeepGuard is far behind and did not protect the machine against our malware.
Then phishing protection is very bad ...
F-Secure is a recommended antivirus, but only for people who pay attention!
For years, the editor used the Bitdefender engine, now AVIRA is used.
F-Secure promises smart threat protection and enhanced in-the-cloud detection.
On the Web, nothing to say, F-Secure protects very effectively.
On the pack, F-Secure detects several but why it does not remove everything ... A bug?
But black dots ruin:
Aside from its good performance, DeepGuard is far behind and did not protect the machine against our malware.
Then phishing protection is very bad ...
F-Secure is a recommended antivirus, but only for people who pay attention!
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
Nah can't really say if thats a genuine bug as out of all those samples I'm too confused and the test lacks a few tools, but I do know F-Secure is in general not good with removing PUPs. A genuine Bug confirmation is though easy made by simply report it to F-Secures Bug Bounty program.
Vulnerability Reward Program | F-Secure
www.f-secure.com
That DeepGuard is far behind I beg to differ as by simply watch the Hub tests from @Lord Ami tells a very different story. Several samples ( not the whole pack ) from time to time is missed when compare VT ( VirusTotal ) and the one that rescue the tests many times, DeepGuard. The phishing protection is very bad? Personal I wouldn't exactly make that sort of statements after, 5 urls ( 2 dead ). One could very easy question that sort of testing methodology as phishing also occurs through emails with attachments and that was for sure not tested in this video.
Only for people who pay attention, nah I don't fully agree as SAFE is one of those set and forget kind of products and even if I recall correct mentioned here on MT somewhere as a senior/old peoples kind of products or was that just Emsisoft? Btw I like senior products.
I did enjoyed the video, thanks @stefanos but I really wished they could have done it slightly different. Personal I had to slow it down when the testing started and I wish they could skipped that automatic voice. Annoying as hell. For those that don't understand French, mort = death ( malicious url is dead. ). Passe = passed ( malicious url managed to bypass ). Bloque = block ( malicious url was blocked ).
Last edited:
- Apr 5, 2017
- 836
Only for people who pay attention, nah I don't fully agree as SAFE is one of those set and forget kind of products and even if I recall correct mentioned here on MT somewhere as a senior/old peoples kind of products or was that just Emsisoft? Btw I like senior products.
#me too, both on products for seniors and set and forget
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
- Sep 14, 2014
- 1,036
Thanks for the test.
Few comments: Many of the samples either did not run or were "greyware".
Also all testers should keep in mind (I too) that running locally extracted malware does not replicate real life scenario. In real life, the sample is "delivered" from somewhere. Either from web, email or USB (or any other source). This thing alone makes DeepGuard and any other behavior blocker work differently.
I'm more than sure that DeepGuard would block all 90% of the samples (including Malware Hub ones) when it would see the origin of the file.
E.g when file is extracted locally, it does not give DeepGuard enough data to work on.
As opposed to when file is downloaded from website such as kaskda.yt/rt.exe
Then there are lot of more signs of file being malicious/new. Unknown website reputation, downloads executable file etc etc. This file will surely get blocked by DeepGuard as "Rare" (sometimes DeepGuard.nz or .n (could mean New).
Just as an example: FS DeepGaurd is quite strong against Word/Excel documents with macros. I've read couple of blog posts from their labs and many of dig deep into how spam emails contain malicious documents etc.
All in all, these tests are somewhat interesting to watch. But it does not (nor does MH tests) have anything to do with real life scenario.
No product offers 100% protection and I'm not defending FS here - don't get me wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
Few comments: Many of the samples either did not run or were "greyware".
Also all testers should keep in mind (I too) that running locally extracted malware does not replicate real life scenario. In real life, the sample is "delivered" from somewhere. Either from web, email or USB (or any other source). This thing alone makes DeepGuard and any other behavior blocker work differently.
I'm more than sure that DeepGuard would block all 90% of the samples (including Malware Hub ones) when it would see the origin of the file.
E.g when file is extracted locally, it does not give DeepGuard enough data to work on.
As opposed to when file is downloaded from website such as kaskda.yt/rt.exe
Then there are lot of more signs of file being malicious/new. Unknown website reputation, downloads executable file etc etc. This file will surely get blocked by DeepGuard as "Rare" (sometimes DeepGuard.nz or .n (could mean New).
Just as an example: FS DeepGaurd is quite strong against Word/Excel documents with macros. I've read couple of blog posts from their labs and many of dig deep into how spam emails contain malicious documents etc.
All in all, these tests are somewhat interesting to watch. But it does not (nor does MH tests) have anything to do with real life scenario.
No product offers 100% protection and I'm not defending FS here - don't get me wrong.
Just my 2 cents.
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
Thanks for your comment. I can not say my opinion on the video because I have not tested this version. This is why I have post it to those who try it. I have been doing a test with infected url with the older version F-Secure with perfect results.Nah can't really say if thats a genuine bug as out of all those samples I'm too confused and the test lacks a few tools, but I do know F-Secure is in general not good with removing PUPs. A genuine Bug confirmation is though easy made by simply report it to F-Secures Bug Bounty program.
Vulnerability Reward Program | F-Secure
That DeepGuard is far behind I beg to differ as by simply watch the Hub tests from @Lord Ami tells a very different story. Several samples ( not the whole pack ) from time to time is missed when compare VT ( VirusTotal ) and the one that rescue the tests many times, DeepGuard. The phishing protection is very bad? Personal I wouldn't exactly make that sort of statements after, 5 urls ( 2 dead ). One could very easy question that sort of testing methodology as phishing also occurs through emails with attachments and that was for sure not tested in this video.
Only for people who pay attention, nah I don't fully agree as SAFE is one of those set and forget kind of products and even if I recall correct mentioned here on MT somewhere as a senior/old peoples kind of products or was that just Emsisoft? Btw I like senior products.
I did enjoyed the video, thanks @stefanos but I really wished they could have done it slightly different. Personal I had to slow it down when the testing started and I wish they could skipped that automatic voice. Annoying as hell. For those that don't understand French, mort = death ( malicious url is dead. ). Passe = passed ( malicious url managed to bypass ). Bloque = block ( malicious url was blocked ).
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
Hot Take - [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings
Comparison between browser extensions Test 29/12 Q&A - [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings Test 24/11 Q&A - [Updated 24/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings Test 12/11 Q&A - [Updated 12/11/2018] Browser extension comparison...
malwaretips.com
- Jul 27, 2015
- 5,458
IMO one have to try remember, read the disclaimers. Those exist for a purpose. Even the Hub here on MT has that but in this video, nothing not even with the generated voice. Common! Not your fault @stefanos but if that community actually want people to understand there shares better, use English a bit as that's more common in this world either they like it or not. But perhaps they don't care anyway. There intro and other stuff was though brilliant.
Big thanks for the link to @Evjl's Rain s great thread as I missed out read that.
not even with the generated voice. Common! Not your fault @stefanos but if that community actually want people to understand there shares better, use English a bit as that's more common in this world either they like it or not. But perhaps they don't care anyway. There intro and other stuff was though brilliant. Big thanks for the link to @Evjl's Rain s great thread as I missed out read that.
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
This chanel have nice tests. I know we must upload video on English but the only good testers now on youtube is one Spanish and this guy.IMO one have to try remember, read the disclaimers. Those exist for a purpose. Even the Hub here on MT has that but in this video, nothing
Big thanks for the link to @Evjl's Rain s great thread as I missed out read that.
- Jan 1, 2018
- 493
what about 'computer solutions'?
- Oct 31, 2014
- 1,712
I like this tester. I'm subscribed to his channel
Similar threads
