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
F-SECURE Safe 2019
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lord Ami" data-source="post: 798379" data-attributes="member: 27919"><p>Thanks for the test.</p><p></p><p>Few comments: Many of the samples either did not run or were "greyware".</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>E.g when file is extracted locally, it does not give DeepGuard enough data to work on.</p><p>As opposed to when file is downloaded from website such as <strong>kaskda.yt/rt.exe</strong></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No product offers 100% protection and I'm not defending FS here - don't get me wrong.</p><p>Just my 2 cents.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lord Ami, post: 798379, member: 27919"] 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 [B]kaskda.yt/rt.exe[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top