App Review [FAILED] Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2018 vs Troldesh Ransomware

[Mops21]

Hi all

[FAILED] Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2018 vs Troldesh Ransomware



With best Regards
Mops21

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Kaspersky Free. - This isn't a full blown suite that monitors your computer 24/7. This is one of the best free programs that runs with Comodo Firewall very well.

 

[Parsh]

There's no point in demonstrating Kaspersky Free's protection against running different ransomware. Without System Watcher, it is simple - your system is safe only till its signatures/cloud data can detect the sample statically. If not, your system/data is trashed.

 

[Solarlynx]

Good demonstration that detection must be accompanied by default deny protection.

 

[legendcampos]

I've seen this video, Kaspersky will have to mature its resources with time relative to the free software, at the present time it would not be worth installing it.

 

[Deletedmessiah]

If I were to use it, I'd use it with either Voodooshield or NVT ERP.

 

[SHvFl]

Kaspersky Free. - This isn't a full blown suite that monitors your computer 24/7. This is one of the best free programs that runs with Comodo Firewall very well.

This is debatable and i would disagree that is the best free program with a few days online. How do you even know it's the best one is beyond me. I am sure you don't follow the cloud detection speed in every single malware to be aware of that.
This version of kaspersky is as bad as the signature dinosaurs which tries to survive with cloud detections. Pathetic and only reason it happened is to attract customers and improve their cloud detections for free.

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

This is debatable and i would disagree that is the best free program with a few days online. How do you even know it's the best one is beyond me. I am sure you don't follow the cloud detection speed in every single malware to be aware of that.
This version of kaspersky is as bad as the signature dinosaurs which tries to survive with cloud detections. Pathetic and only reason it happened is to attract customers and improve their cloud detections for free.

I doesn't said that this program is the best. I said that this program is one of the best to use it with Comodo Firewall. Kaspersky Free scores with 91% in scan test in MalwareBlocker's video (zero-day).

 

[SHvFl]

I doesn't said that this program is the best. I said that this program is one of the best to use it with Comodo Firewall. Kaspersky Free scores with 91% in scan test in MalwareBlocker'svideo (zero-day).

Such tests are irrelevant. He tested what, 100 malware that are detected by every single AV on VT because they are as old as my mother in law? If you use Comodo Firewall then you don't need this kaspersky thing. It's just wasting resources for you but you do what you have to do. Just my opinion.

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Such tests are irrelevant. He tested what, 100 malware that are detected by every single AV on VT because they are as old as my mother in law? If you use Comodo Firewall then you don't need this kaspersky thing. It's just wasting resources for you but you do what you have to do. Just my opinion.

The malware in MalwareBlocker's Video is new (zero-day)!

 

[mekelek]

did he really test a sample that didn't have a signature with KAF that has only signature based modules?
what a great way of trying to trash on a product.

 

[silversurfer]

The malware in MalwareBlocker's Video is new (zero-day)!

How do you know that all are fresh malware samples ?

You can't trust the most of this youtube testers...

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

How do you know that all are fresh malware samples ?

You can't trust the most of this youtube testers...

Time: 4:47 There you can see also the date.

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

The malware in MalwareBlocker's Video is new (zero-day)!

This was a problem only related with COMODO cloud AV. The firewall would have blocked that sample. Anyway, COMODO has fixed that, and the cloud AV is correctly blocking that sample

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Your statement is invalid and I am going to be the one to tell you why.

1. You cannot know that Kaspersky Free is 'one of the best to use with Comodo Firewall' because the product was only released a few days ago and there is no way you could have performed extensive testing (yourself) in just those few days; needless to say, the product will react differently depending on the scenario & you cannot predict how the detection ratio provided by the product will be 24/7. Your opinion can be that Kaspersky Free is 'one of the best to use with Comodo Firewall' and you can provide any excuse you wish to however this does not qualify as a "fact".
2. One day said product can provide you a 100% detection ratio, the next day it can detect half or nothing. It happens to every single vendor and relying on one test to base your claim is far from evident. Even if the product had a 100% detection ratio with AV-Comparatives, VirusBulletin, and every single other YouTube video, it would still not mean the detection ratio will always be 100%. The only way you can have a 100% detection ratio all the time is to block everything because malware is evolving and what we have today for mitigation will become tomorrow over time and then it is back to the drawing board and this will happen next time a zero-day threat blows up the same way Petya and WannaCry both havocked the security industry and caused vendors to go back to the drawing board.
3. MalwareBlockerYT is not a reliable source to base on which product is effective or not and the reason for this is suggested in point #1. Take anything regarding which products are effective or not as a grain of salt.

1. I said that Kaspersky Free works good with the Comodo Firewall. And I said that Kaspersky scores with 91% in the MalwareBlocker test to reply to @SHvFl. This is a fact.
2. That's right.
3. Why not? You can get a first impression about a AV and a few numbers.

His samples:

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

1. Yes, you said that Kaspersky Free Anti-Virus works well with Comodo Firewall. However, you didn't say it in the way you've just said it to begin with when I quoted you. Let me remind you of what you said with a quote:


You said that the product is 'one of the best to use with Comodo Firewall' and my response to this was:


To cut to the chase with this point, what you said was an opinion however the way you said it made it appear like it was actually factual and backed up by evidence. An alternate approach would have been to say something along the lines of "In my opinion I think that Kaspersky Free is one of the best to use with Comodo Firewall", as opposed to 'this program is one of the best to use it with Comodo Firewall'. Do you see the difference?

I'm aware that you were referring to the test scores in the MalwareBlockerYT reviews which is why I said what I did. You used the review results to try and backup your statement regarding Kaspersky Free Anti-Virus being 'one of the best to use it with Comodo Firewall' and it backfired because I brought up the detection ratio's in my post where I quoted you to explain why the results in the video you were referring to doesn't actually mean much at all.

3. MalwareBlockerYT is not a reliable source when it comes to the effectiveness of the security products the author tests because of the extended elaboration in point #1 of my previous post where I was commenting about detection ratio's after you used it to try and make your statement seem factual (when in actual fact it was just an opinion). I also made a few comments in point #2. Let me remind you by using another two quotes:



Based on the above, MalwareBlockerYT is not a reliable source for how effectiveness a security product is because the detection ratio's demonstrated in his videos are to be taken with a grain of salt and nothing more, simply because the detection ratio is not a static factor (it changes depending on the scenario). You can get the first impression of a security product by testing it yourself and if you wish to blindly use the test results from a YouTube video then that is down to your own wishes.

Lets use your logic and apply it to another situation however this situation is made-up and not true. I am just using it for demonstration purposes:
"There is a review on Avast Anti-Virus which shows the product detected every single sample in 3 malware packs. Avast Anti-Virus is the best product out there to protect your system and no other product can even start to compete in terms of effectiveness" - this wouldn't work therefore why should what you said work? (rhetorical question just to be on the safe side).

Before I close this post off I will leave the following notes:
- Detection ratio's among security solutions are not static factors and are bound to constantly change depending on what is being thrown at the product. This means that the detection ratios's show-cased in the reviews are not going to always be the same and therefore the product may potentially perform badly in one review but then do some really good work for someone else when the product is placed under another scenario.
- Each security vendor has their own intelligence (and sometimes they have some intelligence from another vendor in the case of a licensed SDK engine or partnership agreement) and due to this, each product may tackle attacks with a different approach. To test a security product properly you need to understand how that product actually functions and how it may deal with different situations.

I don't need to defend my points any further therefore if you wish to continue this it will be like talking to a brick wall. At the end of the day you can decide which combination of products you use and who you wish to trust when deciding the effectiveness of a security product but that doesn't change the fact that in reality those test reviews are meaningless.

So: In my opinion Kaspersky Free works with Comodo Firewall great and the detection ratio need to be taken with a grain of salt. That means that MalwareBlockerYT videos don't show the effectiveness of a security product. Your post in 2 sentences.

 

[212eta]

To deal with Ransomware,
Kaspersky Free,
which lacks certain features (compared with the Paid products),
needs to be paired with
the free Kaspersky Anti-Ransomware Tool for Business

 

[kamla5abi]

Such tests are irrelevant. He tested what, 100 malware that are detected by every single AV on VT because they are as old as my mother in law? If you use Comodo Firewall then you don't need this kaspersky thing. It's just wasting resources for you but you do what you have to do. Just my opinion.

Point 1:
Note how he said "Comodo Firewall"

The malware in MalwareBlocker's Video is new (zero-day)!

Note how the video you posted clearly says "Comodo Cloud AV"

those are not the same product, nor do they have the exact same protection schemes (especially at CS settings, which probably everyone who's spent any time researching how to setup comodo firewall at MalwareTips would have found) so your retort to @SHvFl 's statement doesn't work....
Then lets say we're talking about the noob user, it's likely they wouldn't even use CFW to begin with...
they will go with some other product that looks easier to use and probably use at default settings most likely (install & forget)


Point 2:
you also say the samples tested by MalwareBlocker's video in the 1st post is zero day right? How do you know? does he somehow show/prove to the viewer they are zero day? how do you prove they are zero day?
zero day means fully undetectable (best case scenario and meaning) or at least low signature detection results right?
Does he show the virustotal report on them? to show they are not signature detected by majority of companies yet before testing?
No.

look in the malware hub on this site
uploaders of actual zero day malware show virustotal reports of the malware scans before they upload them
many of them have low detections (partially undetectable) some of them really low detections (closer to actual zero day fully undetectable malware)
showing that at the time of the scan, those malwares were only detected by few AV companies/products

so if you test those samples with a product that doesnt yet have signature detection for that specific malware variant at the time, that will give you a pretty good idea of how the product does with true in the wild malware that is undetected yet when you look at tests done over a long period of time
Remember that KAF was only recently "discovered" and tests have been over a really short period of time...
but people know you can't make a generalization about anything with such a small sample size of tested malware also...

statistically speaking, any claim of a product having X % protection rate with even 10000 samples is not going to hold up
(since the population that claim is trying to represent and generalize to is exponentially bigger in size).

 

[Davidov]

For comodo there is almost every malware zero day because it does not have a signature for it. .-))