Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 935115" data-attributes="member: 32260"><h4>@[USER=91050]LaurentG[/USER],</h4>My conclusions are totally different.<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">AV can detect these scripts as malicious and most AVs cannot.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">AV does not detect the whitelisted script as malicious and still detects the modified scripts as malicious.</li>
</ol>The above points are welcome when protecting against malicious scripts. If VirusTotal detections were correct (and confirmed for many samples) then Defender would be more secure than most AVs. Of course, the VirusTotal detections are not the same as on the client machines, so we cannot say on the basis of such a test that Defender can protect better than most AVs.Defender is known for strong and restrictive protection against scripting, so there can be some problems not from the security point of view but for usability. Some legal scripts (like yours) can be false positives. Most AVs are not so restrictive, so they do not block your scripts. Some of them use very restrictive methods only for obfuscated scripts.Edit.The differences in the protection of popular AVs are negligible in the home environment. Any test made by the home user (despite the result) cannot prove anything interesting due to a small number of samples. If you would like to see something interesting then you should test several thousands of samples per week.So, do no focus on Defender, you can choose any popular AV that you like.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" />[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/the-best-home-av-protection-2019-2020.106485/[/URL]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 935115, member: 32260"] [HEADING=3]@[USER=91050]LaurentG[/USER],[/HEADING] My conclusions are totally different. [LIST=1] [*]AV can detect these scripts as malicious and most AVs cannot. [*]AV does not detect the whitelisted script as malicious and still detects the modified scripts as malicious. [/LIST] The above points are welcome when protecting against malicious scripts. If VirusTotal detections were correct (and confirmed for many samples) then Defender would be more secure than most AVs. Of course, the VirusTotal detections are not the same as on the client machines, so we cannot say on the basis of such a test that Defender can protect better than most AVs. Defender is known for strong and restrictive protection against scripting, so there can be some problems not from the security point of view but for usability. Some legal scripts (like yours) can be false positives. Most AVs are not so restrictive, so they do not block your scripts. Some of them use very restrictive methods only for obfuscated scripts. Edit. The differences in the protection of popular AVs are negligible in the home environment. Any test made by the home user (despite the result) cannot prove anything interesting due to a small number of samples. If you would like to see something interesting then you should test several thousands of samples per week. So, do no focus on Defender, you can choose any popular AV that you like.:)(y) [URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/the-best-home-av-protection-2019-2020.106485/[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification