App Review iDefender Pro (Présentation & Reviews)

[Shadowra]

Content source

https://odysee.com/@Shadowra:f/iDefender-Pro-(Pr%C3%A9sentation---Reviews):8

After testing the free version of iDefender, we are going to test the paid version.
We will take a look at the product together and subject it to several attacks to see how it reacts and whether the free version is sufficient.
Let's take a look!



The rating is different: Idefender is not an antivirus but a HIPS.

In terms of protection, we are really on the edge and the conclusion is clear: it is not enough to protect you on its own.
It can counter various threats to help your antivirus protection, but on its own, it is insufficient. The proof is that a rogue - PrivacyCenter (FakeAV) dating from 2010 got through and blocked the session from starting.
As for the Pro version, the free version is sufficient; it doesn't offer anything more.

@Kongo request

 

[Khushal]

After testing the free version of iDefender, we are going to test the paid version.
We will take a look at the product together and subject it to several attacks to see how it reacts and whether the free version is sufficient.
Let's take a look!



The rating is different: Idefender is not an antivirus but a HIPS.

In terms of protection, we are really on the edge and the conclusion is clear: it is not enough to protect you on its own.
It can counter various threats to help your antivirus protection, but on its own, it is insufficient. The proof is that a rogue - PrivacyCenter (FakeAV) dating from 2010 got through and blocked the session from starting.
As for the Pro version, the free version is sufficient; it doesn't offer anything more.

@Kongo request

Thanks for another gr8 test. Can't wait to see more tests.
Results on expected lines....

 

[Zero Knowledge]

Great test first of all as always

In terms of protection, we are really on the edge and the conclusion is clear: it is not enough to protect you on its own.

And this is the major problem of HIPS, it covers some but not all attack surfaces and then you are back to needing a decent AV/AM with heuristics/database/signatures.

Protecting against edge cases and APT's and exotic attacks and payloads is fine, but you really need a holistic security approach that covers simple and hard attacks.

 

[Kongo]

Actually I already expected the result but I thought the AI would detect more. Thanks for testing!

 

[MWNormanF]

Its not an AV. You're thinking of a behaviourial blocker like CybeeAI but they're meant to be used alongside an AV. They fill in gaps in the other security software. On its own an HIPS or BB isn't enough.

 

[Shadowra]

Its not an AV. You're thinking of a behaviourial blocker like CybeeAI but they're meant to be used alongside an AV. They fill in gaps in the other security software. On its own an HIPS or BB isn't enough.

Hello,

That's what I wrote, but it's not enough on its own

 

[Avethil]

Surely as the test has shown it is necessary to have a good AV even if iDefender's developers claim that "AV is dead, HIPS is eternal. AV is a solution that requires massive and continuous investment, yet it cannot handle scenarios like fileless attacks, making it an outdated technology."
Without wanting to be controversial, I think that's a rather bold statement iDefender (new HIPS for Windows)

 

[Shadowra]

I would like to clarify a few explanations (which I have read here and elsewhere).

The request was simple: Test iDefender Pro. Before running the test, I was able to examine what it offered, especially since the development team had put rules in place. A user is not going to try to modify an existing configuration (unless told to do so, such as with PUP detection in some antivirus programs—even though HIPS are NOT intended for novice users); they will trust their product.
On the other hand, iDefender failed and should not be used alone, that's a fact. And that's totally normal: the rules predefined by the publisher are too weak to cover a wide range of infections (scripts, Infostealer, RAT, injections, FakeAV, etc.).

For this test, I modified my protocol: I deliberately included old malware alongside recent malware (such as Sality, which is an old virus, and Rogue, which blocked the machine's session—PrivacyCenter dating from 2010) precisely to see if iDefender would protect me with its HIPS, even though its AI-based AV engine didn't detect anything.
It is still in development, which is why I wasn't too harsh on it
(compared to software with HIPS such as SpyShelter or Comodo, where I am more aggressive).

 

[cruelsister]

It is still in development, which is why I wasn't too harsh on it

You were actually very kind in your testing. I would not have been.