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
Kaspersky vs Windows Defender
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1017818" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>From reliable tests made by professionals, we know that Kaspersky (paid products) can provide better protection than Defender free on default settings. So, this video is an example that AVs' demonstration (not a real test) can show something close to the truth, even if it is unreliable as the AV protection test.</p><p></p><p>Although the author did not mention it, a few things should be noted:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The demonstration looks like a real-world test, but it is not. It is a very special scenario, which has little in common with the attacks against home users.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The samples are downloaded without using a web browser, so files do not get MOTW.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The samples are executed with high privileges (the Administrator PowerShell console is used for that).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Many malicious files are executed one by one in a short time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Only one malicious file type is used (*.exe). It is not good, because in many cases, the payloads can be prevented by the AV before they can enter the disk (by blocking/detecting macros, scripts, etc.).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong><strong>Such methodology can be used only for EXE payloads on the already (badly) infected computer.</strong></strong></li> </ol><p>The results are useless to compare the in-the-wild protection of the AVs, except if one uses the results to show something true in a demonstrative way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1017818, member: 32260"] From reliable tests made by professionals, we know that Kaspersky (paid products) can provide better protection than Defender free on default settings. So, this video is an example that AVs' demonstration (not a real test) can show something close to the truth, even if it is unreliable as the AV protection test. Although the author did not mention it, a few things should be noted: [LIST=1] [*]The demonstration looks like a real-world test, but it is not. It is a very special scenario, which has little in common with the attacks against home users. [*]The samples are downloaded without using a web browser, so files do not get MOTW. [*]The samples are executed with high privileges (the Administrator PowerShell console is used for that). [*]Many malicious files are executed one by one in a short time. [*]Only one malicious file type is used (*.exe). It is not good, because in many cases, the payloads can be prevented by the AV before they can enter the disk (by blocking/detecting macros, scripts, etc.). [*][B][B]Such methodology can be used only for EXE payloads on the already (badly) infected computer.[/B][/B] [/LIST] The results are useless to compare the in-the-wild protection of the AVs, except if one uses the results to show something true in a demonstrative way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top