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
Inactive Support Threads
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: 1019107" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I did not post about possible correct interpretations of videos (there can be probably many), but about incorrect interpretations presented by some YouTubers and people who watched the videos.</p><p>If you are interested in the possibly correct interpretation of the video in this thread, then it is a presentation of AV abilities in the business network. The presentation showed, that:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Defender had some problems from the user side - for example, the Protection History crashed a few times.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The result of the first part of the video is consistent with known professional tests (Malware Protection tests). But, one cannot say anything interesting about the differences in AV protection due to the small number of samples. One can only say that the difference should not be very big.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In the second part (ransomware) the samples were executed from the local network with high privileges. This scenario has nothing to do with attacks on home users. It could be useful in business networks to test the protection against lateral movement.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The result of the second part is inconclusive because of the small number of samples. The samples were old and only one file type was used, so they cannot reflect the in-the-wild scenario. The author did not check if Defender failed by one sample or more. Also, he did not check in any way if the system with Kaspersky was compromised. He simply assumed that when he cannot see obvious signs of infection then the system is probably OK.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The author mentioned that the detection of Defender was probably impaired because of running many samples one by one. So the cloud backend could be overloaded and it did not respond on time.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The video is well done as a presentation. One cannot demand more from it. To avoid misunderstanding, I would not call it a test.</li> </ul><p>The author did not interpret the results of the video. <strong>So one cannot blame him for the wrong interpretations made by people who watched the video.</strong> The video cannot show a real comparison test of AV protection in the wild and I do not think that it was the author's intention.</p><p><strong>I agree with the author's opinion (from his other tests) that Microsoft Defender (free version on default settings) is not a good choice for businesses.</strong> This presentation cannot prove it, but anyway, the presentations are not made to prove anything but to visualize the author's opinions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1019107, member: 32260"] I did not post about possible correct interpretations of videos (there can be probably many), but about incorrect interpretations presented by some YouTubers and people who watched the videos. If you are interested in the possibly correct interpretation of the video in this thread, then it is a presentation of AV abilities in the business network. The presentation showed, that: [LIST] [*]Defender had some problems from the user side - for example, the Protection History crashed a few times. [*]The result of the first part of the video is consistent with known professional tests (Malware Protection tests). But, one cannot say anything interesting about the differences in AV protection due to the small number of samples. One can only say that the difference should not be very big. [*]In the second part (ransomware) the samples were executed from the local network with high privileges. This scenario has nothing to do with attacks on home users. It could be useful in business networks to test the protection against lateral movement. [*]The result of the second part is inconclusive because of the small number of samples. The samples were old and only one file type was used, so they cannot reflect the in-the-wild scenario. The author did not check if Defender failed by one sample or more. Also, he did not check in any way if the system with Kaspersky was compromised. He simply assumed that when he cannot see obvious signs of infection then the system is probably OK. [*]The author mentioned that the detection of Defender was probably impaired because of running many samples one by one. So the cloud backend could be overloaded and it did not respond on time. [*]The video is well done as a presentation. One cannot demand more from it. To avoid misunderstanding, I would not call it a test. [/LIST] The author did not interpret the results of the video. [B]So one cannot blame him for the wrong interpretations made by people who watched the video.[/B] The video cannot show a real comparison test of AV protection in the wild and I do not think that it was the author's intention. [B]I agree with the author's opinion (from his other tests) that Microsoft Defender (free version on default settings) is not a good choice for businesses.[/B] This presentation cannot prove it, but anyway, the presentations are not made to prove anything but to visualize the author's opinions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
