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
Security Statistics and Reports
Learn more about Remediation Time – response time to security incidents (the results from protection test in January 2023)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1026400" data-attributes="member: 99014"><p>Exceptionally good protection is highly exaggerated. Microsoft Defender on this test as well as on many others has been proven to offer protection equal to the one offered by many other products. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing to wow about or write home and definitely nothing “exceptionally good”. It is merely doing its job.</p><p></p><p>In regards to [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] eternal love for scripts, I personally love to use unusual vectors but such test is not really a must. Majority of threats for home users still come as executable files.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I will have to agree here. I also don’t see any reason why the methodology of AVLab Poland should be modified to accommodate Microsoft’s ancient and never ending browser war.</p><p>Firefox is not a depreciated project, it is is still somewhat popular browser that any user can download. Microsoft does not issue any proper warnings or documentation to inform the user about certain features of questionable cruciality being unavailable whilst using Firefox.</p><p></p><p>If protection is really compromised by the usage of not-recommended software, this should either be communicated in a clear language so users can make choices, or effort should be put for the software in question to be supported.</p><p></p><p>Also, I can not agree with [USER=98186]@Oerlink[/USER] ‘s opinion that whether it is pre-launch or post-launch doesn’t matter. When it comes to info-stealers which make a large percentage of malware (probably 2/10 home users would consider paying ransom when the majority of their important information is on their mobile devices— not really profitable). Detecting an info-stealer/RAT just seconds later is already too late and no remediation can be performed. Data is already exfiltrated, all passwords must be changed.</p><p></p><p>I personally found many facts that I can question in this test apart from Microsoft Defender, but I will keep them to myself for now, in order not to cause an unnecessary debate here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1026400, member: 99014"] Exceptionally good protection is highly exaggerated. Microsoft Defender on this test as well as on many others has been proven to offer protection equal to the one offered by many other products. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing to wow about or write home and definitely nothing “exceptionally good”. It is merely doing its job. In regards to [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] eternal love for scripts, I personally love to use unusual vectors but such test is not really a must. Majority of threats for home users still come as executable files. I will have to agree here. I also don’t see any reason why the methodology of AVLab Poland should be modified to accommodate Microsoft’s ancient and never ending browser war. Firefox is not a depreciated project, it is is still somewhat popular browser that any user can download. Microsoft does not issue any proper warnings or documentation to inform the user about certain features of questionable cruciality being unavailable whilst using Firefox. If protection is really compromised by the usage of not-recommended software, this should either be communicated in a clear language so users can make choices, or effort should be put for the software in question to be supported. Also, I can not agree with [USER=98186]@Oerlink[/USER] ‘s opinion that whether it is pre-launch or post-launch doesn’t matter. When it comes to info-stealers which make a large percentage of malware (probably 2/10 home users would consider paying ransom when the majority of their important information is on their mobile devices— not really profitable). Detecting an info-stealer/RAT just seconds later is already too late and no remediation can be performed. Data is already exfiltrated, all passwords must be changed. I personally found many facts that I can question in this test apart from Microsoft Defender, but I will keep them to myself for now, in order not to cause an unnecessary debate here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
