Make your video test requests!

[Digmor Crusher]

My observations are that when Cyberlock blocks something it will give you an option whether to run it or not, WHHL will block something but you have to open the program to see what was blocked, the block is silent. Cyberlock is easy to set up but there are way too many options in the gui, it could be overwhelming for most average computer users. WHHL is also easy to set up and has a less confusing gui/options menu. I've used both on and off for years and there is no way I could choose which is easiest to use and I don't see anyway you could do a test to decide this. Both are stellar programs and combined with an AV are all that anyone would ever need.

 

[simmerskool]

My observations are that when Cyberlock blocks something it will give you an option whether to run it or not, WHHL will block something but you have to open the program to see what was blocked, the block is silent. Cyberlock is easy to set up but there are way too many options in the gui, it could be overwhelming for most average computer users. WHHL is also easy to set up and has a less confusing gui/options menu. I've used both on and off for years and there is no way I could choose which is easiest to use and I don't see anyway you could do a test to decide this. Both are stellar programs and combined with an AV are all that anyone would ever need.

Cyberlock seems easy to me, as I've used it for 10+ years (iirc), seems like @danb has worked out kinks, while also keeping it updated, improved & relevant.

 

[simmerskool]

Wow, you pretty much use everything.

well as this year moves forward, I'll be dropping most of the win10_VMs, probably keep 2, and continue to learn python in fedora.

 

[Parkinsond]

I'm unsure what you or @Parkinsond mean when you say "easier to set up" or "easy"; I mean, all I would check was Events and Whitelist when I was using WHHLight, and it's the same with H_C; you would rarely need to fiddle with configurations.

WHHL has one more advantage, no install, I like being portable.

 

[Andy Ful]

I'll keep it short.

I currently have Hard_Configurator Tools (H_C, CD, and FH) with recommended settings on 13 Windows 11 Pro systems: my family members' systems, including mine (4), and my extended family members' systems (9)—all 12 users are average, clueless, and careless. It has been nearly a year since I started using H_C Tools on 3 of our systems, 7 months on 1 system, and 5 months on my extended family members' systems. I simply showed them to use the "Install By SmartScreen" context menu feature: if the program runs, that's fine; if they see the block screen (which I showed them), they cannot install the program; and if they need the program, they can call me. On all systems except mine, I block the "Run anyway" option of SmartScreen, delete the H_C shortcut folder from the desktop, enable the Hide "Run As Admin" option, and remove H_C entries from the start menu. I manage these systems through visits to my extended family or via remote connection. There have been no complaints or issues whatsoever, including on my family members' systems, except for H_C blocking .csv/Excel files on our kids' systems; whitelisting them worked.

Yes, you are a true example of a home administrator. However, this is not an easy job with many computers.

 

[Andy Ful]

Shadowra could set up a fair comparison for all these products using a standardized 'average user' scenario. Since we generally know the habits of everyday users, applying the exact same conditions to each product would give us some solid, unbiased results to discuss.

The test was done here:

App Review Thread 'Microsoft Defender Antivirus with Andy Ful WHHLight'

Feb 1, 2024

Microsoft Defender has been the standard antivirus provided by Microsoft since Windows 8.
On Windows 10, Microsoft considerably improved its antivirus, and continued with Windows 11.
In this test, I've been asked to add @Andy Ful WHHLight with settings predefined by the editor.
I'm also adding MSOffice anti-exploit and FirewallHardening, which blocks all connections by Trojans using system processes (LOLBins).
SWH adds more rules later...

• Shadowra

• 
• 
• 

Personal opinions are also important because they are related to usability, which was not tested.

 

[nickstar1]

Trendmicro has also improved file detection it seems from the last time i tested it. I keep everything on hypersensitive.

 

[Parkinsond]

Trendmicro has also improved file detection it seems from the last time i tested it. I keep everything on hypersensitive.

TrendMicro problem is not detections, it is false detections.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

The test was done here:

App Review Thread 'Microsoft Defender Antivirus with Andy Ful WHHLight'

Feb 1, 2024

Microsoft Defender has been the standard antivirus provided by Microsoft since Windows 8.
On Windows 10, Microsoft considerably improved its antivirus, and continued with Windows 11.
In this test, I've been asked to add @Andy Ful WHHLight with settings predefined by the editor.
I'm also adding MSOffice anti-exploit and FirewallHardening, which blocks all connections by Trojans using system processes (LOLBins).
SWH adds more rules later...

• Shadowra

• 
• 
• 

Personal opinions are also important because they are related to usability, which was not tested.

Citing a test from 2024 doesn't resolve this, and also fails to test all of these products together in the usability scenario we are actually discussing. Right now, personal opinions in this thread are essentially hearsay without tangible proof. I could easily claim I tested your product and it failed on 3 out of 5 machines, but without sharing the actual data, how would you know? Ultimately, these claims remain completely subjective. Let’s stop the back-and-forth and let shadowra compile these products to conduct a fair, standardized test. If he approaches them strictly from the perspective of an average user, which isn't hard to mimic, and puts every product through the exact same scenario, we'll actually have some current, unbiased data to look at.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

@Shadowra does not test usability/false positives. That is why personal opinions are important.
Of course, repeating the test would be welcome.

Andy, it’s a specific request with defined parameters. Why are you pushing so hard to dismiss the idea of an objective test? Just because @Shadowra hasn't traditionally focused on usability or false positives doesn't mean a test can't be structured for it now. Relying on personal opinions for false positives is exactly the kind of hearsay I'm talking about. Without a controlled environment, anyone can make claims about usability failures with zero tangible proof. We need a standardized 'average user' baseline, not more subjective feelings.

 

[Parkinsond]

That is why personal opinions are important

Agree, should be considered seriously.
In testing, only a solitary OS with a specific group of apps installed, on a specific hardware is used.
In real life, OS version, conflicting co-installed apps, hardware specifications, and other security layers not included in the test (adblocker, secure DNS, app control, firewall) may produce a variable experience, and may be a different score.

 

[Andy Ful]

Andy, it’s a specific request with defined parameters. Why are you pushing so hard to dismiss the idea of an objective test?

I do not. Why do you reject users' opinions so hard? Posters here talk more about usability pros/cons than about the strength of security. Their opinions about usability are as good as a video-test. Of course, making the usability video-test is welcome too. However, I am not sure how such a test might be objective.

 

[Andy Ful]

Without a controlled environment, anyone can make claims about usability failures with zero tangible proof. We need a standardized 'average user' baseline, not more subjective feelings.

That is why I did not see such tests on MT. They are much harder to conduct than protection tests. There is no standardized 'average user' baseline.
Even professional tests made by AV-Comparatives or AV-Test are questionable.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Agree, should be considered seriously.
In testing, only a solitary OS with a specific group of apps installed, on a specific hardware is used.
In real life, OS version, conflicting co-installed apps, hardware specifications, and other security layers not included in the test (adblocker, secure DNS, app control, firewall) may produce a variable experience, and may be a different score.

The logic that 'too many variables make testing unviable' is a fundamental fallacy. In any scientific field, you must test the core product in a controlled environment to establish a performance ceiling and a baseline of efficacy. If we were to demand that testing account for every conceivable combination of hardware, conflicting apps, and user-defined security layers, all testing would indeed become unviable. Not even the most elite independent labs can account for infinite variables. However, because these labs use strict, repeatable baselines, they provide a level of credibility and objective truth that personal opinions simply cannot match.

We cannot replace peer-reviewed methodology with individual forum experiences, which are frequently skewed by user error, confirmation bias, or unsubstantiated 'ghost' scenarios. Without the lab's baseline, we aren't analyzing data, we're just trading anecdotes.

 

[Parkinsond]

I do not. Why do you reject users' opinions so hard? Posters here talk more about usability pros/cons than about the strength of security. Their opinions about usability are as good as a video-test. Of course, making the usability video-test is welcome too. However, I am not sure how such a test might be objective.

In clinical trials of a newly released drug, you perform test on a large number of patients and healthy subjects with variable characters.
And even if the drug pass all tests and get FDA approval, it may get disapproved when used in real-life on a larger number of patients with more variable characters.
Real-life individual experience is indispensable.

 

[Parkinsond]

The logic that 'too many variables make testing unviable' is a fundamental fallacy. In any scientific field, you must test the core product in a controlled environment to establish a performance ceiling and a baseline of efficacy. If we were to demand that testing account for every conceivable combination of hardware, conflicting apps, and user-defined security layers, all testing would indeed become unviable. Not even the most elite independent labs can account for infinite variables. However, because these labs use strict, repeatable baselines, they provide a level of credibility and objective truth that personal opinions simply cannot match.

We cannot replace peer-reviewed methodology with individual forum experiences, which are frequently skewed by user error, confirmation bias, or unsubstantiated 'ghost' scenarios. Without the lab's baseline, we aren't analyzing data, we're just trading anecdotes.

Post in thread 'Make your video test requests!'

Feb 14, 2026

I do not. Why do you reject users' opinions so hard? Posters here talk more about usability pros/cons than about the strength of security. Their opinions about usability are as good as a video-test. Of course, making the usability video-test is welcome too. However, I am not sure how such a test might be objective.

In clinical trials of a newly released drug, you perform test on a large number of patients and healthy subjects with variable characters.
And even if the drug pass all tests and get FDA approval, it may get disapproved when used in real-life on a larger number of...

• Parkinsond

• 

 

[Andy Ful]

So far, the unexplored possibility might be using @Bot to summarize opinions of users gathered from the web (including MT).

 

[Bot]

So far, the unexplored possibility would be use @Bot to summarize opinions of users gathered from the web (including MT).

Yes—summarizing “real user” opinions can be useful, but only if it’s done in a structured way and with clear limits.

What @Bot can do reliably

• Summarize opinions from material you provide: posts pasted into the thread, or a set of links to specific public threads/posts (including MalwareTips).
• Extract recurring themes (usability, false positives, prompts/alerts quality, maintenance effort, compatibility issues, support responsiveness), and separate them from objective claims.
• Show a balanced “pros/cons by theme” view, and note how common a claim appears within the provided sample (without pretending that it’s statistically representative of all users).

What it cannot make “objective”

• False positives and usability are not fully lab-measurable in the same way as a protection test, because they depend heavily on each person’s software set, workflows, risk tolerance, and configuration choices.
• Web opinions are easy to bias (selection bias, loud minority, “it broke once so it’s trash,” undisclosed configs, outdated versions, placebo effects). A summary can reduce noise, but it cannot turn anecdotes into peer-reviewed evidence.

How to make the summary as “fair” as possible

• Define scope: which products (e.g., CyberLock, WHHLight/H_C, AppGuard, Defender + ASR, etc.) and which Windows versions.
• Define a time window (for example, “posts from January 2025 to today”) so the feedback matches current versions and current Windows behavior.
• Use comparable sources: same number of threads/posts per product (or at least disclose the imbalance).
• Tag each claim as one of: “usability,” “false positive,” “configuration complexity,” “compatibility,” “support/update cadence,” “protection claim (unverified).”
• Report frequency carefully: “mentioned repeatedly in the sample,” not “proven” or “confirmed.”

Concrete next step
Post a list of the exact products you want compared and (ideally) 10–30 links to relevant MT threads/posts (or paste the key excerpts), plus the date range you care about; then I can produce a structured, neutral “community feedback summary” with clearly separated themes and caveats.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Post in thread 'Make your video test requests!'

Feb 14, 2026

I do not. Why do you reject users' opinions so hard? Posters here talk more about usability pros/cons than about the strength of security. Their opinions about usability are as good as a video-test. Of course, making the usability video-test is welcome too. However, I am not sure how such a test might be objective.

In clinical trials of a newly released drug, you perform test on a large number of patients and healthy subjects with variable characters.
And even if the drug pass all tests and get FDA approval, it may get disapproved when used in real-life on a larger number of...

• Parkinsond

• 

Your medical analogy actually proves the opposite point. Clinical trials are rigorous, controlled environments specifically designed to filter out the noise of 'individual experience' so we can identify the actual efficacy of the drug.

While 'Phase 4' (post-market) monitoring exists, a drug is never approved based on a handful of unverified stories from a public forum, it is approved based on reproducible data.

If a drug fails in 'real-life,' it’s because of statistically significant patterns found across millions of people, not because 'User69' on a forum says it didn't work for them.

In a trial, doctors verify if a patient actually took the pill. In a forum, we have no way of knowing if a user’s 'variable experience' was caused by the software or because they have a malware-ridden OS and three conflicting firewalls running at once.

Relying on individual anecdotes over lab testing isn't 'indispensable', it’s dangerous. It’s the equivalent of ignoring a double-blind study because your neighbor's cousin said the medicine made them itchy. Individual experience is a data point, not a data set.

"If we followed your logic, we’d have to throw out the entire scientific method. If lab results are 'unreliable' because they can't simulate every human on earth, then a random user's opinion is mathematically worthless because it can't even simulate two people. We'll stick with the labs.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

So far, the unexplored possibility might be using @Bot to summarize opinions of users gathered from the web (including MT).

Great, so the plan is to use @Bot to summarize a collection of biased, unverified forum opinions? That doesn’t create 'objective truth'; it just creates a high-speed echo chamber. An AI summary of noise is still just noise.

"Garbage In, Garbage Out"