Moonhorse

Level 24
Content Creator
Verified
I wouldnt install anything from McAfee. I had it installed on edge when there were no other extensions available(except norton) doing the filtering on microsoft store. The process it makes on background tasks was just taking too many resources imo and i ended removing it completely

Im not sure where this guy did get his links from, but when evjl is testing these extensions the results often tend to be MORE brutal and not just every extension has 100% results

Thanks for sharing this with us. And @Evjl's Rain anytime you have spare time to do another test, include this on it
 

Nestor

Level 7
I wouldnt install anything from McAfee. I had it installed on edge when there were no other extensions available(except norton) doing the filtering on microsoft store. The process it makes on background tasks was just taking too many resources imo and i ended removing it completely

Im not sure where this guy did get his links from, but when evjl is testing these extensions the results often tend to be MORE brutal and not just every extension has 100% results

Thanks for sharing this with us. And @Evjl's Rain anytime you have spare time to do another test, include this on it
I think it deserves to be included in evjl tests.To be honest, i had it installed on Edge for some period of time and it was very effective,saved me two times when Edge failed, but i didn't notice using so many resources.
 

Windows_Security

Level 21
Content Creator
Trusted
Verified
The browser extensions rehab program is working well, therefore some food for thought

Without any security extensions Chrome would have passes with flying colours just using these two flags:

1547804959961.png


Also the CS test of Emsisoft Browser Protection oonly HTTP links are used, so these two settings would also provided a 100% Malware link (drive by/download) protection of unsafe (executable) content and the browser would have shown an explicit red warning (Not Secure) sign in the URL address bar

1547805250448.png


Add a simpel content rule to block scripts from HTTP://* and those malware/phishing website are paralyzed (no need for uBlock third party blocking). All trustworthy government/financial/shopping websites have HTTPS connections. So when <> script blocked sign appears in the address bar, you should leave it as is, unless you are absolutely sure it is a safe website (e.g. with okla speed test for example).
1547805434436.png


You could enable OKLA speedtest or leave it as blocked, because there enough alternatives running from HTTPS (e.g. fast.com or most likely the OKLA speedtest clone of your ISP/Telco/Cable company).
 
Last edited:

oldschool

Level 23
Verified
The browser extensions rehab program is working well, therefore some food for thought

Without any security extensions Chrome would have passes with flying colours just using these two flags:

View attachment 206639

Also the CS test of Emsisoft Browser Protection oonly HTTP links are used, so these two settings would also provided a 100% Malware link (drive by/download) protection of unsafe (executable) content and the browser would have shown an explicit red warning (Not Secure) sign in the URL address bar

View attachment 206641

Add a simpel content rule to block scripts from HTTP://* and those malware/phishing website are paralyzed (no need for uBlock third party blocking). All trustworthy government/financial/shopping websites have HTTPS connections. So when <> script blocked sign appears in the address bar, you should leave it as is, unless you are absolutely sure it is a safe website (e.g. with okla speed test for example).
View attachment 206642

You could enable OKLA speedtest or leave it as blocked, because there enough alternatives running from HTTPS (e.g. fast.com or most likely the OKLA speedtest clone of your ISP/Telco/Cable company).
Nice tip!