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
Microsoft Defender- A Possible Future
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1017716" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>If one uses cracked games, applications, and pirated software, then Microsoft Defender is probably not the best solution (for several reasons). But, unfortunately, other AVs on default settings are not much better, as some MT members already reported.</p><p>There is also a problem with testing the malware samples distributed with pirated/cracked software due to a small number of tested samples. Furthermore, the infection rate is also sensitive to the phishing vector - the malicious links are distributed via forums, ADs, etc.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, it is unclear how the AV detection scoring in the test with such samples can reflect the real protection in the wild. Many of the tested malware samples are in fact "dead bees" that already lost their stings. The AV can detect such samples when they cannot infect anyone in the wild. The tester usually makes an assumption, that detecting more bees in the test (including many dead) means that the AV could also protect against more bees when they all were alive. A clear example that such an assumption may be untrue is TrendMicro and its striking results in the AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests, for example (November 2022):</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]271701[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>As we know, TrendMicro has got very good scorings in Real-World tests comparable with top AVs.</p><p>For example, let's look at the results of the AV-Comparatives Real-World test:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]271702[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1017716, member: 32260"] If one uses cracked games, applications, and pirated software, then Microsoft Defender is probably not the best solution (for several reasons). But, unfortunately, other AVs on default settings are not much better, as some MT members already reported. There is also a problem with testing the malware samples distributed with pirated/cracked software due to a small number of tested samples. Furthermore, the infection rate is also sensitive to the phishing vector - the malicious links are distributed via forums, ADs, etc. Unfortunately, it is unclear how the AV detection scoring in the test with such samples can reflect the real protection in the wild. Many of the tested malware samples are in fact "dead bees" that already lost their stings. The AV can detect such samples when they cannot infect anyone in the wild. The tester usually makes an assumption, that detecting more bees in the test (including many dead) means that the AV could also protect against more bees when they all were alive. A clear example that such an assumption may be untrue is TrendMicro and its striking results in the AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests, for example (November 2022): [ATTACH type="full" alt="1672576542736.png"]271701[/ATTACH] As we know, TrendMicro has got very good scorings in Real-World tests comparable with top AVs. For example, let's look at the results of the AV-Comparatives Real-World test: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1672577777461.png"]271702[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top