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
Security Statistics and Reports
Modern protection without signatures – comparison test on real threats (Advanced In The Wild Malware Test)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 977539" data-attributes="member: 83059"><p>Yeah I agree, I think the title might be causing alarm because of the way it's phrased or translated. What I'm reading is that it more pertains to "level 3", when both layers of static scanning have missed the sample and it's treated more like what the Malware Hub calls "dynamic" on-execution testing, as opposed to static scanning. I don't see a mention of a signature/realtime disabled (e.g. "bonus behavior blocker test").</p><p></p><p>I'm a little surprised about the Defender results unless it was done offline or something. Most tests of Defender score a lot better in static detection of malware samples. Defender (the customer version) doesn't seem to do much in terms of dynamic behavior blocking currently, its form of dynamic protection appears to be sandbox detonation and holding off on execution for sandbox evaluation, and I am pretty sure the enterprise version offers better protection in this regard compared to the customer version.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 977539, member: 83059"] Yeah I agree, I think the title might be causing alarm because of the way it's phrased or translated. What I'm reading is that it more pertains to "level 3", when both layers of static scanning have missed the sample and it's treated more like what the Malware Hub calls "dynamic" on-execution testing, as opposed to static scanning. I don't see a mention of a signature/realtime disabled (e.g. "bonus behavior blocker test"). I'm a little surprised about the Defender results unless it was done offline or something. Most tests of Defender score a lot better in static detection of malware samples. Defender (the customer version) doesn't seem to do much in terms of dynamic behavior blocking currently, its form of dynamic protection appears to be sandbox detonation and holding off on execution for sandbox evaluation, and I am pretty sure the enterprise version offers better protection in this regard compared to the customer version. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top