App Review Osprey Browser Protection Reviews

[Shadowra]

Content source

https://odysee.com/@Shadowra:f/Osprey-Browser-Protection-Reviews:2

Osprey is a Web extension created by @Foulest that protects you against malicious sites, phishing and other threats using several engines.
These include Bitdefender, Emsisoft, TotalAV, Quad9 and others.

During the test, it blocked all malicious links, with the exception of two that were direct downloads.
Nothing to say about phishing!
It can of course be used alongside a free antivirus like Microsoft Defender.
Highly recommendable!

 

[Bot]

Thank you for sharing your positive experience with Osprey Browser Protection. It's great to hear how effective it was in blocking malicious links. Your recommendation will surely help others looking for reliable browser security.

 

[Foulest]

Great review. The two "dead" links should have been blocked by Osprey, but were missed due to an error in the exclusions process because of their port. This has been fixed and will be addressed in version 1.1.1.

 

[Foulest]

Additionally, regarding why the direct downloads were successful, Chrome (at least Manifest V3) is unable to pause downloads before they complete if they're extremely small. They get right through. There's not much I can do about that after extensive testing. Real-time protection from your antivirus should activate at this point.

 

[outlawxtorn]

Thanks for the test, cool extension. Going to support @Foulest and add it now.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

Additionally, regarding why the direct downloads were successful, Chrome (at least Manifest V3) is unable to pause downloads before they complete if they're extremely small. They get right through. There's not much I can do about that after extensive testing. Real-time protection from your antivirus should activate at this point.

Yeah you will have to either keep it that way or sacrifice performance (holding pages )
So I like it how it is

 

[roger_m]

I just gave this a quick try. For my usage, it gives too many false positives, where websites providing harmless PUPs are blocking due to hosting malware (which they don't). As a result I quickly removed it. But I'm sure this won't be an issue for the majority of users.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

Overhead of the extension is insanely low so there will be close to no performance impact using it and if someone wants to whitelist sites it currently does it to a non permanent cache up to 24 or end of browsing session but a permanent whitelisting is on the roadmap but as a non priority but other recommendations are great and the same I recommend except for those that adblocking to use brave instead of chrome and for even better pishing protection I will add checkpoint extension too for those that want even better detection (already had checkpoint zero pishing catch stuff osprey didn't although it's very rare for osprey to miss something and it's hard to get such fresh links that osprey doesn't have In it's intelligence and even then it has some technologies against zero days too )

Thank you for testing Osprey: Browser Protection.


Tried this security extension -- but before I go ahead and test this extension against online threats, I'm going to test them with absolute maximum security:

1. Google Chrome

In Google Chrome:
-> Disable all unnecessary features in "Site settings" that would reduce my overall security.
-> Enable "Ask where to save each file before downloading".
-> Set to "Enhanced Protection".
-> Google Advanced Protection Program is enabled.
-> Update browser. Ensure that Chrome, is fully up-to-date
-> I'm all set.

2. Microsoft Defender with DefenderUI Pro:

In DefenderUI Pro:
-> Set to "Aggressive Profile".
-> Enable Everything.
-> In "Basic", SmartScreen is set to "Block".
-> Automatic sample submission is set to "Send all".
-> In "DefenderGuard", everything's enabled, set everything to "5 minutes".
-> WDAC Lockdown is set to "ON (Enforced)".
-> Update signatures. Ensure that Microsoft Defender, is fully up-to-date.
-> Close the Window.
-> Set up a timer ( in 6 minutes )to auto activate "DefenderGuard".
-> I'm all set.

3. Search "Osprey: Browser Protection"
4. GitHub
5. Selected "Google Chrome"
6. Chrome Web Store
7. Osprey: Browser Protection
8. Get an Extension
9. After installation, I disabled it first, then
10. Head to "Manage Extension" > "Osprey: Browser Protection" > "Site settings"
11. Set it up a good browser extension settings ( by disabling everything ( Set all features to "Block". )) for security.
12. I'm all set



For now, I tested "Osprey: Browser Protection" against online threats listed here:
1. Malicious Website Test
2. EICAR file Test
3. Phishtank ( for wide variety of online threats )



Final Result:
1. Malicious Website Test = BLOCKED!
2. EICAR file Test= BLOCKED!
3. Phishtank ( tried about 100 of phishings ) = BLOCKED!

(In EICAR):
-> Malware download may still get past "Osprey: Browser Protection", but it was blocked, due to "Ask where to save each file before downloading" enabled, or by the MAXIMUM protection of Microsoft Defender with DefenderUI Pro.

(In Phishtank):
-> Only 2 of phishings are DEAD! ( but I won't count them as MISSED! )
-> Only 98 of phishings are BLOCKED!



Overall, I really like the overall features of "Osprey: Browser Protection".

It's a very effective security browser extension, makes it a good alternative to switch from "Malwarebytes Browser Guard".

The page 1, is what I liked them. It scans the urls -- using a variety of AV engines ( like Microsoft, Symantec, Emsisoft, Bitdefender, Norton, TotalAV, and G Data. ) to provide better detection against online threats.

The page 2, uses a popular DNS service for security ( like Cloudflare, Quad9, ControlD, AdGuard, OpenDNS, CleanBrowsing, and DNS0.eu ).

When I compared this to "Malwarebytes Browser Guard". "Osprey: Browser Protection", however. definitely excels in overall:

- Security
- Detection
- Protection
- Features



And Thank you Shadowra, for testing the effectiveness -- of this security browser extension.

this is something that -- it is worth trying this out alongside your built-in antivirus.

For me, It might be better if it works alongside Microsoft Defender + DefenderUI Pro.



However, It is important to note that you have to disable this -- using my safety tips here:

-

DISABLE browser extension:

-> when you are not engage in high-risk activities like downloading something from the internet.
-> when visiting safe website ( ex. MalwareTips, Wikipedia, BleepingComputer, etc. )
-> when visiting social media websites ( ex. Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), Youtube, Reddit, Discord, etc. )
-> when not in use.
-> when you are done using your computer.

ENABLE browser extension:

-> when you are engage in high-risk activities like downloading something from the internet, etc.


As I've created this, these is something I should definitely keep them in mind.

-

Having said that, I do really have to keep in mind -- that keeping any browser extensions enabled all the time is not recommended, why?

The reason for this is because, I did find some research -- that keeping browser extensions enabled all time, would negatively impact performance and may introduce security risks -- if anyone are not taking proper security measures ( as seen above ). Here are my reason why it is not a good idea to keep your browser extensions enabled all the time.

REASON:

1. Performance Impact - Each enabled extension adds overhead to your browser, potentially slowing down loading times and overall responsiveness, especially if you have many extensions running concurrently.

2. Security Risks - Any extensions can be vulnerable to malicious updates or exploit flaws, potentially compromising your privacy and data.

3. Resource Consumption - Enabled extensions consume your device's resources, which can be noticeable on older or less powerful computers.



Lastly, here are my recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Review your extensions regularly - Check for any extensions you're not actively using and disable or uninstall them.

2. Enable extensions on demand - Only enable extensions when you need their functionality, and disable them when you're done using them

3. Be cautious about permissions - Pay close attention to the permissions an extension requests and only grant necessary access.

4. Use trusted sources - Install extensions from reputable sources like the Chrome Web Store or other trusted platforms.

5. Keep your extensions updated - Ensure your extensions are up-to-date to receive security patches and bug fixes.


All the reasons and recommendations I created, is something I should keep them in mind.

-

Anyway, thank you for testing this security browser extension. That really helps me out.

 

[Foulest]

I just gave this a quick try. For my usage, it gives too many false positives, where websites providing harmless PUPs are blocking due to hosting malware (which they don't). As a result I quickly removed it. But I'm sure this won't be an issue for the majority of users.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. If a provider gives false positives, it's best to report the URL and disable the provider in the settings panel. I've submitted an update that removes three providers and adds two more reputable and effective ones. I wish you'd give it a second try and at least only use one provider, like Microsoft SmartScreen. All the best!

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. If a provider gives false positives, it's best to report the URL and disable the provider in the settings panel. I've submitted an update that removes three providers and adds two more reputable and effective ones. I wish you'd give it a second try and at least only use one provider, like Microsoft SmartScreen. All the best!

Would be nice if you won't remove any providers and just put them into disabled and put them in a different section either under as not recommended or create an advanced settings option

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I just gave this a quick try. For my usage, it gives too many false positives, where websites providing harmless PUPs are blocking due to hosting malware (which they don't). As a result I quickly removed it. But I'm sure this won't be an issue for the majority of users.

Majority of the providers are aggressive by nature as they use ai to categorize pishing and use sensors and intelligence to rate ones that have pr used to host malicious content

Btwn for or non aggressive select quad9 cloud flare and Microsoft only

 

[Foulest]

Overhead of the extension is insanely low so there will be close to no performance impact using it and if someone wants to whitelist sites it currently does it to a non permanent cache up to 24 or end of browsing session but a permanent whitelisting is on the roadmap but as a non priority but other recommendations are great and the same I recommend except for those that adblocking to use brave instead of chrome and for even better pishing protection I will add checkpoint extension too for those that want even better detection (already had checkpoint zero pishing catch stuff osprey didn't although it's very rare for osprey to miss something and it's hard to get such fresh links that osprey doesn't have In it's intelligence and even then it has some technologies against zero days too )

The cache stays beyond your browsing session. It's stored in local storage for 24 hours, not session storage. True, the performance impact is next to nothing. Also, CheckPoint's permissions are a little invasive, no?

 

[roger_m]

Btwn for or non aggressive select quad9 cloud flare and Microsoft only

That works a lot better for me. I just opened a number of websites and none were blocked.

 

[Foulest]

Would be nice if you won't remove any providers and just put them into disabled and put them in a different section either under as not recommended or create an advanced settings option

I understand, but I'd like to only include effective protection options in Osprey. TOTAL caused too many false positives and had a shockingly poor detection rate in testing.

 

[Marko :)]

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. If a provider gives false positives, it's best to report the URL and disable the provider in the settings panel. I've submitted an update that removes three providers and adds two more reputable and effective ones. I wish you'd give it a second try and at least only use one provider, like Microsoft SmartScreen. All the best!

Even if someone uses it with SmartScreen only, it benefits from privacy perspective as the SmartScreen sends entire URL, along with all parameters. While Osprey only sends path.

Would be nice if you won't remove any providers and just put them into disabled and put them in a different section either under as not recommended or create an advanced settings option

Majority of the providers are aggressive by nature as they use ai to categorize pishing and use sensors and intelligence to rate ones that have pr used to host malicious content

Btwn for or non aggressive select quad9 cloud flare and Microsoft only

I'd include all providers and allow users to select their desired level of protection other than removing specific providers; I think it's much better approach.

For example, @Foulest could add three levels of protection (easy, medium, hard and custom) with user being asked immediately upon installation of the extension what level of protection it wants. And obviously, there should be description of all three/four modes.

Easy the one being recommended as it offers reasonable amount of protection without false positives.
Medium should offer more protection with rare false positives.
Hard best level of protection with greater chances of false positives.
Custom would be selected in case user enables/disables or makes combination of providers from each category.

This way, the most advanced users are covered, as well as those not so tech-wise. Additionally, I'd make a product more privacy focused by sending all the requests through proxy server, so user's IP addresses is protected and people wouldn't need to use VPN for privacy. For me, personally, it isn't viable to be connected 24/7 to VPN as it decreases speed and websites constantly ask for captcha.

 

[Foulest]

I'm content with the list of providers I have now, and I don't think it will change. They are all quite effective at blocking threats. There aren't any slouches in the lineup.
It's hard to do false-positive testing. If I had data for that, I would be able to set better default settings. I just don't have that kind of data.

 

[Marko :)]

I'm content with the list of providers I have now, and I don't think it will change. They are all quite effective at blocking threats. There aren't any slouches in the lineup.
It's hard to do false-positive testing. If I had data for that, I would be able to set better default settings. I just don't have that kind of data.

Actually, you don't need any data for false positives, just rank security vendors by popularity as the most popular ones tend to get very few FPs. But if you want data, take a look at already made tests by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives to determine "FP-free" security vendors. Both companies regularly test antivirus software and their web protection for false positives.

If you ask me, the three-level protection would function like this.

Spoiler

Easy: (almost no FPs)

1. Microsoft SmartScreen
2. Bitdefender Traffic Light
3. Emsisoft Web Protection
4. Quad9 Security DNS

Medium (security providers from easy +): (few FPs)

1. Symantec Browser Protection
2. Norton SafeWeb
3. GDATA WebProtection
4. Cloudflare Security DNS
5. CleanBrowsing Security DNS
6. AdGuard Security DNS

Hard: all security vendors (large number FPs)

False positives shouldn't be your job anyway. It's not like you're providing the protection service, you're just forwarding URLs to security vendors for analysis and showing the user result—that's it. This is the reason why I proposed those three levels of protection. Your job is only to warn users some security providers might wrongly detect safe websites and that's it. No need to scale down on security vendors; moreover, I'd add more of them.

Beside, protection levels make your extension extremely easy to use for all kinds of users. Because, currently, those security vendors mentioned in the extension don't mean anything to huge amount of people.

 

[rashmi]

@Foulest, Requesting options to hide the "allow host" and "continue" buttons within the alert page.

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

I understand, but I'd like to only include effective protection options in Osprey. TOTAL caused too many false positives and had a shockingly poor detection rate in testing.

Yeah talked to you in the discord server about it there was indeed good reasons to remove all providers that were removed for the average user
But I still like the idea of maybe having them as optional as I would have enabled them if I had the option

 

[Vitali Ortzi]

Actually, you don't need any data for false positives, just rank security vendors by popularity as the most popular ones tend to get very few FPs. But if you want data, take a look at already made tests by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives to determine "FP-free" security vendors. Both companies regularly test antivirus software and their web protection for false positives.

If you ask me, the three-level protection would function like this.

Spoiler

Easy: (almost no FPs)

1. Microsoft SmartScreen
2. Bitdefender Traffic Light
3. Emsisoft Web Protection
4. Quad9 Security DNS

Medium (security providers from easy +): (few FPs)

1. Symantec Browser Protection
2. Norton SafeWeb
3. GDATA WebProtection
4. Cloudflare Security DNS
5. CleanBrowsing Security DNS
6. AdGuard Security DNS

Hard: all security vendors (large number FPs)

False positives shouldn't be your job anyway. It's not like you're providing the protection service, you're just forwarding URLs to security vendors for analysis and showing the user result—that's it. This is the reason why I proposed those three levels of protection. Your job is only to warn users some security providers might wrongly detect safe websites and that's it. No need to scale down on security vendors; moreover, I'd add more of them.

Beside, protection levels make your extension extremely easy to use for all kinds of users. Because, currently, those security vendors mentioned in the extension don't mean anything to huge amount of people.

I agree
Btw about medium I think cloudflare is actually more like easy and I think that medium can be the default and then users can reduce or increase false positives based on their usage as a minority will need either easy or extreme settings like" high "