App Review Qihoo Total Security against Revenge Ransomware

[cruelsister]

 

[Tiny]

@cruelsister I know you most probably use CF10 exclusively, but if you had to chose an AV to use alongside it, would it be Qihoo or something else? If it is Qihoo, which version?

 

[larry goes to church]

@cruelsister I know you most probably use CF10 exclusively, but if you had to chose an AV to use alongside it, would it be Qihoo or something else? If it is Qihoo, which version?

What is CF10 if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Tiny]

@larry goes to church Comodo Firewall 10

 

[erreale]

Great video and great protection of Qihoo against 0days

 

[erreale]

I'd try Emsisoft IS against Revenge Ransomware


edit: I found the sample of Revenge, tonight I try against Emsi.

 

[Terry Ganzi]

What i can't understand is how in https://malwaretips.com/forums/malware-vault-samples they show 360 fail to protect against ransomware
most of the time but in your reviews it's solid. This got my brain mash right up. Can i please have more input form you on the topic of ransomware and 360.

 

[ForgottenSeer 55474]

Awesome video and outcome by Qihoo software,I would never had thought that a free AV could do that.
Thankyou Cruelsister,great!

 

[Faybert]

Thanks for the video, but I think the tests should focus on anti-virus like Avira, G Data, F-Secure, Panda, Bitdefender, Emsisoft, Trend Micro and etc, that is, companies that really profit with security, not with Qihoo and other Chinese AV, everyone knows that China's enterprises and mainly Qihoo profit from advertising and sales data From the user to third-party, the focus of Qihoo is not security, different from the other antivirus companies I mentioned, in my opinion Chinese anti-virus programs should be ignored.

 

[Arequire]

Thanks for the video, but I think the tests should focus on anti-virus like Avira, G Data, F-Secure, Panda, Bitdefender, Emsisoft, Trend Micro and etc, that is, companies that really profit with security, not with Qihoo and other Chinese AV, everyone knows that China's enterprises and mainly Qihoo profit from advertising and sales data From the user to third-party, the focus of Qihoo is not security, different from the other antivirus companies I mentioned, in my opinion Chinese anti-virus programs should be ignored.

So because of Qihoo's revenue source and country of origin they don't deserve attention? That's honestly ridiculous. Avast, AVG, Avira and Panda also sell non-personal data to third-parties to fund their free products but because they're not based in China they get a free pass? Obviously none of the paid products you mentioned do so because they don't offer free versions and as such they get their revenue from people paying for their products.

 

[erreale]

So because of Qihoo's revenue source and country of origin they don't deserve attention? That's honestly ridiculous. Avast, AVG, Avira and Panda also sell non-personal data to third-parties to fund their free products but because they're not based in China they get a free pass? Obviously none of the paid products you mentioned do so because they don't offer free versions and as such they get their revenue from people paying for their products.

I agree with you

 

[Faybert]

So because of Qihoo's revenue source and country of origin they don't deserve attention? That's honestly ridiculous. Avast, AVG, Avira and Panda also sell non-personal data to third-parties to fund their free products but because they're not based in China they get a free pass? Obviously none of the paid products you mentioned do so because they don't offer free versions and as such they get their revenue from people paying for their products.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Here's a good article on Chinese anti-virus and its tricks: https://www.baboo.com.br/seguranca/antivirus-chines-a-praga-dos-dias-de-hoje/

 

[Arequire]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. Here's a good article on Chinese anti-virus and its tricks: Antivirus chinês: a praga dos dias de hoje

I will gladly answer every point raised in that article:

1. Every country monitors foreign and domestic internet usage. If this is a barrier then the author of the article shouldn't use the internet.
2. Accusations mean nothing if proof isn't provided. Every levy against Qihoo has all be accusations with no proof to back it up.
3. The Bitdefender engine is the most widely used engine in the industry. Both Emsisoft and G-Data use it along with *many* other vendors.
4. The cheating is old news. Yes, Qihoo was at fault and was rightly punished. I also lay the blame partly on the testing organisations; they should have to download the program from the vendors' site like everyone who follows their testing has to. Being supplied with a version from the vendor directly opens said testing organisations up to that kind of abuse.
5. Every government imposes restrictions on what software is allowed to run on their systems.
6. "Much better" is subjective. Nothing's going to provide 100% protection.
7. If a user doesn't like their privacy policy then no one's forcing them to install said software.

I use Qihoo myself and I've never had a problem with it beyond the occasional false positive and a few false HIPS alerts. As far as I can see, those who distrust Qihoo do so because it's Chinese software and that attitude kind of makes me sick. I wouldn't instinctively distrust a person hailing from China so why should I distrust a Chinese company without a reason to do so?

 

[cruelsister]

Tiny- A great question! I have always liked Qihoo, specifically Total Security over the stripped down Security Essentials. And I actually just completed a QSE video against this same malware file this time showing that all the AV engines were enabled. The question to be answered is if QTS and QSE are equivalent in protecting against file encryption. I hope to publish by next Wednesday.

But for those that hate Chinese AV's for whatever reason, Avast can also be used with CF. But whatever AV is used with Comodo actually does not really matter since it is the sandbox that will catch any AV when it falls.

 

[codswollip]

I have always liked Qihoo, specifically Total Security over the stripped down Security Essentials

Why is that? Doesn't Essentials offer the same basic protection on a lighter footprint? Would Essentials have performed equally well as Total Security in your malware tests? BTW, I'm not defending Essentials... I'm trying to understand if I should switch to TS.

 

[Arequire]

Why is that? Doesn't Essentials offer the same basic protection on a lighter footprint? Would Essentials have performed equally well as Total Security in your malware tests? BTW, I'm not defending Essentials... I'm trying to understand if I should switch to TS.

It should offer the same protection. The only issue may be that Bitdefender updates seem to lag behind quite often on TSE.

 

[cruelsister]

That's what I thought also. We'll see when I release QSE against this malware next week (I was going to do it this weekend, but already have a HMP vs Worm with an Irish song for St Patrick's Day already scheduled). Also, neither Qihoo nor BD nor Avira had definitions in place for this particular sample. Although it wasn't clear in this video what AV engines were active, it will be in the next. Also, it seems that in QSE the Avira defs are today's (3/16). but the BD are 1 day delayed (3/15).

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

What i can't understand is how in https://malwaretips.com/forums/malware-vault-samples they show 360 fail to protect against ransomware
most of the time but in your reviews it's solid. This got my brain mash right up. Can i please have more input form you on the topic of ransomware and 360.

Same question, our resident testers results vary greatly from your results, not assuming or accusing
just pointing out a glaring fact.
whats the contributing factor here ?

 

[Deleted member 2913]

CG,

Qihoo just got lucky & nothing else........

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

CG,

Qihoo just got lucky & nothing else........

lol, you may be right.
Usually Sis's results "for the most part" follow suit with what
the testers experience with any given product, it is just strange seeing
this level of discrepancy where the results are concerned.