Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Evjl&amp;#039;s Rain" data-source="post: 603576" data-attributes="member: 51905">I just performed a quick test for uBO, avira and adguard extensions on google chrome with and without google browser safetyI enabled a lot of filters in uBO and adguard (adguard showed a notification of browsing speed slowdown)I use phishing links from phishtank, old and new ones. Opened ~30-40 links randomly. Dead links were ignoredfiltersuBO[SPOILER=&quot;uBO&quot;][ATTACH=full]140183[/ATTACH] [/SPOILER]adguard[SPOILER=&quot;adguard&quot;][ATTACH=full]140182[/ATTACH] [/SPOILER]What I can see from my quick test:- both 3 missed a lot of links, especially the links reported today (27/2/2017)- avira &gt;&gt;&gt; uBO, google and adguard combined- adguard could block a few more links (very few) if google browser safety (GBS) was enabled. When the links were blocked by GBS, I allowed them to run, adguard also let them pass- when GBS was disabled, adguard produced almost identical result compared to GBS, just a few links more were blocked- uBO could block many links also especially older ones, new links (today) were not yet added to the filters- uBO usually didn&#039;t block links blocked by GBS. in the other hand, uBO blocked links missed by GBS and adguard =&gt; they didn&#039;t overlap each other much- avira was the most effective- I tried to enable everything together (all 4: GBS, avira, adguard, uBO), very good result but many links were missedmy conclusion: if you use chrome or chromium-based browsers, adguard phishing protection is just slightly better or you don&#039;t even need adguard due to the overlap in engines if you have GBS enabled. It&#039;s highly recommended to use avira. You can use uBO and add more filters to strengthen your browser safetyduring the test, my avast web shield also blocked many links but it was weaker than aviranote: this is just a phishing test, no malware link was tested. The result would have changed depends on filters added in uBO</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Evjl's Rain, post: 603576, member: 51905"] I just performed a quick test for uBO, avira and adguard extensions on google chrome with and without google browser safety I enabled a lot of filters in uBO and adguard (adguard showed a notification of browsing speed slowdown) I use phishing links from phishtank, old and new ones. Opened ~30-40 links randomly. Dead links were ignored filters uBO [SPOILER="uBO"][ATTACH=full]140183[/ATTACH] [/SPOILER] adguard [SPOILER="adguard"][ATTACH=full]140182[/ATTACH] [/SPOILER] What I can see from my quick test: - both 3 missed a lot of links, especially the links reported today (27/2/2017) - avira >>> uBO, google and adguard combined - adguard could block a few more links (very few) if google browser safety (GBS) was enabled. When the links were blocked by GBS, I allowed them to run, adguard also let them pass - when GBS was disabled, adguard produced almost identical result compared to GBS, just a few links more were blocked - uBO could block many links also especially older ones, new links (today) were not yet added to the filters - uBO usually didn't block links blocked by GBS. in the other hand, uBO blocked links missed by GBS and adguard => they didn't overlap each other much - avira was the most effective - I tried to enable everything together (all 4: GBS, avira, adguard, uBO), very good result but many links were missed my conclusion: if you use chrome or chromium-based browsers, adguard phishing protection is just slightly better or you don't even need adguard due to the overlap in engines if you have GBS enabled. It's highly recommended to use avira. You can use uBO and add more filters to strengthen your browser safety during the test, my avast web shield also blocked many links but it was weaker than avira note: this is just a phishing test, no malware link was tested. The result would have changed depends on filters added in uBO [/QUOTE]

Verification