goodjohnjr

Level 2
Link test 10/7/2018

chrome: 27/29
norton: 4/29!!!
Avira: 24/29
WDBP: 24/29 -> warned still downloaded
malwarebytes: 26/29
squidblacklist (ublock filter): 17/29
comodo: 27/29
Edge: 27/29

resource usage:
Norton < comodo < WDBP < ublock < malwarebytes < avira

comodo for safe websites is really really fast but when it detected malwares, it will redirect to a comodo page, which extremely slow to load (n)

WDBP needs respawn/recovery time, at least 1-2 seconds

Hello Evjl's Rain,

Now that Comodo finally did pretty well do you plan on adding Comodo DNS to your tests to see if it is finally worth using after all of these years?

Thank you,
-John Jr
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Hello Evjl's Rain,

Now that Comodo finally did pretty well do you plan on adding Comodo DNS to your tests to see if it is finally worth using after all of these years?

Thank you,
-John Jr
I will consider it but I doubt it will do very badly
DNS and extension are entirely different

the best DNS malware blocking is Neustar recursive DNS
 

goodjohnjr

Level 2
I will consider it but I doubt it will do very badly
DNS and extension are entirely different

the best DNS malware blocking is Neustar recursive DNS

Thank you for answering that Evjl's Rain, yeah, I noticed how well Neustar Recursive DNS performed in one of your previous tests and I was surprised because I had never heard of it really or I heard of it but never tried it or saw it tested before.

All these years I have never seen a test where Comodo DNS has done good, though it has been a while since I have ever seen anyone test it, and so I am curious to see if it has improved since then to match or surpass the other DNS services that you have tested.

-John Jr
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Updated 18/7/2018

sorry, no time to test more
Dropbox - test 18-7-2018.txt

chrome: 20/25
WDBP: 16/25
comodo: 15/25
ublock (default): 1/25
ublock (+custom): 20/25
avira: 20/25
Malwarebytes: 24/25
Bitdefender TL: 1/25 (expected)
avast: 0/25 (expected)
adguard (+custom): 1/25 (expected)
Edge: 24/25

DNS:
norton: 2/25
Quad9: 2/25
Neustar: 9/25

best list: hphosts > squidblacklist >>> AdZ >>> others = 1 or 0

list of applied ublock filters: default + these
hphosts+hphosts partial = all individual hosts combine (emd, hjk, exp, fsh,...)
1.PNG

my setup: Chrome + ublock (hphosts EMD+PUP) + comodo online security + WDBP + Norton Safe Web = 25/25
 
Last edited:

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 35
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Updated 18/7/2018

sorry, no time to test more

chrome: 20/25
WDBP: 16/25
comodo: 15/25
ublock (default): 1/25
ublock (+custom): 20/25
avira: 20/25
Malwarebytes: 24/25
Bitdefender TL: 1/25 (expected)
avast: 0/25 (expected)
adguard (+custom): 1/25 (expected)
Edge: 24/25

DNS:
norton: 2/25
Quad9: 2/25
Neustar: 9/25

best list: hphosts > squidblacklist >>> AdZ >>> others = 1 or 0

list of applied ublock filters: default + these
hphosts+hphosts partial = all individual hosts combine (emd, hjk, exp, fsh,...)

my setup: Chrome + ublock (hphosts EMD) + comodo online security + WDBP + Norton Safe Web = 25/25

Thanks for your testing (y)
Can you give me the links you tested?
I'm curious how my setup with Kaspersky Free performs.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 35
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
The results for my config (Google Chrome with AdGuard extension and KFA 2019 en Comodo Firewall 11 as protection): 24/25
Kaspersky: 22/25
AdGuard: 2/25 (1 unique detection)
Comodo: 1/25 (1 unique detection)
Google: 1/25

The missed url dropped a file and I submitted that undetected file to Kaspersky and they found the file malicious and detection will be added.
The 3 missed urls are reported to Kaspersky.
 
Last edited:

Moonhorse

Level 29
Verified
Content Creator
The results for my config (Google Chrome with AdGuard extension and KFA 2019 en Comodo Firewall 11 as protection): 24/25
Kaspersky: 22/25
AdGuard: 2/25 (1 unique detection)
Comodo: 1/25 (1 unique detection)
Google: 1/25

The missed url dropped a file and I submitted that undetected file to Kaspersky and they found the file malicious and detection will be added.
sad the comodo firewalls web filter and online security have different results:confused:
 

Decopi

Level 3
Hi @Evjl's Rain , thank you for all your updated tests.

Using your dropbox-test-sample, I achieved 25/25 with Pi-Hole.

However and to be fair with your test, I used the following computer-on-board tools: K9 (minimum configuration) + Avast AV Free (Web Shield)... and also achieved 25/25 with your dropbox-test-sample.
That's all, not hosts, neither add-ons.

Both, K9 and Avast AV have the less system-impact, with the highest rates of blocking. As far as I know, both are the best combo considering browser performance (RAM, CPU, battery-life, and browser speed). Not to mention that both will work at system level, watching not just 1 browser but 100% of all computer traffic communication.

For privacy and ads, a tiny/lightweight 3rd-party blocker does the best job, at almost zero system-impact.

I still believe that blocking rates with system-impact, is a zero-sum-game .

PS: It is always good to remember, that VTZilla add-on can block 99,99% of malwares. There is no reason anymore to use add-ons with hosts.
 
Last edited:

Moonhorse

Level 29
Verified
Content Creator
Hi @Evjl's Rain , thank you for all your updated tests.

Using your dropbox-test-sample, I achieved 25/25 with Pi-Hole.

However and to be fair with your test, I used the following computer-on-board tools: K9 (minimum configuration) + Avast AV Free (Web Shield)... and also achieved 25/25 with your dropbox-test-sample.
That's all, not hosts, neither add-ons.

Both, K9 and Avast AV have the less system-impact, with the highest rates of blocking. As far as I know, both are the best combo considering browser performance (RAM, CPU, battery-life, and browser speed). Not to mention that both will work at system level, watching not just 1 browser but 100% of all computer traffic communication.

For privacy and ads, a tiny/lightweight 3rd-party blocker does the best job, at almost zero system-impact.

I still believe that blocking rates with system-impact, is a zero-sum-game .
decent antivirus software and only thing you need is up to date browser, with adguard client or built in adblocker you dont even need extensions :unsure:
 

Decopi

Level 3
decent antivirus software and only thing you need is up to date browser, with adguard client or built in adblocker you dont even need extensions :unsure:

Personally I only use CF+CS settings, Pi-Hole and VTZilla... nothing else.
I tested this combo for more than 1 year, with the worst pests, and nothing passed.
My security/privacy model is based always prioritizing browser and system performance. I always look for the best block-combo with the lower system performance impact.

Now I used K9 and Avast AV... just to be fair with @Evjl's Rain test.

I'm trying to offer here a second opinion, prioritizing system performance, with high rate blocking.
 
Last edited:

Moonhorse

Level 29
Verified
Content Creator
Personally I only use CF+CS settings, Pi-Hole and VTZilla... nothing more.
I tested this combo for more than 1 year, with the worst pests, and nothing passed.
My security/privacy model is based always prioritizing browser and system performance. I always look for the best block-combo with the lower system performance impact.

Now I used K9 and Avast AV... just to be fair with @Evjl's Rain test.

I'm trying to offer here a second opinion, prioritizing system performance, with high rate blocking.
Yeah any default deny alone should be enough for advanced user, but good antivirus or extension or two doesnt hurt at all this day
 

Decopi

Level 3
Yeah any default deny alone should be enough for advanced user, but good antivirus or extension or two doesnt hurt at all this day

I do respect your opinion.
In fact, I believe that the "best combo" is just the combo the user like.
It doesn't exist such thing like "the best universal solution".

Having said that, technically speaking, sometimes the less the better.
For example, even recognizing that Avast AV have the lowest system impact, its Web Shield slows down browser speed, and also creates conflicts with TLS. In other words, many users don't feel system impact, or don't care. But not just system impact always exists, but worse, it creates conflicts. Firefox has interesting researches showing how add-ons, antivirus etc interfere with the browser. It is a fact: The less, the better.
So, instead antivirus, even average users should be better protected with an anti-executable + a kind of K9 blocker working at system level (if they can't use Pi-Hole).

My very personal subjective opinion is that having thousand of new malwares and risk-wares appearing everyday... antivirus/anti-malwares are obsolete. And add-ons with hosts... are extincted dinosaurs.
Intelligent anti-executables should replace them. CF+CS settings is a good start. VTZilla is another piece of art.

Conclusion: If we have less system resources strategies, with high blocking rates... then we should focus on them.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
sad the comodo firewalls web filter and online security have different results:confused:
I did a test of comodo firewall web filter before he posted the result
first test: 0/25 => I said WTH!???
I went to the settings and update comodo firewall web signatures
re-test: 20/25 => same as the extension

CF by default update their web database every 6 hours but nobody can make sure they are always up-to-date

the extension is much better because it's 100% updated in realtime while CF isn't updated
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Google: 1/25
hi, I think google chrome will warn you about the safety of the files after you download them and I think it should be counted
chrome only shows a red/block page sometimes
on my test, chrome scored very high

similarly to Edge. It lets you download then ask you to keep or delete the files
 
Top