goodjohnjr

Level 1
hello, I think comodo did so badly in my first test because it was the first release => it wasn't correctly functioning or there was something wrong with their cloud database so the extension could not lookup
now, they fixed it so it can work at full potential


I tried to report it to them, they said they would consider but it seems they have ignored it. I give up


I think it's very hard because the list is not maintained by the developer of ublock
the default lists he adds to ublock are the most well-known malware blocking ones but not many people have verified their effectiveness
recently, I found squidblacklist to be quite effective but in the past, no one knew about it
*For some reason I have not been getting email alerts to new comments and replies to my comments on this thread even though I have all the alert options enabled in my settings, I did not realize that there were comments and replies here until I looked manually, I just reported it to see if this is a bug or something or is this normal.*

Hello Evjl's Rain,

That sounds like the likely scenario, if true then that is a pretty big mistake that they made there, but I am glad that it is fixed now; and I am curious to see how it performs in your future tests.

I actually saw your report to Avira, you are correct unfortunately, it is a shame that they have not fixed this yet because Avira would be my first choice at this time because it is pretty good at adblocking (thanks to Adguard, though I would prefer that they used Ublock Origin's code instead, and maybe partner with Adguard for their lists) and malicious website blocking which could allow you to have one extension instead of two; but I can not recommend using it until they fix that and maybe add an option to report issues from the extension itself.

Yeah, I know, but it would be nice if there was a way to have a report feature that would allow you to report issues directly to each list and even an option to report problems with the extension itself through the extension itself instead of having to go to Github et cetera; the developer could add Squidblacklist's (which I had never heard of until you mentioned it earlier in this thread, and so thank you) malicious website list as a default list and a few other somewhat proven lists that are missing, and remove a few lists that have somewhat proven to be less effective.

Thank you for replying,
-John Jr
 
Last edited:

goodjohnjr

Level 1
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 43
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 1
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 43
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 21
Verified
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 21
Verified
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 26
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 2
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 26
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 :emoji_thinking:
 

Decopi

Level 2
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 :emoji_thinking:
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 26
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 2
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 43
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