Hot Take [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

[Evjl's Rain]

Comparison between browser extensions

Test 29/12
Q&A - [Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 24/11
Q&A - [Updated 24/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 12/11
Q&A - [Updated 12/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 7/11
Q&A - [Updated 7/11/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 6/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 3/9
Q&A - [Updated 3/9/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test 2/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Test, quick 1/9
Q&A - [Updated 25/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Fun test 25/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 24/7/2018 (most comprehensive, as possible)
Q&A - [Updated 24/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 19/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 18/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 10/7/2018
Q&A - [Updated 10/7/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 7/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 7/6/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 3/6/2018
Q&A - [Updated 3/6/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Updated 25/4/2018
Poll - [Updated 25/4/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings

Update: 23/3/2018
Poll - [Updated 23/3/18] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings


Browser: Google Chrome 65 x64
Malware and phishing links: 10 malc0de, 10 vxvault, 10 openphish, 10 verified phishtank, 10 unverified phishtank
Total: 50 links

Spoiler: Links

Dropbox - link test 17-3-2018.txt

Extensions: recently downloaded from Chrome Web Store
- Google Safe Browsing (built-in chrome's protection)
- AdGuard AdBlocker: default settings, uses Google Safe Browsing (delayed) and their own database
- Avira browser safety: default settings
- Norton Safe Web: default settings
- Bitdefender Trafficlight: default settings, it rarely blocks any malware links, just old ones
- Avast Online Security: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- Netcraft Extension: default settings, only has phishing protection, expected to score 0 against malwares
- uBlock Origin with some additional filters

Spoiler: ublock origin filters

http://hosts-file.net/emd.txt
http://hosts-file.net/exp.txt
http://hosts-file.net/pup.txt
http://hosts-file.net/psh.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/StevenBlack/hosts/master/hosts
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_DOMBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_IPBL.txt
https://ransomwaretracker.abuse.ch/downloads/RW_URLBL.txt

NOTE: the result can vary from day-to-day. Tomorrow with different links, the result can be very different. All are live links but they can be dead a few minutes after the test. No duplication

Results:

Winner: Google Safe Browsing

 

[LDogg]

Agree with you. The most secure browser for me is google chrome. I love opera browser but only for secure surfing, and always with https everywhere avira or malwarebytes or....or...... extension. Google chrome only with WDBP
is enough

I disagree entirely.

1. I believe HTTPS Everywhere to be outdated now. Most sites use https by default now.

2. WDBP isn't sufficient protection on its own for the browser.

~LDogg

 

[stefanos]

I disagree entirely.

1. I believe HTTPS Everywhere to be outdated now. Most sites use https by default now.

2. WDBP isn't sufficient protection on its own for the browser.

~LDogg

I wrote about a difference extesion just becase to show how mutch i trust opera or other browsers. google chrome alone is enough for me. I run and WDBP just for little bit help. All the others browser need 15 extension extra for secure surf. My english is not good . I hope you anderstand me. f or me the best extesions is avira and malwarebytes. I don t use more extesions. And WDBP with chrome because is lite.

 

[Decopi]

It is wrong to compare GoogleChrome to Firefox.
Both have their own pros and cons.

GoogleChrome is like IE... both browsers exist just because most of the user-brains are "plug and play"... users don't like to read, don't want to learn, nothing... most of the users they don't know what is a browser... they just want to browse. And considering that GoogleChrome / IE are massively offered by mega-companies with marketing budgets of billions of dollars... that is the main reason most of users use GoogleChrome / IE, just because both are the most offered browsers. In analogy, the same happens with Windows / Linux.

Firefox is not for most of the users.
Firefox is a tool. That means, Firefox' users need to read, to learn etc how to take advantage from Firefox.
Compared to GoogleChrome, Firefox is almost 100% customizable. This is the main advantage of Firefox over GoogleChrome. And this Firefox customization covers everything, including aesthetics, functions, privacy & security measures etc.

In terms of privacy/security, default settings for GoogleChrome / Firefox is not the right parameter for comparisons. Firefox customized is unbeatable when compared to GoogleChrome (not by chance, Tor is a Firefox fork).

And the fact Firefox offers SafeBrowsing (from GoogleChrome), it means nothing.
Firefox offers customization. And users can choose whatever they want.
By the way, in Firefox you can achieve 25/25 from last @Evjl's Rain test, without SafeBrowsing (from GoogleChrome), and without UBlock, hosts, add-ons, extensions etc. It is a mistake to make comparisons/conclusions based on hosts and add-ons/extensions.

Firefox not just can be the best in privacy/security, but also is incredible fast, and one of the browsers with the lower system impact.

 

[stefanos]

I disagree entirely.

1. I believe HTTPS Everywhere to be outdated now. Most sites use https by default now.

2. WDBP isn't sufficient protection on its own for the browser.

~LDogg

Make a simple test at malcode database and phisingtank. Chrome with WDBP. And tell me the results

 

[stefanos]

It is wrong to compare GoogleChrome to Firefox.
Both have their own pros and cons.

GoogleChrome is like IE... both browsers exist just because most of the user-brains are "plug and play"... users don't like to read, don't want to learn, nothing... most of the users they don't know what is a browser... they just want to browse. And considering that GoogleChrome / IE are massively offered by mega-companies with marketing budgets of billions of dollars... that is the main reason most of users use GoogleChrome / IE, just because both are the most offered browsers. In analogy, the same happens with Windows / Linux.

Firefox is not for most of the users.
Firefox is a tool. That means, Firefox' users need to read, to learn etc how to take advantage from Firefox.
Compared to GoogleChrome, Firefox is almost 100% customizable. This is the main advantage of Firefox over GoogleChrome. And this Firefox customization covers everything, including aesthetics, functions, privacy & security measures etc.

In terms of privacy/security, default settings for GoogleChrome / Firefox is not the right parameter for comparisons. Firefox customized is unbeatable when compared to GoogleChrome (not by chance, Tor is a Firefox fork).

And the fact Firefox offers SafeBrowsing (from GoogleChrome), it means nothing.
Firefox offers customization. And users can choose whatever they want.
By the way, in Firefox you can achieve 25/25 from last @Evjl's Rain test, without SafeBrowsing (from GoogleChrome), and without UBlock, hosts, add-ons, extensions etc. It is a mistake to make comparisons/conclusions based on hosts and add-ons/extensions.

Firefox not just can be the best in privacy/security, but also is incredible fast, and one of the browsers with the lower system impact.

 

[stefanos]

 

[Moonhorse]

View attachment 192884

Firefox can beat chromium in memory usage after you have like 20 tabs open, i usually have like 1-3 at max so chrome is always been lighter solution. Firefox have few extensions that offer better privacy over chromium + stability. Chromium is just lighter.

After trying most of browsers i think yandex fits best for me, maybe not privacy wide the best option. But security wide for sure

Theres also buit in dns, huge list where to choose from

 

[stefanos]

Firefox can beat chromium in memory usage after you have like 20 tabs open, i usually have like 1-3 at max so chrome is always been lighter solution. Firefox have few extensions that offer better privacy over chromium + stability. Chromium is just lighter.

After trying most of browsers i think yandex fits best for me, maybe not privacy wide the best option. But security wide for sure

same like you. For me chrome is light secure and have the best translator. If your mother lanquage is not english is very important. For me is. And the important for me is light everywere or browser or antivirus. But is just what i wanT.Is not the best opinion

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Firefox can beat chromium in memory usage after you have like 20 tabs open, i usually have like 1-3 at max so chrome is always been lighter solution. Firefox have few extensions that offer better privacy over chromium + stability. Chromium is just lighter.

After trying most of browsers i think yandex fits best for me, maybe not privacy wide the best option. But security wide for sure

Theres also buit in dns, huge list where to choose from

yandex is poor in blocking malwares
zero efficacy in blocking phishing

some extensions are not available in yandex or cannot be installed although I tried different ways

 

[stefanos]

yandex is poor in blocking malwares
zero efficacy in blocking phishing

Never i use yandex. But i trust your opinion. Every Time if i follow your opinion i am happy

 

[stefanos]

But really guys i'm not professional, i am not the best tester at MalwareTips. But for testing browsers how much secure is i will going to Malc0de Database and PhishTank | Join the fight against phishing and is easy to found the best option. If i am wrong i wait yours opinions

 

[Moonhorse]

yandex is poor in blocking malwares
zero efficacy in blocking phishing

some extensions are not available in yandex or cannot be installed although I tried different ways

Yeah the store is weird, you have to go chrome web store to download extensions

I have chrome always installed and up to date, since i use bank verification on some sites with it

Anyways if i find yandex dns fastest for me, i can always go same setup google chrome and the only difference is that most alternative browsers are 32bit using bit less ram than google does. Sadly google chrome is just best optimized out there when using media players etc

 

[stefanos]

Yeah the store is weird, you have to go chrome web store to download extensions

I have chrome always installed and up to date, since i use bank verification on some sites with it

Anyways if i find yandex dns fastest for me, i can always go same setup google chrome and the only difference is that most alternative browsers are 32bit using bit less ram than google does. Sadly google chrome is just best optimized out there when using media players etc

Good for you. We all choose what we like. But it's good to be here in the MalwareTips forum to see the weaknesses of our choices

 

[Evjl's Rain]

But really guys i'm not professional, i am not the best tester at MalwareTips. But for testing browsers how much secure is i will going to Malc0de Database and PhishTank | Join the fight against phishing and is easy to found the best option. If i am wrong i wait yours opinions

malc0de, vxvault, phishtank, openphish,...
I also find extra links which are not in vxvault/malc0de because these extensions usually have signatures for malc0de already

 

[Decopi]

Firefox can beat chromium in memory usage after you have like 20 tabs open... Chromium is just lighter.

Nothing against your preferences. The definition of "the best", always depends on the user-profile, not in the product. So, without questioning your preferences, I just would like to share with you some info:

1) At Firefox you can customize the number of "content processes". For example, if the user in average needs 20 opened tabs, then he can use 10 processes for better performance. And if he needs 4 tabs, he can use 1 content process consuming less than 300MB. Not to mention that also is possible in Firefox, without add-ons/extensions, to "hibernate" tabs, downsizing RAM and CPU to the lowest rates in the market.

2) If you have more than 5GB RAM, then RAM not always is important when we talk about system-performance. But CPU is important. Firefox has WebRender option. That means, if user wants, he can transfer most of the CPU resources to the GPU resources. This will make CPU almost zero. And for browsers GPU always is and will be more efficient than CPU. Firefox can work in the computer as a video-game. Now, ask yourself why video-games use GPU and not CPU.

3) Browser structures are trending "to isolate processes" (every webpage will have its own process). This will be a tremendous pressure for CPUs, but not for GPUs.

Conclusion: Firefox is a matter of customization. If users don't love to read/learn how to customize, then other browsers are best for them.
The irony here is that Firefox is so customizable that can be transformed in a kind of GoogleChrome. But the opposite, is impossible.

 

[Moonhorse]

Nothing against your preferences. The definition of "the best", always depends on the user-profile, not in the product. So, without questioning your preferences, I just would like to share with you some info:

1) At Firefox you can customize the number of "content processes". For example, if the user in average needs 20 opened tabs, then he can use 10 processes for better performance. And if he needs 4 tabs, he can use 1 content process consuming less than 300MB. Not to mention that also is possible in Firefox, without add-ons/extensions, to "hibernate" tabs, downsizing RAM and CPU to the lowest rates in the market.

2) If you have more than 5GB RAM, then RAM not always is important when we talk about system-performance. But CPU is important. Firefox has WebRender option. That means, if user wants, he can transfer most of the CPU resources to the GPU resources. This will make CPU almost zero. And for browsers GPU always is and will be more efficient than CPU. Firefox can work in the computer as a video-game. Now, ask yourself why video-games use GPU and not CPU.

3) Browser structures are trending "to isolate processes" (every webpage will have its own process). This will be a tremendous pressure for CPUs, but not for GPUs.

Conclusion: Firefox is a matter of customization. If users don't love to read/learn how to customize, then other browsers are best for them.
The irony here is that Firefox is so customizable that can be transformed in a kind of GoogleChrome. But the opposite, is impossible.

Well firefox is better than chromium in my opinion, but im still worrying about the ram its using even it doesnt have any affect on system performance. Firefox font rendering is nicer to look at

Im simple guy;
- trying to get privacy from google on browser
- still using gmail and having android phone :emoji_innocent:

 

[Evjl's Rain]

chrome can be very customizable too but not as many as firefox
chrome can hibernate tab, too, just enable a flag
or chrome can also block...
enable-framebusting-needs-sameorigin-or-usergesture

but there are 3 things I dislike about firefox
- fonts look broken to me. The extension fixing it isn't compatible with quantum yet. Some prefer firefox's font rendering than chrome
- push notification doesn't work (facebook messenger) although I enabled it in about:config. I use facebook for my daily work so it's extremely important
- after a malware download is blocked, it takes more clicks to remove it while chrome needs 1-2 clicks

I also feel like chrome with 10-20 extensions run faster than firefox with the same extensions but FF is faster with very few extensions

 

[Decopi]

Im simple guy;
- trying to get privacy from google on browser
- still using gmail and having android phone :emoji_innocent:

It is totally fine!
Stay with the product that makes you happy.
The "best", is the product that makes you happy.

I just wanted to add you info.
As long as you read more, learn more etc, you always will need more.
My assumption is that people in this forum are not average-users... so, they want more. Firefox is not the final best solution, but it can be an alternative for those who wants more in terms of customization, privacy, security, performance etc.

I don't believe in "comparisons".
I believe in "user-profiles".
And as I said, as long as users read/learn more... naturally they always look for more.

 

[Moonhorse]

@Decopi thats true

Also difference between chrome + firefox i like is you can autodelete cookies and avoid saving browsing history on firefox

But for chrome you actually need extension or alternate chromium browser

I think most on this forum are above average joe, since theyre actually ' trying' to do research and asking for help when needed, and looking for alternatives, and be sceptical about anything

 

[Evjl's Rain]

test 19/07/2018
19 links NOT from vxvault, malc0de,
1 vxvault link (1 was dead during the test so I had to replace it by this)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y1w8zvi95vja9xv/test 19-7-18.txt?dl=1

chrome: 16/20
avira: 10/20
comodo: 2/20!
malwarebytes: 18/20
Norton: 0/20!
WDBP: 8/20
McAfee: 0/20 (expected)!
Panda: 0/20!
ublock (custom): 11/20
Edge: 18/20

ublock custom filters: All filters here + squidblacklist + AdZ ~2.8 millions, cosmetics don't count

Comodo firewall: 1/20
My setup: 19/20