Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,617
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
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

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:
result.png


Winner: Google Safe Browsing
 
Last edited:

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
810
Hi guys:
Today i purchased Norton security standard for 1yr 1 pc . I went in to test immediately .Results surprised me totally..
Almost null malicious URL blocking and Anti phishing even with its new extension (SAFE WEB)
Threats have been taken care off only by Auto protect (Out of topic)
This is not the norton which i tested 6 months back..Know they left connect safe and shifted to Neustar Dns _/\_
Results: Phished Urls : 3/150 (Clean mx, Open phish) Malicious Url blocking : NULL (Even with week old links)
Initiated a refund immediately within 3 hrs of purchase..Whats going on inside Symantec
Almost Web level protection is non existent.. .No information from their support either
what is your view here ? @Evjl's Rain
 

oldschool

Level 65
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Mar 29, 2018
5,405
Hi guys:
Today i purchased Norton security standard for 1yr 1 pc . I went in to test immediately .Results surprised me totally..
Almost null malicious URL blocking and Anti phishing even with its new extension (SAFE WEB)
Threats have been taken care off only by Auto protect (Out of topic)
This is not the norton which i tested 6 months back..Know they left connect safe and shifted to Neustar Dns _/\_
Results: Phished Urls : 3/150 (Clean mx, Open phish) Malicious Url blocking : NULL (Even with week old links)
Initiated a refund immediately within 3 hrs of purchase..Whats going on inside Symantec
Almost Web level protection is non existent.. .No information from their support either
what is your view here ? @Evjl's Rain

I believe @Slyguy, @Illumination and others only recommend SEPC because Norton has declined so much. At least they still do refunds without problems.
 

Burrito

Level 24
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
May 16, 2018
1,363
Hi guys:
Today i purchased Norton security standard for 1yr 1 pc . I went in to test immediately .Results surprised me totally..
Almost null malicious URL blocking and Anti phishing even with its new extension (SAFE WEB)
Threats have been taken care off only by Auto protect (Out of topic)
This is not the norton which i tested 6 months back..Know they left connect safe and shifted to Neustar Dns _/\_
Results: Phished Urls : 3/150 (Clean mx, Open phish) Malicious Url blocking : NULL (Even with week old links)
Initiated a refund immediately within 3 hrs of purchase..Whats going on inside Symantec
Almost Web level protection is non existent.. .No information from their support either
what is your view here ? @Evjl's Rain

Uugghh. That's annoying -- as I've been using and liking Norton Premium for a few years now. I think it's one of the top three or four AVs with fewer of the side effects of the others.

But yeah, the indications are what they are. Filtering has suffered. Could that be indicative of a larger decline in the product? I'll be watching independent testing carefully..

So... is this a temporary dip for Symantec, or will I have to find a new cornerstone AV for my systems. I've always like the malware performace of Bitdefender... it was just always glitchy for me. But maybe I'll be lookiing at it again... I love how effective Kaspersky is... I just won't tolerate other aspects of that AV. But.... I digress...
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
810
Uugghh. That's annoying -- as I've been using and liking Norton Premium for a few years now. I think it's one of the top three or four AVs with fewer of the side effects of the others.

But yeah, the indications are what they are. Filtering has suffered. Could that be indicative of a larger decline in the product? I'll be watching independent testing carefully..

So... is this a temporary dip for Symantec, or will I have to find a new cornerstone AV for my systems. I've always like the malware performace of Bitdefender... it was just always glitchy for me. But maybe I'll be lookiing at it again... I love how effective Kaspersky is... I just won't tolerate other aspects of that AV. But.... I digress...
The thing i surprised most is how could their web prevention degrade to that extent within a span of 6 months..its almost dead
No fight from their heuristics either in case of phishing..but this was opposite when i tested it around 6 months ago.
This again reminds me how fast any product can hammer down due to internal policies, Cost cutting or politics
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,617
Hi guys:
Today i purchased Norton security standard for 1yr 1 pc . I went in to test immediately .Results surprised me totally..
Almost null malicious URL blocking and Anti phishing even with its new extension (SAFE WEB)
Threats have been taken care off only by Auto protect (Out of topic)
This is not the norton which i tested 6 months back..Know they left connect safe and shifted to Neustar Dns _/\_
Results: Phished Urls : 3/150 (Clean mx, Open phish) Malicious Url blocking : NULL (Even with week old links)
Initiated a refund immediately within 3 hrs of purchase..Whats going on inside Symantec
Almost Web level protection is non existent.. .No information from their support either
what is your view here ? @Evjl's Rain
they seem to ignore web protection completely and rely solely on Download Insight for downloaded files
Norton is always in my blacklist due to bugs and unexpected problems that they refuse to fix for year
they don't have a proper webfilter but instead, install norton safe web extension to do that. However, Norton Safe Web has been rubbish recently
 

Brie

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Jan 1, 2018
453
they seem to ignore web protection completely and rely solely on Download Insight for downloaded files
Norton is always in my blacklist due to bugs and unexpected problems that they refuse to fix for year
they don't have a proper webfilter but instead, install norton safe web extension to do that. However, Norton Safe Web has been rubbish recently
thank you for your posts. i learned a lot from them. (y)
 

goodjohnjr

Level 2
Jul 11, 2018
58
As we saw a fall of norton extension lately, i dont think these tests are useless. Most of forum members like me dont have resources to do that kind of testing or have access on malware hub. Like having 6 tests on a year or every two months some kind of detail how these extensions are competing will be helpful since it will show how well they are performing overall / long term

@Evjl's Rain take care, but remember youre very respected person here on mt, and you have plenty of followers to take care of your back:sneaky: keep going(y)

Hello Moonhorse,

I agree with you, these tests are helpful and needed, they definitely help us track the progress of these products; and have even picked up things that most people would not have noticed, like Norton's decline, which is possibly a result of some recent changes at the company.

It would be nice if others with the resources and skills would join Evjl's Rain in doing these tests at least once or twice a month or something.

They can really help us with keeping our extensions, DNS services, anti-malware programs, blocking lists, et cetera set to the best overall for our security setup at all times.

-John Jr
 

ZeroDay

Level 29
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Aug 17, 2013
1,856
@Moonhorse You've got too many extensions that do the same job there it's like running 2 AV's. Plus! You're increasing your attack surface. There's no need at all to have Avira browser safety, Bitdefender traffic light, Avast, malwarebytes and Netcracft. There's way too much overlap there you're just asking for conflicts and adding to the attack surface of your browser. If you're that unsure about which websites are safe to browse or not I wouldn't be looking at just extensions.
 

Stas

Level 9
Verified
Well-known
Feb 21, 2015
445
@Moonhorse You've got too many extensions that do the same job there it's like running 2 AV's. Plus! You're increasing your attack surface. There's no need at all to have Avira browser safety, Bitdefender traffic light, Avast, malwarebytes and Netcracft. There's way too much overlap there you're just asking for conflicts and adding to the attack surface of your browser. If you're that unsure about which websites are safe to browse or not I wouldn't be looking at just extensions.
It was done for testing only, to see if any of this extensions would block that phishing site.
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 31, 2014
1,727
Forticlient won once again i think
View attachment 196953
Never one extension can have a hundred percent success in all tests. In my opinion Avira borwser safety it is one of the most stable and safety extension. Its results are always in the best three extensions. With the only extension that can be compared today is malwarebytes.And really you use many many extensions. I think is not good for your browsing
 

Moonhorse

Level 31
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 29, 2018
2,064
Never one extension can have a hundred percent success in all tests. In my opinion Avira borwser safety it is one of the most stable and safety extension. Its results are always in the best three extensions. With the only extension that can be compared today is malwarebytes.And really you use many many extensions. I think is not good for your browsing
Well i use malwarebytes + netcraft on firefox and netcraft only on chrome
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Sep 3, 2017
810
Correct me if wrong : If you simply follow healthy browsing habits, keeping an eye in Url bar,Enabling built in browser protection
You would definetly be secure
Its almost impossible for any normal person to land in a hijacked host unless and until he wanted to or testing purposes
Just use a soild AV that provides all these features along side with you..than all these heavy weight bars
 

stefanos

Level 28
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Oct 31, 2014
1,727
Correct me if wrong : If you simply follow healthy browsing habits, keeping an eye in Url bar,Enabling built in browser protection
You would definetly be secure
Its almost impossible for any normal person to land in a hijacked host unless and until he wanted to or testing purposes
Just use a soild AV that provides all these features along side with you..than all these heavy weight bars
Agree with you. But if you use free protection only Kaspersky free is good enough
 

TairikuOkami

Level 31
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
May 13, 2017
2,050
There's no need at all to have Avira browser safety, Bitdefender traffic light, Avast, malwarebytes and Netcracft.
Avira blocks all the links on Malcode, Netcraft blocks all the links on Phishtank, but not the other way around. They nicely supplement each other.

If you're that unsure about which websites are safe to browse or not I wouldn't be looking at just extensions.
They provide an additional protection, especially against 0day, since they prevent the user from landing on the infected webpage in the first place.

There's way too much overlap there you're just asking for conflicts and adding to the attack surface of your browser.
Unfortunately, there are also too many attack vectors and not a single extension can handle all, like IDN, XSS, popups (cryptomining), etc.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,617
a quick test with vxvault latest 101 links to check how these extensions are doing. Lower is better. Many of them are dead links. No time to test AVs

chrome 1
malwarebytes 0
avira 9
ublock (+squidblacklist) 25
blocksi (children) 44
blocksi (unrated = block/default-deny) 0
WDBP 9, or block 75/101
comodo 5
Edge/IE 0
Norton 30
 
Top