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

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
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:

Kubla

Level 8
Verified
Jan 22, 2017
381
You should see me.. All websites have to pass through immense layers..

1) FortiGuard DNS (Paid)
2) FortiGuard Web Filtration
3) Untangle ZVelo Web Filtration
4) Untangle SNORT w/Oink
5) Pi-Hole w/1,000,000 blacklists
6) Heimdal Pro
7) G Data Total Security

How much does it slow down browsing?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CyberTech

Windows_Security

Level 24
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,301
Thx for the update.

Everyone interprets the results in his/her own way. For me I have Norton SafeWeb as DNS, with Adguard extemsion (Google delayed + own) on Edge and Avast extension on Chrome. This way I combine URL with ad/tracker filterong
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Evjl's Rain

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
Thx for the update.

Everyone interprets the results in his/her own way. For me I have Norton SafeWeb as DNS, with Adguard extemsion (Google delayed + own) on Edge and Avast extension on Chrome. This way I combine URL with ad/tracker filterong
have you tried Netcraft? compared to avast, I think netcraft is no doubt one of the best phishing blockers besides forticlient and kaspersky
avast for me is only a phishing blocker with some tracking protection but you have adguard already
 

amico81

Level 21
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jan 10, 2017
1,064
While not an extension the free K9 webfilter does an excellent job in blocking bad websites. You can enable blocking spyware/ malware sources and it blocks all kind of dodgy websites. Also very light on my system, Windows 7 64bit.

Perhaps I should check them out over the weekend . Never heard before but looks good (y)

Update: i found this news from 2016
News Highlights | K9 Web Protection - Free Internet Filter and Parental Control Software

Blue Coat Systems, Inc. was acquired by Symantec

so there should not be a big difference between norton safe web and k9 or i'm wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: frogboy

Windows_Security

Level 24
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Mar 13, 2016
1,301
have you tried Netcraft? compared to avast, I think netcraft is no doubt one of the best phishing blockers besides forticlient and kaspersky
avast for me is only a phishing blocker with some tracking protection but you have adguard already

Yes in the past, good results when testing against phishing.
 

Decopi

Level 3
Oct 29, 2017
146
Hi @Evjl's Rain !

First, thank you for your very interesting comparison tests.

I have just one simple request, if you you can/want, please test:

Malwarebytes – Add-ons for Firefox

It is not the beta version anymore, it is stable release.
Also it is 60% of the original size, now very weight-light and fast.
In my tests it went very well against pests (phishing, malware, suspicious, scams, click baits etc), also went nice against ads and trackers, and performance (speed, RAM, CPU etc) was better than many other similar add-ons.

However, I am very curious to see the results with your own tests.

Thank you again!
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
Hi @Evjl's Rain !

First, thank you for your very interesting comparison tests.

I have just one simple request, if you you can/want, please test:

Malwarebytes – Add-ons for Firefox

It is not the beta version anymore, it is stable release.
Also it is 60% of the original size, now very weight-light and fast.
In my tests it went very well against pests (phishing, malware, suspicious, scams, click baits etc), also went nice against ads and trackers, and performance (speed, RAM, CPU etc) was better than many other similar add-ons.

However, I am very curious to see the results with your own tests.

Thank you again!
hi, thank you
I have tested malwarebytes extension vs ublock origin with hphosts
actually, they are almost the same because hphosts belongs to malwarebytes
tested with so many links, they blocked the exact same links but malwarebytes extension was just 1 point better

it means it is also applicable to my test in my first post. Malwarebytes = ublock origin with custom filters
 

Decopi

Level 3
Oct 29, 2017
146
Thanks again @Evjl's Rain ,

At Firefox' add-on description, Malwarebytes wrote: "Innovative browser extension which heuristically identifies and blocks tech Support scams browser-lockers, fake tech support scammers, filters out fake news, clickbait, coin miners, and other malicious content".

If it is true, Malwarebytes add-on should be more than just a hosts-file (Hphosts).
I ran now a quick informal test, two Firefox, one with Malwarebytes, one with UBlock + Hphosts, and I got different test results.

I wrote a short message to Malwarebytes, asking about heuristics, Hphosts and mainly asking about differential added values against competitors. I will wait Malwarebytes' answer.

But @Evjl's Rain thank you once again!
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
Thanks again @Evjl's Rain ,

At Firefox' add-on description, Malwarebytes wrote: "Innovative browser extension which heuristically identifies and blocks tech Support scams browser-lockers, fake tech support scammers, filters out fake news, clickbait, coin miners, and other malicious content".

If it is true, Malwarebytes add-on should be more than just a hosts-file (Hphosts).
I ran now a quick informal test, two Firefox, one with Malwarebytes, one with UBlock + Hphosts, and I got different test results.

I wrote a short message to Malwarebytes, asking about heuristics, Hphosts and mainly asking about differential added values against competitors. I will wait Malwarebytes' answer.

But @Evjl's Rain thank you once again!
to make the correct test, you should add hphosts + hphosts partial
hphosts (full) is like a monthly release
hphosts partial is the daily release to supplement hphosts

the last hphosts (full) was released on Friday 16th Mar 2018 => too old => yield bad result

if you use firefox, malwarebytes extension is a good one
ublock with too many filters degrades browsing performance more than ublock without hphosts + malwarebytes
 

Decopi

Level 3
Oct 29, 2017
146
@Evjl's Rain I'm totally agree about UBlock degrading browser performance. For many years I used UMatrix, but after Firefox improvements (built-in tracking protection, FPI, containers etc), last year I replaced UMatrix with a tiny lightweight 3rd-party blocker add-on... and it woks like a charm! In brief, no more UMatrix, and no more hosts-file etc for me.

Looking at your tests, I tended to like Firefox built-in malware-protection (Safebrowsing = Google). However, and I don't know why, it also degrades browser performance.

So, I am back again looking for an add-on.
I believe I tested most of them.
I liked AVIRA, but the new Malwarebytes stable release went better in my tests. And the browser performance is great.
Next week I will do more tests, more carefully.
And I will wait Malwarebytes' answer.

In the worst case and supposing that Malwarebytes = UBlock, in your tests went 30... inside the average results.
In my tests went even better.
So, perhaps I will give a chance to Malwarebytes add-on.
 

Brie

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Jan 1, 2018
459
@Evjl's Rain I'm totally agree about UBlock degrading browser performance. For many years I used UMatrix, but after Firefox improvements (built-in tracking protection, FPI, containers etc), last year I replaced UMatrix with a tiny lightweight 3rd-party blocker add-on... and it woks like a charm! In brief, no more UMatrix, and no more hosts-file etc for me.
what is that 3rd party add-on? malwarebytes? malwarebytes gets bad reviews on the firefox add-on website. Reviews for Malwarebytes – Add-ons for Firefox
 

SearchLight

Level 13
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jul 3, 2017
614
I have KAFree installed with its Kaspersky Protection extension installed in Chrome, and CF/cs with web filtering on. I also am using uBlock Origin with Privacy Badger.

Is this combo effective? What should I remove or add for best web protection i.e. phishing, malware, etc?
 

SearchLight

Level 13
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jul 3, 2017
614
Fyi, just installed Norton Safe Web to try. Upon installation, it asks for permission if you want to share data, which I unchecked but how do I really know it is not "phoning home." That said, I uninstalled it, and installed Avira's Browser Safety which has the option embedded in the settings, not like Norton upon installation. Also, just noticed that it also is a combo Ad and Tracker Blocker, fyi.

What about privacy issues with these web safety extensions?

Although many here have discussed how effective they are, which one has the best privacy policy to protect one"s privacy while surfing?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
Fyi, just installed Norton Safe Web to try. Upon installation, it asks for permission if you want to share data, which I unchecked but how do I really know it is not "phoning home." That said, I uninstalled it, and installed Avira's Browser Safety which has the option embedded in the settings, not like Norton upon installation. Also, just noticed that it also is a combo Ad and Tracker Blocker, fyi.

What about privacy issues with these web safety extensions?

Although many here have discussed how effective they are, which one has the best privacy policy to protect one"s privacy while surfing?
I think all of these extensions are collecting our data to improve their service and detection rate. That's understandable. We can use the one we can opt-out, such as norton and avira

the best tool, IMO, to protect our privacy while surfing is ublock origin with custom filters (use steven black's hosts and some other tracking filters)
you can also enable third-party scripts or frame blocking or third party in general using ublock

I found ublock is the most effective and it blocks the most trackers because we can add as many block rules as we want while other extensions like disconnect, ghostery or stealth mode (from adguard) are hit-and-miss and some have privacy issue

EDIT: I saw you use privacy badger. In my time using it, I found it unhelpful. It didn't block trackers but cookies. However, it's very very weak and barely block anything. It used a lot of CPU too, which I really disliked

in my test, my ublock blocked 48 ads/trackers while privacy badger blocked 0 or 2 if we manually set the sliders
Capture.PNG
 
Last edited:

Decopi

Level 3
Oct 29, 2017
146
@Brie Malwarebytes add-on blocks ads and tracking, but is not a 3rd-party blocker. For that, I use a tiny/lightweight add-on (50KiB) specifically designed for blocking 1st and 3rd-parties, CSS, Images, Beacon and other stuff. It is totally customizable. In my personal case, I don't block 1st-party. So I don't need UMatrix/UBlock.

PS: Regarding the reviews at Firefox' add-on pages, I never take into account, according my experience most of them are 99% (both, positives and negatives) too much subjective and emotional. Also, in the case of Malwarebytes, most of the reviews are related to the beta version. The latest version is not beta, is stable release.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brie

Decopi

Level 3
Oct 29, 2017
146
Hi @Evjl's Rain !

Please if you want/can, detail the combo of hosts-files you use/recommend for UBlock/UMatrix.

If possible, please share your hosts files recommendations by categories:
Tracking
Malware
Ads

And if you post the hosts files web links, it will be great.

In the past I tested UMatrix/UBlock with default hosts files... not having good results.
I want to know if exists a hosts file combo, without degrading performance, which works well for UMatrix/UBlock.
Please, if you share your info with me, I will run some tests with your combo.

Thank you!

PS: I forgot to mention you, that Malwarebytes add-on is 2MB total size (including extras). But the two Hphosts you mentioned me, they are around 18MB size. If Malwarebytes uses Hphosts, then it needs a kind of cloud scanner, but honestly I don't believe it has this function. I'll wait Malwarebytes answer about heuristics and other stuff.
 
Last edited:

SearchLight

Level 13
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Jul 3, 2017
614
I think all of these extensions are collecting our data to improve their service and detection rate. That's understandable. We can use the one we can opt-out, such as norton and avira

the best tool, IMO, to protect our privacy while surfing is ublock origin with custom filters (use steven black's hosts and some other tracking filters)
you can also enable third-party scripts or frame blocking or third party in general using ublock

I found ublock is the most effective and it blocks the most trackers because we can add as many block rules as we want while other extensions like disconnect, ghostery or stealth mode (from adguard) are hit-and-miss and some have privacy issue

EDIT: I saw you use privacy badger. In my time using it, I found it unhelpful. It didn't block trackers but cookies. However, it's very very weak and barely block anything. It used a lot of CPU too, which I really disliked

in my test, my ublock blocked 48 ads/trackers while privacy badger blocked 0 or 2 if we manually set the sliders
View attachment 185681[/QUOTE

I figured Ublock would win out so I just disabled it on Chrome to try Avira, and after reading Evjl's Rain post, I reactivated it and added his filter recommendation.

If anyone wants to add additional filters to uBlock check out these two links:

Best uBlock Origin Filter Settings To Block All Ads on Your Device

FilterLists | Subscriptions for AdBlock, Adblock Plus, uBlock Origin, and more.
 
Last edited:

Evjl's Rain

Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Helper
Top poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Apr 18, 2016
3,627
If possible, please share your hosts files recommendations by categories:
Tracking
Malware
Ads
the ones which don't have links can be enabled in ublock main menu

tracking: I think steven black's hosts + adguard spyware + Fanboy’s Enhanced Tracking List are the best + light. hphosts is too big but not as effective

malware: hphosts EMD is the best against malware, no competitor
hphosts EMD is a separate filter, which is a part of hphosts full and hphosts partial
it's big -> can make ublock heavy

ads: 1 is never enough. I use a lot of filters
- adguard's english filter or easylist (lighter)
- steven black (see above)
- Adversity
- blockzilla
- adversity extreme measures
- ublock filter plus
- Anti popads
- Adguard’s Annoyance List
- 3 filters in my language => you should select 1 or 2 filters in your language in FilterLists | Subscriptions for AdBlock, Adblock Plus, uBlock Origin, and more.

phishing: the extension netcraft is the best, if you need but I don't find phishing important

coin-mining: 3 filters
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hoshsadiq/adblock-nocoin-list/master/nocoin.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/master/list_optional.txt
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ZeroDot1/CoinBlockerLists/master/list.txt
 
Last edited: