CyberTech

Level 22
Verified
I had been running emsisoft extension for several months and it hadn't blocked anything, not a single link
I just switched to BDTL for 2 weeks, it has been blocking a few links => goodbye emsisoft
WDBP has been working great

something can be good in theory but in reality and in some specific countries, others are better. BD has much larger user database than emsisoft in my country which can explain why it's better
just did a new test to see how the extensions are developing, 20 links from urlhaus

chrome 16/20
Avira 10/20
emsisoft 9/20 but 1 downloaded
malwarebytes 13/20
norton 6/20
BD trafficlight (BDTL) 12/20
WDBP 16/20 but some downloaded

late test:
adguard chrome extension (malware protection: on, default settings): 1/20

Chrome+WDBP 18/20
chrome+WDBP+BDTL 20/20 => my recommended combo worked perfectly

Thanks for testing out, that's awesome man what about Firefox? should i uninstall EBS and install WDBP+BDTL on FF ? :unsure:


Edit: never mind there is no WDBP addons for FF :(
 
Last edited:

conceptualclarity

Level 21
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator

Evjl's Rain

Level 41
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Can you also try testing KeweonDNS and nextDNS?

Thanks
keweon is weak
I don't know about nextDNS. I will check it out later

Thanks for testing out, that's awesome man what about Firefox? should i uninstall EBS and install WDBP+BDTL on FF ? :unsure:


Edit: never mind there is no WDBP addons for FF :(
if WDBP is not available, I suggest keeping emsisoft
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 41
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Now I test phishing blocking ability (not my priority)
phishtank: 10 verified, 11 unverified
openphish 11
chrome 29/32
avira 22/32
emsisoft 23/32
malwarebytes 13/32
Netcraft 27/32
Norton 24/32
BDTL 6/32 (tested several times)
WDBP 17/32 (tested twice)

Chrome+WDBP+BDTL 29/32

conclusion: BD is going downwards against phishing
norton shows some light, still useless against malwares
malwarebytes is weak against phishing
WDBP is not great against phishing but great against other threats
google safe browsing is consistent
 
Last edited:

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 18
Verified
just did a new test to see how the extensions are developing, 20 links from urlhaus

chrome 16/20
Avira 10/20
emsisoft 9/20 but 1 downloaded
malwarebytes 13/20
norton 6/20
BD trafficlight (BDTL) 12/20
WDBP 16/20 but some downloaded

late test:
adguard chrome extension (malware protection: on, default settings): 1/20

Chrome+WDBP 18/20
chrome+WDBP+BDTL 20/20 => my recommended combo worked perfectly
Thanks again for your testing, much appreciated!
Tested the same links on my system with MS Edge Dev 76.0.182.6 as browser and Kaspersky Security Cloud Free 20.0.14.1085(b) as AV:
The results are not scientific because both act on the links:
Edge SmartScreen : 15/20
Downloads blocked by Edge 5/20
KSCF: 13/20
Downloads blocked by Kaspersky 2/20
Together everything was blocked by my config.
 

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 18
Verified
Now I test phishing blocking ability (not my priority)
phishtank: 10 verified, 11 unverified
openphish 11
chrome 29/32
avira 22/32
emsisoft 23/32
malwarebytes 13/32
Netcraft 27/32
Norton 24/32
BDTL 6/32 (tested several times)
WDBP 17/32 (tested twice)

Chrome+WDBP+BDTL 29/32

conclusion: BD is going downwards against phishing
norton shows some light, still useless against malwares
malwarebytes is weak against phishing
WDBP is not great against phishing but great against other threats
google safe browsing is consistent
Tested the same links on my system with MS Edge Dev 76.0.182.6 as browser and Kaspersky Security Cloud Free 20.0.14.1085(b) as AV:
The results are not scientific because both act on the links:
Edge: 25/32
KSCF: 27/32
Together they blocked everything.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 41
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Tested the same links on my system with MS Edge Dev 76.0.182.6 as browser and Kaspersky Security Cloud Free 20.0.14.1085(b) as AV:
The results are not scientific because both act on the links:
Edge: 25/32
KSCF: 27/32
Together they blocked everything.
the reason why I still use chromium-based browsers which have google safe browsing is that I can install WDBP so I have double protection (officially)
while with edge, there is no official extension from google to add the GBS support so I lose 1 layer
after an exe is downloaded from chrome, bypassing both GBS and WDBP, windows smartscreen will be triggered. So many layers for me to ensure the system is protected
 
Last edited:

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 18
Verified
the reason why I still use chromium-based browsers which have google safe browsing is that I can install WDBP so I have double protection (officially)
while with edge, there is no official extension from google to add the GBS support so I lose 1 layer
after an exe is downloaded from chrome, bypassing both GBS and WDBP, windows smartscreen will be triggered. So many layers for me to ensure the system is protected
Yes that would be the primary reason to keep using Google Chrome (y)
But I'm trying the new Chromium based Edge Dev now.
Together Kaspersky Security Cloud Free it's a great combo.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 41
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Yes that would be the primary reason to keep using Google Chrome (y)
But I'm trying the new Chromium based Edge Dev now.
Together Kaspersky Security Cloud Free it's a great combo.
for me, google chrome is so bloated with useless tools which regularly consume resources in the background
I opted in chromium browser by woolyss, a clean version of chrome like AOSP vs. android from OEMs
I never look back. Perhaps, it's better edge? I don't know
I think they can cope with manifest v3 in the future by releasing adblocker-friendly versions
 

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
Now I test phishing blocking ability (not my priority)
phishtank: 10 verified, 11 unverified
openphish 11
Cleanbrowsing - 9/32
Neustar Threat - 6/32

2 hours later

Cleanbrowsing - 21/32
Neustar Threat - 19/32

This shows the advantage of extensions over DNS. It takes some time to update DNS and DNS can not block legit webpages hosting bad links.
 

SeriousHoax

Level 3
Verified
firefox uses GSB but with delayed database update
I have tested both of them. Firefox's GSB was always inferior to chrome. Sometimes, much worse
Yes, that's true. Chrome loads the database directly from their server but Firefox doesn't do that due to privacy issue. It downloads the list every 30 minutes and uses hashes instead of URLs to detect bad sites.
Full details here
 
Last edited:

TairikuOkami

Level 23
Verified
Content Creator
Firefox's GSB was always inferior to chrome. Sometimes, much worse
Yandex is way worse, even useless, in one test it was 1/20 and the second one 0/32, after 2 days, it is still the same. Sophos file scanning is the same, just 1 detection. I wanted to disable it, but it keeps bugging me to enable it, so I just keep it on, but it is like there is nothing there. :emoji_expressionless:
 

Attachments