Evjl's Rain

Level 40
Content Creator
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
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:
wow, the last time I tested, it was quite close to GSB but it's surprising how bad it is today
 

blackice

Level 6
My favourite combo is CleanBrowsing DNS + Blocksi Web Filter (set to warn unrated websites too)
Does clean browsing perform fairly well with CDNs and not have resolution problems?

Edit: remembering my resolution issue with them was the timeout they had on DNS over TLS before. It was too short and would fail 1 in every 20 or so resolutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

imuade

Level 8
Verified
Does clean browsing perform fairly well with CDNs and not have resolution problems?

Edit: remembering my resolution issue with them was the timeout they had on DNS over TLS before. It was too short and would fail 1 in every 20 or so resolutions.
Not sure if I have understood correctly your question.
Before I used CleanBrowsing DNS on DNScrypt and I didn't have any issue
 

blackice

Level 6
Not sure if I have understood correctly your question.
Before I used CleanBrowsing DNS on DNScrypt and I didn't have any issue
I worded my question poorly (sleep deprivation). My biggest curiosity is if cleanbrowsing has any problems with CDNs/streaming services routing to far away servers. Second question has more to do with DoT, which I think is just a problem with timeouts set on their end. Quad9 had the same problem. Cloudflare is much more forgiving in their timeouts.

It happens to me sometimes, I have DNS Cache disabled, so I guess they have some limit for the number of DNS requests, but F5 usually fixes it.
I had this same issue with Quad9 and DoT.
 

imuade

Level 8
Verified
I worded my question poorly (sleep deprivation). My biggest curiosity is if cleanbrowsing has any problems with CDNs/streaming services routing to far away servers. Second question has more to do with DoT, which I think is just a problem with timeouts set on their end. Quad9 had the same problem. Cloudflare is much more forgiving in their timeouts.


I had this same issue with Quad9 and DoT.
Sometimes I watch sports on streaming and I have never experienced any issue :)
 

ebocious

Level 2
Chrome+WDBP 18/20
chrome+WDBP+BDTL 20/20 => my recommended combo worked perfectly
How about Chrome+MBBE+BDTL?
Or Chrome+MBBE+WDBP?
Just curious to see how they stack up. I see the sense in your recommended combo: WDBP shouldn't be going anywhere so long as MS is around, and Bitdefender is about the most popular AV in the business; I've used BDTL longer than the rest. But I'm also interested in the viability of a signature-less extension like MBBE. BDTL has cloud analysis as well as signatures, which is great as long as they have paying customers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Back3

Evjl's Rain

Level 40
Content Creator
Trusted
Malware Hunter
Verified
How about Chrome+MBBE+BDTL?
Or Chrome+MBBE+WDBP?
Just curious to see how they stack up. I see the sense in your recommended combo: WDBP shouldn't be going anywhere so long as MS is around, and Bitdefender is about the most popular AV in the business; I've used BDTL longer than the rest. But I'm also interested in the viability of a signature-less extension like MBBE. BDTL has cloud analysis as well as signatures, which is great as long as they have paying customers.
MBBE is good bur the problems are it consumes a lot of CPU as long as you interact with your browser (scrolling, clicking,...) and it has quite a lot of FPs
WDBP doesn't have these issues because WDBP and BDTL only check a website once after it finishes loading and doesn't check anything else until visit another link (same or different domain)

moreover, since the release of chromium Edge, more and more users are switching => better database, better protection for WDBP and smartscreen

although WDBP can be weaker than malwarebytes, I still use it for performance purpose
 
  • Like
Reactions: ebocious

ebocious

Level 2
MBBE is good bur the problems are it consumes a lot of CPU as long as you interact with your browser (scrolling, clicking,...) and it has quite a lot of FPs
WDBP doesn't have these issues because WDBP and BDTL only check a website once after it finishes loading and doesn't check anything else until visit another link (same or different domain)

moreover, since the release of chromium Edge, more and more users are switching => better database, better protection for WDBP and smartscreen

although WDBP can be weaker than malwarebytes, I still use it for performance purpose
Yeah. I'm kind of on the fence about the FPs. While it is CPU-heavy, it gives me a little sense of security when I think of somebody releasing an ItW exploit for Spectre. I once watched a rogue page open 10 new tabs, I blinked, and all ten tabs had the Malwarebytes logo when I opened my eyes. I'm not saying half a second figuratively, I'm saying half a second literally. I'd love it if someone can give me a signature-less extension that produces fewer FPs while still delivering the results. Anyway, I appreciate the info and your hard work. Thank you!