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

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Weird, i tested the links in Firefox with Trafficlight and none of them are blocked. But in Brave they are.
Edit: I have to open them two times to be detected in firefox

Had the same problem with Edge Dev. TrafficLight not working reliable for me...

 

[ForgottenSeer 823865]

I tried it just for the heck of it and had exactly this experience so I trashed it.

Weird i don't observe this.

 

[Pat MacKnife]

Had the same problem with Edge Dev. TrafficLight not working reliable for me...

I see Trafficlight got an update to 3.0.8 and it kicks in like before, i just tried it and it responds first and than Edge dev smartscreen.

 

[goodjohnjr]

They both "scored" 0/10. I did not include adguard, because it is not really designed to block malware and as for 9.9.9.9, it is hardly worth testing.

Thank you @TairikuOkami , I am surprised and disappointed that they both did so poorly, I wonder why Quad9 DNS is doing so badly with all of those partnerships that they have and why do you think they are not worth testing?

Thank you,
-John Jr

 

[TairikuOkami]

I wonder why Quad9 DNS is doing so badly with all of those partnerships that they have

The problem with DNS blocking is, that it blocks domains, not just links, so if it is too good, too aggressive, it breaks legitimate webpages as well.
Quad9 has a non-censored alternative (9.9.9.10), but also no DNSSEC, they do not propagate it much, because they focus on the main 9.9.9.9.
Adguard already blocks too much, because of ad blocking, it is not really a practical DNS for a normal browsing, you can not add exceptions.
Neustar in comparison has a variety to choose from, so if something gets blocked, customers can not blame it on them, it is clearly stated.
Neustar also blocks warez, that includes some streaming services, both legitimate and not, so common user would generally do not like it.

 

[goodjohnjr]

The problem with DNS blocking is, that it blocks domains, not just links, so if it is too good, too aggressive, it breaks legitimate webpages as well.
Quad9 has a non-censored alternative (9.9.9.10), but also no DNSSEC, they do not propagate it much, because they focus on the main 9.9.9.9.
Adguard already blocks too much, because of ad blocking, it is not really a practical DNS for a normal browsing, you can not add exceptions.
Neustar in comparison has a variety to choose from, so if something gets blocked, customers can not blame it on them, it is clearly stated.
Neustar also blocks warez, that includes some streaming services, both legitimate and not, so common user would generally do not like it.

Thank you for answering that @TairikuOkami .

-John Jr

 

[Pat MacKnife]

Anyone using Norton safe web ? extension is available in Microsoft store for Edge dev chromium ... and any privacy concerns ?
Would that be a good replacement for BDTL , or should we not worry about BDTL privacy ? i see many other vendors do the same
thx

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Anyone using Norton safe web ? extension is available in Microsoft store for Edge dev chromium ... and any privacy concerns ?
Would that be a good replacement for BDTL , or should we not worry about BDTL privacy ? i see many other vendors do the same
thx

norton safe web has been weak for a year
they focus on developing cloud engine rather than web protection

emsisoft was brilliant for a while but recently, it has been extremely weak

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I see Trafficlight got an update to 3.0.8 and it kicks in like before, i just tried it and it responds first and than Edge dev smartscreen.

Thanks. Yes, TrafficlLight works as before with version 3.0.8
When it blocks before SmartScreen it also prevent for example cookies being set by the blocked site, unlike with a block from SmartScreen.
That kind of explains why I saw Ziggo Safe Online still blocking network traffic when a site was blocked by SmartScreen.
SmartScreen doesn't completely prevent a page from loading, it reacts when a page is loading.

 

[bjm_]

Windows Defender Browser Protection or Microsoft Defender SmartScreen ?
Edge (Chromium)

 

[oldschool]

Windows Defender Browser Protection or Microsoft Defender SmartScreen ?
Edge (Chromium)

Native Smartscreen, absolutely. If you browse dodgey sites, add Bitdefender Trafficlight.

 

[Pat MacKnife]

Windows Defender Browser Protection or Microsoft Defender SmartScreen ?
Edge (Chromium)

Windows Defender Browser Protection is an extension for Google Chrome, but its inside Edge chromium and smartscreen...
i also use BDTL extension.

 

[bjm_]

Windows Defender Browser Protection is an extension for Google Chrome, but its inside Edge chromium and smartscreen...

I've added WDBP to Edge (Chromium).
So, is WDBP exactly the same as MDSS?
WDBP seems to react before MDSS.
Both all cloud?
Yes, MDSS blocks mal downloads.
Just wondering whether they use same database?

 

[oldschool]

So, is WDBP exactly the same as MDSS?
WDBP seems to react before MDSS.
Both all cloud?
Yes, MDSS blocks mal downloads.
Just wondering whether they use same database?

They are similar, but not the same. The extensions react first I believe, which explains your experience. There is no point in keeping WDBP. Add BDTL if you want additional protection, e.g. it may catch phishing sites that SS misses.

 

[bjm_]

They are similar, but not the same.

I'm not wanting additional protection.
I'm new to playing with Edge (Chromium).
Just curious re WDBP vs MDSS.
Thanks

 

[generalwu]

They are similar, but not the same. The extensions react first I believe, which explains your experience. There is no point in keeping WDBP. Add BDTL if you want additional protection, e.g. it may catch phishing sites that SS misses.

Hi @oldschool,

Appreciate you input, I believe MDSS is only on Windows OS (Please do correct me if I'm wrong).
So for users of alternative OS (E.g. Linux, ChromeOS) do you believe WDBP is still relevant?

Thanks.

 

[oldschool]

So for users of alternative OS (E.g. Linux, ChromeOS) do you believe WDBP is still relevant?

Absolutely. I believe it's available for Firefox and certainly is for Chromium browsers.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

It checks independent of the os all links with Microsoft.
See (Dutch) screenshot of the extension properties:

 

[generalwu]

Absolutely. I believe it's available for Firefox and certainly is for Chromium browsers.

Thank you for your feedback, I've retain the said extensions.

Cheers.

 

[SeriousHoax]

I believe it's available for Firefox and certainly is for Chromium browsers.

Actually it's not available for Firefox.