Threadripper

Level 8
Hmm, I've recently seen a few Cloudflare page blocks. I thought my 1.1.1.1 rendered page block, too. What does "Cloudflare on the website" mean?
The website uses the Cloudflare CDN and after Cloudflare received reports that the website is phishing, they put up that warning - because they don't host the website that's all they can do, along with passing the report to the web host.
 
Last edited:

Gandalf_The_Grey

Level 31
Verified
Points scored here for Kaspersky and Netcraft:
 

pesus

New Member
I did my own testing. 15 fresh malware serving sites using edge(chromium) browser and browser extensions

edge(chromium)smartscreen/wd browser protection13/15
symantec norton safe web 7/15
bitdefender trafficlight15/15(y)
blocksi(default settings)12/15
avira browser safety 3/15
avast online security 7/15
mcaffe webadvisor 0/15
comodo online security pro 4/15
malwarebytes browser guard11/15
google safe browsing12/15
 

Pat MacKnife

Level 10
Verified
BDL seems to work , but does anyone remember when Fabian said that they transmit all the websites you visit in clear text, not encrypted at all? So if Fabian doesn't like it I;m not going there at all.
I found a post on Bitdefender forum :

Bitdefender TrafficLight monitors the HTTP traffic and sends the URL links to our labs for analysis purposes. If you access a malicious website, TrafficLight will detect it and will block it.
The content of a web page is scanned (read), but TrafficLight doesn't collect passwords, phone numbers or credit card information.
Rest assured that Bitdefender monitors data only to protect your computer against malicious attacks. You can find more information about data collection in the End User License Agreement
 

Burrito

Level 23
Any browser guard extensions that play nice with Netcraft and uBlock?
You mean uBlock Origin.... right?

Yes, most of them do.

As our uBO expert Oldschool stated, TrafficLight plays with both of them. And it's effective lately.

I slightly prefer MBG -- and it works well with both of them.

On this particular computer I'm on, I'm experimentally running all of them... and more.

But that's overkill. I don't recommend it.

1575337643251.png
 

blackice

Level 26
Verified
You mean uBlock Origin.... right?

Yes, most of them do.

As our uBO expert Oldschool stated, TrafficLight plays with both of them. And it's effective lately.

I slightly prefer MBG -- and it works well with both of them.

On this particular computer I'm on, I'm experimentally running all of them... and more.

But that's overkill. I don't recommend it.

View attachment 230427
Burritos are best when they have extras.
 

71Hemi

Level 2
Thanks guys for your recommendations. I'll try BDTL and Netcraft as both Emsisoft Browser Security and Malwarebytes Browser Guard don't play nice with Netcraft. Just curious here, I'm using First Party Isolation extension and questioning if I should have set firefox to "block third party cookies" or "cross-site and social media trackers" in the Options/Privacy and Security. This is the description - First Party Isolation, also known as Cross-Origin Identifier Unlinkability is a concept from the Tor Browser. The idea is to key every source of browser identification with the domain in the URL bar (the first party). This makes all access to identifiers distinct between usage in the website itself and through third-party. Think of it as blocking Third-party cookies, but more exhaustively. Here are Firefox's implementation details about First Party Isolation.
 

Evjl's Rain

Level 45
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
Thanks guys for your recommendations. I'll try BDTL and Netcraft as both Emsisoft Browser Security and Malwarebytes Browser Guard don't play nice with Netcraft. Just curious here, I'm using First Party Isolation extension and questioning if I should have set firefox to "block third party cookies" or "cross-site and social media trackers" in the Options/Privacy and Security. This is the description - First Party Isolation, also known as Cross-Origin Identifier Unlinkability is a concept from the Tor Browser. The idea is to key every source of browser identification with the domain in the URL bar (the first party). This makes all access to identifiers distinct between usage in the website itself and through third-party. Think of it as blocking Third-party cookies, but more exhaustively. Here are Firefox's implementation details about First Party Isolation.
I really like BDTL and WDBP because they are light and efficient, especially BD
with this combo + google chrome, my AV (WiseVector) has had very little work to do because almost everything was stopped in the browser before they could touch my harddrive
I have been using this combo + ublock for at least 1 year. They've never conflicted

Honestly, I don't like Netcraft because it's only good at blocking phishing (I don't need) and some extra protection modules which I don't really need, too (XSS, malicious scripts,...)

by the way, the more flags you enable, the more issues you could get just because flags are experimental features
I realized recently that "Override software rendering list" and "GPU rasterization " (many people recommend enabling them) made youtube on my chrome much laggier than it used to be in the past (new version of youtube). It seems the new youtube doesn't play nice with these 2 flags. After disabling them, I noticed an immediate boost in youtube responsiveness

your flags might cause unexpected problems. They may be stable in this version of chrome but in the next version, they may not. They can also cause conflicts with extensions
 

SeriousHoax

Level 28
Verified
Malware Tester
Thanks guys for your recommendations. I'll try BDTL and Netcraft as both Emsisoft Browser Security and Malwarebytes Browser Guard don't play nice with Netcraft. Just curious here, I'm using First Party Isolation extension and questioning if I should have set firefox to "block third party cookies" or "cross-site and social media trackers" in the Options/Privacy and Security. This is the description - First Party Isolation, also known as Cross-Origin Identifier Unlinkability is a concept from the Tor Browser. The idea is to key every source of browser identification with the domain in the URL bar (the first party). This makes all access to identifiers distinct between usage in the website itself and through third-party. Think of it as blocking Third-party cookies, but more exhaustively. Here are Firefox's implementation details about First Party Isolation.
You don't need to use an extension for First Party Isolation. Just enable "privacy.firstparty.isolate" in about:config. I have it enabled and also block all third party cookies and you can do the same if you want. No issues here.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 823865

blocking phishing (I don't need) and some extra protection modules which I don't really need, too (XSS, malicious scripts,...)
Those are exactly what everyone need the most...
Extensions blocking malicious sites are useless, those sites (the really malicious ones) rarely stay more than few hours, the time the extension vendor get the signature, the site is already gone...
However malicious scripts and XSS embedded in compromised legit sites are the most dangerous especially when coupled with fileless malwares.
 

71Hemi

Level 2
Well thanks guys! I just eliminated First Party Isolation, Privacy Possum, Netcraft @ uMatrix. I've been using Pale Moon forever and have been away from all the latest/greatest add-ons as Stale Moon doesn't support anything anymore, so I decided to come back to Firefox as my default browser and to re-acquaint myself with what I've been missing out on. Now that Netcraft is out of the picture what do you think of Emsisoft Browser Security and Bluehell Firewall? I'm just playing with options here for now, but will definitely try BDTL and uBlock.
 

71Hemi

Level 2
Thanks Umbra! You gots me thinkin mabie I should re-enable uMatrix with Windows Security config and keep Emsisoft Browser Security with its phishing blocking capilabilities.

I eliminated Privacy Possum cause I've blocked third party cookies in firefox and enabled "privacy.firstparty.isolate" in about:config. As far as uMatrix is concerned I'm looking for a less complicated set up so to speak. So is BDTL very intrusive? Is it a bandwidth hog like WOT was?
 

SeriousHoax

Level 28
Verified
Malware Tester
I eliminated Privacy Possum cause I've blocked third party cookies in firefox and enabled "privacy.firstparty.isolate" in about:config. As far as uMatrix is concerned I'm looking for a less complicated set up so to speak. So is BDTL very intrusive? Is it a bandwidth hog like WOT was?
uMatrix can be tricky to deal with at first so I understand but keep Privacy Possum. It does more than blocking trackers. Privacy Badger is the one that usually blocks trackers only but Privacy Possum does more. BDTL blocks phishing and malicious links and is very light so you should be fine. It used to block trackers too but I'm not seeing that in the latest version which is good.
 
Top