Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 740032" data-attributes="member: 67091">As usual from you [USER=51905]@Evjl&#039;s Rain[/USER] , a very nice job! Well done, Thank you.Just adding few commentaries for your consideration:1) In my tests, some add-ons/extensions show different results at different hours of the day. This is because extension data-bases are not just updated when browser launches, but also&nbsp; in different hours of the day. It is not mandatory, but perhaps a test based on same day + 2 different hours, will be even more accurate.2) In my tests, NetCraft always is the winner blocking phishing.3) I believe that &quot;browser performance&quot; (RAM, CPU, internet speed, battery life etc) is an important category to be included in these tests. For example, in my tests Google has more negative impact in browse performance, than the NetCraft + Malwarebytes Combo. In other words, sometimes a Combo has better results + better browser performance.4) If &quot;browser performance category&quot; has the same priority than &quot;blocking power&quot;, then alternatives outside the browsers might be included in future tests. For example Pi-Hole.5) Malwarebytes uses heuristics, and this is important for zero-day-attack. As far as I know, MB is the only add-on/extension using heuristics. So, even if MB performs a bit down than other competitors, the MB heuristics factor might be important, specially when it works complementing normal AV outside the browser.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 740032, member: 67091"] As usual from you [USER=51905]@Evjl's Rain[/USER] , a very nice job! Well done, Thank you. Just adding few commentaries for your consideration: 1) In my tests, some add-ons/extensions show different results at different hours of the day. This is because extension data-bases are not just updated when browser launches, but also in different hours of the day. It is not mandatory, but perhaps a test based on same day + 2 different hours, will be even more accurate. 2) In my tests, NetCraft always is the winner blocking phishing. 3) I believe that "browser performance" (RAM, CPU, internet speed, battery life etc) is an important category to be included in these tests. For example, in my tests Google has more negative impact in browse performance, than the NetCraft + Malwarebytes Combo. In other words, sometimes a Combo has better results + better browser performance. 4) If "browser performance category" has the same priority than "blocking power", then alternatives outside the browsers might be included in future tests. For example Pi-Hole. 5) Malwarebytes uses heuristics, and this is important for zero-day-attack. As far as I know, MB is the only add-on/extension using heuristics. So, even if MB performs a bit down than other competitors, the MB heuristics factor might be important, specially when it works complementing normal AV outside the browser. [/QUOTE]

Verification