Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Evjl&amp;#039;s Rain" data-source="post: 752050" data-attributes="member: 51905">yes, I forgot to write avast&#039;s result although I did test itavast: 3 =&gt; very goodyou can see my tests of avast+syshardener here. So far, there has been no bypass yet. syshardener completely eliminates avast&#039;s weaknessI also add some domains to hosts file to block avast&#039;s telemetry<a href="https://malwaretips.com/threads/avast-free-syshardener-report-july-2018.84998/" target="_blank">https://malwaretips.com/threads/avast-free-syshardener-report-july-2018.84998/</a>I think WDBP is fine. It can compensate other extensions although it&#039;s not the bestthe only reason I recommend it is its extremely low resource consumption. after hours of browsing, CPU time of WDBP is &lt;10 seconds (translation: it only uses 10s of CPU during hours) while malwarebytes, avira use several minutes of CPU</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Evjl's Rain, post: 752050, member: 51905"] yes, I forgot to write avast's result although I did test it avast: 3 => very good you can see my tests of avast+syshardener here. So far, there has been no bypass yet. syshardener completely eliminates avast's weakness I also add some domains to hosts file to block avast's telemetry [URL]https://malwaretips.com/threads/avast-free-syshardener-report-july-2018.84998/[/URL] I think WDBP is fine. It can compensate other extensions although it's not the best the only reason I recommend it is its extremely low resource consumption. after hours of browsing, CPU time of WDBP is <10 seconds (translation: it only uses 10s of CPU during hours) while malwarebytes, avira use several minutes of CPU [/QUOTE]

Verification