Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Browsers
Web Extensions
[Updated 29/12/2018] Browser extension comparison: Malwares and Phishings
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 92963" data-source="post: 960378"><p>The results of [USER=76662]@pesus[/USER] shows that URL blocking is a numbers game. There are nearly two billion websites in the world (<a href="https://www.statista.com/chart/19058/number-of-websites-online/" target="_blank">link</a>), so testing with say 100 links just is to low to get a statistical relevant result. Off course repeating tests will show a pattern, but don't be surprised when a hero turns into a zero and reversely.</p><p></p><p>With so many websites the large DNS providers (the telephone books on the back bone of the internet returning the IP-address belonging to a domain name, to find them like you can find a telephone number beloning to someone's name) process enough traffic and are in the best position to block bad URL's.</p><p></p><p>Next the end user devices with a lot of users (Apple, Windows, Samsung) generate enough traffic to block URL's. Together with the internet services with a lot of users like browsers, search engines and the larger AV-Companies (with over half a million users) are the ones with sufficient traffic to find and track bad URLS's</p><p></p><p>My take: Use a free DNS with bad URL protection (e.g. Quad9 or Next DNS), use the protection of your browser (Microsoft SmartScreen or Google Safe Browsing) and the extension of your favorite (second opinion) AntiVirus. Adding blocklists to your adblocker with at best 10.000 to 100.000 blocked URL's is silly (the DNS and AV Companies will probably use these public available sources already).</p><p></p><p>User testing with malware URLs found on public sources has another problem: they don't represent the real life precedence of the links found. When you go to scandinavia on holiday, they have a lot of musquito's in the summer. When you search on the internet for protection against Musquito hazards, you will probably find a lot about malaria. Malaria is a big problem in more tropical countries, but the chance to get malaria from Scandinavian musquito's is near zero (because Malaria became extinct in Scandinavia in the late 19 hundreds, maybe global heating may cause malaria to return in the future: <a href="https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-021-03744-9" target="_blank">link</a>).</p><p></p><p>I had a long discussion with my forum friend Peter2150 (he sadly passed away), who was big fan and strong supporter of MalwareBytes URL protection. He argued that MBAM scored best over and over again in his test with malware, At that time MBAM was a small player using public sources and a small team of malware hunters. BitDefender (just as example) with over half a million users collected due to its large user data base much more real life (infection) data than MalwareBytes. So although Bitdefender might score worse than Malware Bytes in the tests of Peter2150, it actually provided better real life protection.</p><p></p><p>Peter's argumentation: with the zero day samples I use to test URL blocking, MalwareBytes always scores the best by far, from my perspective they are the best, with unmatched protection.</p><p>Kees's argumentation: MBAM uses the same public malware sources as you use Peter, so you are just confirming that MBAM uses these sources as soon as they are available.</p><p></p><p>I will stop ranting and repeating myself.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 92963, post: 960378"] The results of [USER=76662]@pesus[/USER] shows that URL blocking is a numbers game. There are nearly two billion websites in the world ([URL='https://www.statista.com/chart/19058/number-of-websites-online/']link[/URL]), so testing with say 100 links just is to low to get a statistical relevant result. Off course repeating tests will show a pattern, but don't be surprised when a hero turns into a zero and reversely. With so many websites the large DNS providers (the telephone books on the back bone of the internet returning the IP-address belonging to a domain name, to find them like you can find a telephone number beloning to someone's name) process enough traffic and are in the best position to block bad URL's. Next the end user devices with a lot of users (Apple, Windows, Samsung) generate enough traffic to block URL's. Together with the internet services with a lot of users like browsers, search engines and the larger AV-Companies (with over half a million users) are the ones with sufficient traffic to find and track bad URLS's My take: Use a free DNS with bad URL protection (e.g. Quad9 or Next DNS), use the protection of your browser (Microsoft SmartScreen or Google Safe Browsing) and the extension of your favorite (second opinion) AntiVirus. Adding blocklists to your adblocker with at best 10.000 to 100.000 blocked URL's is silly (the DNS and AV Companies will probably use these public available sources already). User testing with malware URLs found on public sources has another problem: they don't represent the real life precedence of the links found. When you go to scandinavia on holiday, they have a lot of musquito's in the summer. When you search on the internet for protection against Musquito hazards, you will probably find a lot about malaria. Malaria is a big problem in more tropical countries, but the chance to get malaria from Scandinavian musquito's is near zero (because Malaria became extinct in Scandinavia in the late 19 hundreds, maybe global heating may cause malaria to return in the future: [URL='https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12936-021-03744-9']link[/URL]). I had a long discussion with my forum friend Peter2150 (he sadly passed away), who was big fan and strong supporter of MalwareBytes URL protection. He argued that MBAM scored best over and over again in his test with malware, At that time MBAM was a small player using public sources and a small team of malware hunters. BitDefender (just as example) with over half a million users collected due to its large user data base much more real life (infection) data than MalwareBytes. So although Bitdefender might score worse than Malware Bytes in the tests of Peter2150, it actually provided better real life protection. Peter's argumentation: with the zero day samples I use to test URL blocking, MalwareBytes always scores the best by far, from my perspective they are the best, with unmatched protection. Kees's argumentation: MBAM uses the same public malware sources as you use Peter, so you are just confirming that MBAM uses these sources as soon as they are available. I will stop ranting and repeating myself. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
