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
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
Security Apps
VoodooShield
VoodooShield Latest
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 818813" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I do not know the test which properly measured the efficacy of SS.</p><p></p><p>SS supports only some file types: BAT, CMD, COM, CPL, DLL, EXE, JSE, MSI, OCX, PIF, SCR, and VBE. <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>So, the efficacy can be measured only for these files. </strong></span></p><p></p><p>Any good AV signatures + forced SS are better than the best AV.</p><p></p><p>Forced SS alone is better than the best AV for never-seen or 0-day malware, and probably better than average AV, for <strong>widespread and prevalent malware.</strong></p><p></p><p>SS may allow some Adware or PUPs if they are legally bundled with the popular applications.</p><p></p><p>Windows native implementation of SS is not the forced SS, so its efficacy can depend on the way the file was downloaded to hard disk.</p><p></p><p>In my opinion, If VoodooShield works alongside the standard AV based on signatures, then forced SS is a very good idea.</p><p></p><p>Dan is wrong when thinking that Windows native SS could block the VoodooShield update. Any update made by VoodooShield does not attach MOTW. So, it will be ignored by SS. But, blocking updates is possible with forced SS.</p><p>Anyway, SS has acceptable amount of false positives only for application installers. The application executables (after installation) does not have MOTW attached and SS normally ignores them. With forced <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>real-time SS</strong></span> they will be often just false positives. So, forced real-time SS should allow by default the files in Windows and Program Files folders (and maybe some others too).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 818813, member: 32260"] I do not know the test which properly measured the efficacy of SS. SS supports only some file types: BAT, CMD, COM, CPL, DLL, EXE, JSE, MSI, OCX, PIF, SCR, and VBE. [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]So, the efficacy can be measured only for these files. [/B][/COLOR] Any good AV signatures + forced SS are better than the best AV. Forced SS alone is better than the best AV for never-seen or 0-day malware, and probably better than average AV, for [B]widespread and prevalent malware.[/B] SS may allow some Adware or PUPs if they are legally bundled with the popular applications. Windows native implementation of SS is not the forced SS, so its efficacy can depend on the way the file was downloaded to hard disk. In my opinion, If VoodooShield works alongside the standard AV based on signatures, then forced SS is a very good idea. Dan is wrong when thinking that Windows native SS could block the VoodooShield update. Any update made by VoodooShield does not attach MOTW. So, it will be ignored by SS. But, blocking updates is possible with forced SS. Anyway, SS has acceptable amount of false positives only for application installers. The application executables (after installation) does not have MOTW attached and SS normally ignores them. With forced [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]real-time SS[/B][/COLOR] they will be often just false positives. So, forced real-time SS should allow by default the files in Windows and Program Files folders (and maybe some others too). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top