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
Security
General Security Discussions
Why are we even messing with anything other than WD these days?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 821593" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>[USER=51905]Evjl's Rain[/USER] thanks for a very interesting malware test:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/ransomware-23-06-2019.93355/post-821562[/URL]</p><p>The important factor can be the fact that the test with malware execution, which infected the system, was performed before the BAFS test.</p><p>As usual with WD, there can be two or more interpretations of the results:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">BAFS has a better detection (on access, file with MOTW) than WD detection on execution (when the file does not have MOTW).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Both have the same detection, but the result can be better for the second. Why?<br /> The user has already executed the malware which infected the computer and the WD telemetry alarmed the cloud. AI in the cloud finished the analysis and recognized the malware before starting the BAFS test, but was not fast enough to stop the infection in the previous test.</li> </ol><p>Here is the video on the second possibility (thank [USER=60675]Sunshine-boy[/USER]):</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.microsoft.com/videoplayer/embed/c2f20f59-ca56-4a7b-ba23-44c60bc62c59[/URL]</p><p></p><p>Anyway, the test shows how quickly WD AI can recognize the never-seen malware.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 821593, member: 32260"] [USER=51905]Evjl's Rain[/USER] thanks for a very interesting malware test: [URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/ransomware-23-06-2019.93355/post-821562[/URL] The important factor can be the fact that the test with malware execution, which infected the system, was performed before the BAFS test. As usual with WD, there can be two or more interpretations of the results: [LIST=1] [*]BAFS has a better detection (on access, file with MOTW) than WD detection on execution (when the file does not have MOTW). [*]Both have the same detection, but the result can be better for the second. Why? The user has already executed the malware which infected the computer and the WD telemetry alarmed the cloud. AI in the cloud finished the analysis and recognized the malware before starting the BAFS test, but was not fast enough to stop the infection in the previous test. [/LIST] Here is the video on the second possibility (thank [USER=60675]Sunshine-boy[/USER]): [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.microsoft.com/videoplayer/embed/c2f20f59-ca56-4a7b-ba23-44c60bc62c59[/URL] Anyway, the test shows how quickly WD AI can recognize the never-seen malware. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top