- Apr 1, 2019
Yes, it can be annoying for a day or two, but once the whitelist is built it is extremely secure and quiet. The annoying part can be avoided by not changing your security config every other day .I’m so glad someone said this. Default deny is pretty fool proof, but it is quite annoying.
Is your friend sure that Kaspersky wouldn't detect the threat via it's behaviour blocking components or stop it from connecting to the internet as it might be flagged as suspicious or something, it's really not easy to determine a success story or a failure story in these cases in my opinion. Obviously no one wants to test how Kaspersky or any product would react to a threat proactively and just because it wasn't detected by the signatures of the product it could have been rendered incapable of doing any harm. Just saying that the user that encounters a lot of threats online is someone who is going to allow suspicious files on a default deny application because they will mostly be cracks and keygens but the one that isn't of this sort is going to be hidden in a crack file either way.I completely disagree I have a friend who worked for the intelligence community (granted he is not the Average Joe) who on his own personal computer once clicked on something he thought innocuous that sliced straight through Kaspersky, it didn't get him though because he had an "extra special security layer" on his machine.
VoodooShield with WLC (which dramatically reduces user interaction) is easy for the Average Joe to learn and once familiarity is established, one can simply ignore browsing alerts and move on to the next site.
The additional protection VoodooShield will give to WD is comparable to the difference between an Apollo Space Rocket and a Pogo Stick.
I guess you're right and the testing labs drive competition but if it's true that these labs can sometimes be corrupted and companies that pay more get better results then it would basically be a marketing choice for a company to do well in these tests and that would be sadRegardless of how meaningful those test results are; testing labs themselves are useful. They force improvements in protection via competition. Without those tests, a user would only be left with marketing. The products with best marketing would win, protection wouldn't count at all to sell stuff. No one would be driven to improve protection too much
Well, these studies have incredibly enormous, lucrative value to the industry and appeal primarily to mainstream users who probably don't know too much beyond what's on the surface. Perfect!
But from a scientific standpoint, it's almost funny. The only way, Burrito, I'd pay attention to any findings is if an impartial data center collected telemetry from a sample size of, say, one million users as a cross-section during a, say, six month time frame. The samples would be taken from a proportionate number of users with various brands installed. It would have to be a blind study but with instructions to avoid subjects purposefully going out and getting infected, or tampering with the security product and/or changing anything about their online behaviors. Hmmm. Not as easy as it sounds, by far.
See what I mean? I don't have to know how these labs operate behind the scenes to think that any results are at best, a relative, vague, and ballpark kind of thing. I don't do "vague" or "ballpark." I do, however, really like and respect that CheckLab.pl moved away from the glaringly obvious and shameful red/yellow/green color scheme of the bar graphs. Remember those, where 1/10 of a percent difference between Brands A and B meant a lot of extra red in the bar and had the power to change users' minds and wallets? This was supposed to be scientific back in the day. Yeah, right.
I do like your approach and I think your software is one of the best approaches to this. It’s very user friendly, as user friendly as default deny can be I suppose.Yes, it can be annoying for a day or two, but once the whitelist is built it is extremely secure and quiet. The annoying part can be avoided by not changing your security config every other day .
I spend nearly as much time online and also never encounter malware, despite making no effort to visit only well known and trusted sites. As a result, I'm happy to use only an antivirus to protect me, as I don't feel I need anything else. While I don't use WD, in terms of protection, I'd be happy to use it or any antivirus that does not perform terribly in testing. I'm too concerned about having "the best" antivirus, as I don't come across malware, or get infected, so I'm more interested in an antivirus which has the features I want and is light.I'm on a computer 14 hours a day and honestly I have never encountered malware without actively going out and looking for trouble.
“Jasnah had once defined a fool as a person who ignored information because it disagreed with desired results.”
I think testing labs are useless for most people that use a computing device: most people, maybe 90% don't give a damn about testing labs.
Last week, I had 3 calls from friends: the first one told me that he had lost everything on his laptop screen and did not know what to do. It took me a few minutes to understand that he had turned on the tablet mode and 30 seconds to get his regular screen back. I also helped him get rid of useless shortcuts and set up Mail on his computer. He didn't know he had an antivirus on his computer.
My second friend got a bill from Avast. But he does not use Avast on his laptop, I knew that he had used Avast on a previous computer. I sent him links to unsubscribe from Avast.Another friend had installed Avast 3 years ago. He does know what an antivirus is but he doesn't know what antivirus is running on his computer.
The third friend called me because she had dropped her Iphone in water. She sent a lot of messages to people asking them what to do and most people told her to put her phone into rice for 48 hours. Finally she called me on a landline, crying. I knew she had an Iphone 8 and that these phone are good for 30 minutes in water. I told her : clean your phone and don't eat the rice. I'm sure your phone is running OK. It was!
These people are persons with good jobs and well considered in their community, But they don't know about testing labs and don't care.
Testing labs results are interesting for people like me. I know that sometimes, it's good or bad marketing. But I learned a lot about security just by discussing the usefulness of testing labs. Just for that, it's useful.
Again... Secure and Security are not the same.Microsoft was making these hilarious claims that this was the most secure Windows yet, but Defender's malware detections were in the bottom of the canyons.
Yeah they cheated the test ,