Software Review Windows 11 vs Ransomware [TPSC]

Reviews reflect the reviewer's setup and methods. Check the evidence and limitations.
SFox said:
There are incomparably more malicious programs under Windows than under Linux, and it is much easier to run them on Windows than on Linux. And it's not a fact that a malicious program written for Linux will still work correctly, but on Windows, on the contrary, most malicious programs run and work perfectly. From this point of view, Linux is much safer. However, when it comes to browser scripting or phishing attacks, everything is the same.
Click to expand...
You got it all wrong, is way easier to get malware to work on Linux than Windows (there simply no market to justify it).
 
Local Host said:
You got it all wrong, is way easier to get malware to work on Linux than Windows (there simply no market to justify it).
Click to expand...
With windows you can go to almost any malicious website download malware and install it. Cracks, adware etc

That is normally not the case with Linux were software is installed from maintained and monitored repositories.
Not say that some malware cant get in this way but its definitely much harder to get infected using Linux and official repos.
Linux does have its fair share of security issues but you can argue they are far less than what windows has.

If you give your parents a PC running Linux for them to browser the internet use FB or whatever. They would be far safer from infections using
Linux than Windows. (This is my opinion.)

Yes I'm aware you said its easier to get malware to work on Linux not get infected. More people should try linux and post like
that can persuade them not to do so
 
saladeas said:
That is security by obscurity. The only thing that is protecting you is that the Linux desktop ecosystem is not targeted.

Default Linux configurations are intended to be only a baseline, just like Windows' default protections are merely a baseline.

People are arguing that this place is about security, yet they actually believe that default Linux configurations are sufficient. "Use Linux, you are protected." That's quite amusing.


Nice strawman.

Once can also counter argue that not informing people about all the security weaknesses of Linux, will result in them being confident they can't get infected.
Click to expand...
I never said you cant get infected using Linux OS. However an OS that is not or less targeted is safer than one that is.

Similar to driving a high risk vehicle that Hijackers are targeting compare to a vehicle that is lower risk. This is my take on the matter.
You free to have your opinion. I stated so in my first post.
 
Last edited:
Guys, you are using two different meanings of secure (safe).
  1. One OS is as secure as another one under the assumption that both are similarly targeted.
  2. One OS is as secure as another one under the assumption that the second is much more targeted.
I think that in the first case Linux security is similar to Windows 10 S with disabled AV.
In the second case, Linux security is similar to Windows 10.

I think that comparing Linux and Windows 10 is not worth discussing, similarly to comparing Windows 10 and Windows 10 in S mode without AV.(y)
 
Feels dumb to see him making fun of his wievers uploading this kind of videos

Its like reinventing the wheel again
 
Andy Ful said:
Guys, you are using two different meanings of secure (safe).
  1. One OS is as secure as another one under the assumption that both are similarly targeted.
  2. One OS is as secure as another one under the assumption that the second is much more targeted.
I think that in the first case Linux security is similar to Windows 10 S with disabled AV.
In the second case, Linux security is similar to Windows 10.

I think that comparing Linux and Windows 10 is not worth discussing, similarly to comparing Windows 10 and Windows 10 in S mode without AV.(y)
Click to expand...
My issue was that post like those put people off from using Linux. for no good reason whatsoever just because of their own bias feelings towards the OS.
 
The_King said:
My issue was that post like those put people off from using Linux. for no good reason whatsoever just because of their own bias feelings towards the OS.
Click to expand...

I agree in most part with @saladeas about Linux for home users:
"That is security by obscurity. The only thing that is protecting you is that the Linux desktop ecosystem is not targeted."
But this also means that Linux is still pretty much secure in daily usage. Security by obscurity can be very effective, when most users do not use Linux.
The situation related to Linux servers is much more complex, but this thread (and probably MT forum) is not an appropriate place to discuss it.
 
Andy Ful said:
I would not be so harsh for the author. The intention of this test was probably to . . .. . .
Click to expand...
Why not, just go to 5:32 in the video, his only purpose is to bash Windows Defender
LEO said:
"This why I am not a huge fan of Windows Defender and the way it is implemented. It is a better than nothing, for sure, but it is not the best protection you can get, not by a long shot"
Click to expand...

Here he shows his in depth knowledge and understanding of the products he is 'testing'

LEO said:
"but if you do intend to use Windows Defender. Here are a couple of things you should look at. So first of all, in Virus protection they do have a section called ransomware protection. And if you click on that there is this setting called Controlled Folder Access. What this does, is to ALLOW YOU TO SET A SPECIFIC FOLDER for programs which are not able to DELETE your data, WITHOUT YOU SPECIFICALLY ALLOWING THEM. so again it is not the most convenient thing but ..
Click to expand...

Dear Leo, in Security Half Right is Completely Wrong!

1. Yes you can add a folder, but it has the default USER folders added already (half right)
2. Yes it protects against deletes, but it also protects against Writes (again half right)
3. No it Automatically determines what programs are allowed to write/delete data (completely wrong)

I remember the hilarious comments/video of Cruel Sister in which she shows that Leo's in depth knowledge is nothing more than a bag of hot air.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Kees,
Please edit your post. It is not acceptable to cite someone incorrectly. I did not use the words " . . . bash windows defender . . .".
I agree that Leo does not like Defender, but he also explained why. You and I do not agree with him. This does not make him bash Defender and this does not make us the fans of Defender.:)(y)
 
Andy Ful said:
@Kees,
Please edit your post. It is not acceptable to cite someone incorrectly. I did not use the words " . . . bash windows defender . . .".
I agree that Leo does not like Defender, but he also explained why. You and I do not agree with him. This does not make him bash Defender and this does not make us the fans of Defender.:)(y)
Click to expand...
corrected, did you listen to his text? I quoted that correctly :) how would you describe Leo, a proclaimed expert stating factual wrong information? Either he is not an expert (otherwise he would know he would tell nonsense about protected folders) or he is providing misleading information (when he would know he would be lying), so in hindsight I agree that I have to think the best of people, so when Leo is not a liar he is a certainly not an expert.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kees1958 said:
corrected, did you listen to his text? I quoted that correctly :) how would you describe a proclaimed expert stating factual wrong information?
Click to expand...
He never was an expert on Defender. Anyway, he only proposed what Microsoft suggests too.
I am not going to convince you to change your mind about Leo. But, I would use different words (does not like instead bash).(y)
 
Andy Ful said:
I would not be so harsh for the author. The intention of this test was probably to show that Defender's protection is cloud-dependent. This is nothing new and can be seen in all AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests.
This test has two parts:
  1. Test with Internet connection (cloud backend) = 100% protection
  2. Test without Internet connection = exact result unknown, but a few samples infected the system (probably 90% protection).
When we compare these results with AV-Comparatives Malware Protection tests without cloud backend (~70% for Defender), then the default anti-ransomware protection results in the video (~90%) are much better.

Although the short video test cannot prove anything interesting, we can conclude that it is consistent with the below supposition:
  1. Defender has got excellent anti-ransomware protection against in-the-wild samples when using cloud backend.
  2. Defender's protection without cloud backend is not so good.
  3. Defender's anti-ransomware protection without cloud backend is probably much better than for other malware types.
Click to expand...

would some of this information be the same for trend micro given the fact that it relies on the cloud?
 
carl fish said:
would some of this information be the same for trend micro given the fact that it relies on the cloud?
Click to expand...
1636540188233.png

www.av-comparatives.org

Malware Protection Test September 2021

The Malware Protection Test September 2021 assesses program’s ability to protect a system against malicious files before, during or after execution.
www.av-comparatives.org www.av-comparatives.org
 
carl fish said:
If you are disconnected from the internet would trend act the same way and miss things that over-wise it wouldn't as windows defender did in this test?
Click to expand...
The Malware Protection Test by AVC that Andy has linked above shows the Offline Malware Detection Rate, but it doesn't show the Offline Protection Rate for any AVs. So, it needs to be tested to know that.
 
carl fish said:
If you are disconnected from the internet would trend act the same way and miss things that over-wise it wouldn't as windows defender did in this test?
Click to expand...
The exact numbers have to be confirmed by tests, but I do not see the reason why Trend Micro should behave differently compared to Defender. Both have got a big difference between offline and online detection rates and a small difference between online detection and online protection rates. Both do not have a classic behavior blocker that could work well without a cloud backend.(y)
 
SecureKongo said:
Click to expand...

This guy are noob, troll, and i think i dont't know what I call this guy. This test is incomplete, no settings, and others...
Sorry guys, but I hate this ... livelihood youtuber.:mad:
Defender is not perfect, but good protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recently browsing

Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes

You may also like...

Back
Top