Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 1102197" data-attributes="member: 7463">Glad that you referenced MRG (although the same is essentially true for the other Majors).If you view their testing Methodology it would be seen that testing a given malicious sample is accomplished by downloading the file via Chrome and then running the file from the DOWNLOAD DIRECTORY. Having Chrome save the downloaded file to that directory is an arbitrary choice as it could have just as easily been saved anywhere else (like the Desktop directory).Also,&nbsp; they are testing specific products without either the help of or mention of SmartScreen; the test would be flawed it they did. Also not at all mentioned was the use of a Blocklist (the presence of which is barely an inconvenience for a malicious coder as (like Confluence Networks in the video) something can work as proxy for a Virginal website containing the malicious file.Finally malware can arise from anywhere (direct download, infected USB, worms over the Network, torrented files, email attachments, etc). The methodology in my videos parallels that which is used by the professional testing sites and most (if not all non-pro&#039;s). A true &quot;Real World&quot; test is acquiring a malicious file from ANYWHERE, plopping it on a system in ANY directory, and testing it against a product utilizing only the defense mechanisms that are installed by that product.Oh, and &quot;in the sections &quot;Real Botnet&quot; and &quot;Banking Simulator&quot; (Eset and Malwarebytes on top)&quot;- ESET did not get Top marks in my recent test of it. but I suppose some tests are Crueler then others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 1102197, member: 7463"] Glad that you referenced MRG (although the same is essentially true for the other Majors). If you view their testing Methodology it would be seen that testing a given malicious sample is accomplished by downloading the file via Chrome and then running the file from the DOWNLOAD DIRECTORY. Having Chrome save the downloaded file to that directory is an arbitrary choice as it could have just as easily been saved anywhere else (like the Desktop directory). Also, they are testing specific products without either the help of or mention of SmartScreen; the test would be flawed it they did. Also not at all mentioned was the use of a Blocklist (the presence of which is barely an inconvenience for a malicious coder as (like Confluence Networks in the video) something can work as proxy for a Virginal website containing the malicious file. Finally malware can arise from anywhere (direct download, infected USB, worms over the Network, torrented files, email attachments, etc). The methodology in my videos parallels that which is used by the professional testing sites and most (if not all non-pro's). A true "Real World" test is acquiring a malicious file from ANYWHERE, plopping it on a system in ANY directory, and testing it against a product utilizing only the defense mechanisms that are installed by that product. Oh, and "in the sections "Real Botnet" and "Banking Simulator" (Eset and Malwarebytes on top)"- ESET did not get Top marks in my recent test of it. but I suppose some tests are Crueler then others. [/QUOTE]

Verification