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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Windows Defender Firewall Critique Part 2
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1102455" data-attributes="member: 114717"><p>Most people I know who are not professional researchers or security testers that test do not make videos. They make demos at conferences such as Wild West Hackin' Fest or Black Hat. They are self taught and take their "hobby" very seriously. They're not creating YouTube videos for likes or to be influencers (not that there is actually anything wrong with either, intrinsically).</p><p></p><p></p><p>All the tests performed by AV Comparatives, AV Test, etc - they are all to the dictates of what the security software publishers as an industry group find acceptable. That industry group has great influence as they are the source of all AV lab revenue.</p><p></p><p>If you are a business and you do things that your clients do not find acceptable, then you will not be in business for very long.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It depends upon what you define as a "contradiction."</p><p></p><p>Researchers and enthusiasts expose are all the corner cases and things not covered by the dedicated professional test labs. Your video showing how the publicly available infos to stop services can be weaponized against security software is a prime example. I know you did more testing than you published. You were able to bork other security software using the method, but you chose not to publish the results because you did not want to deal with MT drama from certain people.</p><p></p><p>Researchers definitely test differently than test labs and their objective is not to perform "general malware testing" like the AV test labs. They are motivated to find unique problems, problems in areas where others did not think to look, etc.</p><p></p><p>If you were given a budget of $20 million USD and instructed to hire researchers and enthusiast pentesters\security software testers to put all the leading security software through various multi-level rounds of thorough testing, after you did that and posted the test results here the readers would have a much different, more cautious, less trusting attitude towards their favorite security software.</p><p></p><p>Knowing you, your counter-argument is going to immediately go to "Home users are not targeted so that kind of testing is not required and the home users need not worry." While it may be true they are not targeted, that is not the point. The point is that there are lots of ways to put holes in security software and it is not the test labs finding them. It is researchers and enthusiasts that do it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1102455, member: 114717"] Most people I know who are not professional researchers or security testers that test do not make videos. They make demos at conferences such as Wild West Hackin' Fest or Black Hat. They are self taught and take their "hobby" very seriously. They're not creating YouTube videos for likes or to be influencers (not that there is actually anything wrong with either, intrinsically). All the tests performed by AV Comparatives, AV Test, etc - they are all to the dictates of what the security software publishers as an industry group find acceptable. That industry group has great influence as they are the source of all AV lab revenue. If you are a business and you do things that your clients do not find acceptable, then you will not be in business for very long. It depends upon what you define as a "contradiction." Researchers and enthusiasts expose are all the corner cases and things not covered by the dedicated professional test labs. Your video showing how the publicly available infos to stop services can be weaponized against security software is a prime example. I know you did more testing than you published. You were able to bork other security software using the method, but you chose not to publish the results because you did not want to deal with MT drama from certain people. Researchers definitely test differently than test labs and their objective is not to perform "general malware testing" like the AV test labs. They are motivated to find unique problems, problems in areas where others did not think to look, etc. If you were given a budget of $20 million USD and instructed to hire researchers and enthusiast pentesters\security software testers to put all the leading security software through various multi-level rounds of thorough testing, after you did that and posted the test results here the readers would have a much different, more cautious, less trusting attitude towards their favorite security software. Knowing you, your counter-argument is going to immediately go to "Home users are not targeted so that kind of testing is not required and the home users need not worry." While it may be true they are not targeted, that is not the point. The point is that there are lots of ways to put holes in security software and it is not the test labs finding them. It is researchers and enthusiasts that do it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
