Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 830702" data-attributes="member: 32260">This result was easy to predict when testing against the common malware (even 0-day). WD Sandbox was 100% efficient. Its role is protecting the potentially vulnerable WD processes, and as we could see WD processes worked well to the end. It is also probable that we could get a similar result without WD Sandbox, because most malware samples do not attack WD processes.It would be interesting to test Windows Sandbox against the malware.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite135" alt=":giggle:" title="Giggle&nbsp; &nbsp; :giggle:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":giggle:" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 830702, member: 32260"] This result was easy to predict when testing against the common malware (even 0-day). [COLOR=rgb(0, 168, 133)][B]WD Sandbox[/B][/COLOR] was 100% efficient. Its role is protecting the potentially vulnerable WD processes, and as we could see WD processes worked well to the end. It is also probable that we could get a similar result without WD Sandbox, because most malware samples do not attack WD processes. It would be interesting to test [COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)][B]Windows Sandbox [/B][/COLOR]against the malware.:giggle:(y) [/QUOTE]

Verification