Assigned Zemana AntiMalware proved to be the best ransomware protection among globally known products

[Captain Awesome]

If WinAntiRansom was participate in the test then WinAntiRansom will won the test for sure,but good work Zemana.
btw how they miss such a powerfull tool ?

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

I like Zemana as a security software, what I don't like is its super high data consumption.
Every few seconds it pops onto the internet in cycles even while idle, untill they reign that in
its a deal breaker for me.
If you have, or have access to network monitoring tools use it and watch it for yourself.
Which brings up a simple fact, it is cloud based and while idle it should not be utilizing
the internet every few seconds. So why ? what is it sending and or receiving that requires
it to connect that frequently, if I remember correctly its like every 10 to 15 second intervals.

 

[TwinHeadedEagle]

Yes, really good test and excellent way to show how good Zemana is against the most dangerous threat nowadays.

@_CyberGhosT_

Without cloud Zemana would be blind, it needs cloud access for everything, and that is why it needs to connect to servers every few seconds. Just don't make another mountain out of a mole hill again.

@Captain Awesome

I think it was up to guys from MRG to choose which tools to test. I think they wanted to test only the most popular ones that they certainly did.

@yesnoo

Yes, we wanted people to see how good Zemana is against other standalone anti ransomware solutions.


P.S. Tested Satana ransomware yday with both Pandora enable and disable and malware was instantly blocked after execution.

 

[FleischmannTV]

btw how they miss such a powerfull tool ?

I don't think they "missed" it.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

@TwinHeadedEagle

@_CyberGhosT_

Without cloud Zemana would be blind, it needs cloud access for everything, and that is why it needs to connect to servers every few seconds. Just don't make another mountain out of a mole hill again.

Excuse me ?
I made mention of it because for people on limited data accounts from their ISP this poses an issue and they have the right to know whats sucking up their data.
I had no intention of doing anything but pointing this out so people can make informed decisions, there are plenty of cloud solutions that don't utilize this amount of data daily so to me it seems odd and excessive.

 

[Noxx]

Unless people watch videos and torrent 24/7, I don't know how people even manage to transcend the limits of their data plans. Putting that aside, Zemana is very light on the system itself, and that's what matters most to me.

 

[TwinHeadedEagle]

@TwinHeadedEagle

Excuse me ?
I made mention of it because for people on limited data accounts from their ISP this poses an issue and they have the right to know whats sucking up their data.
I had no intention of doing anything but pointing this out so people can make informed decisions, there are plenty of cloud solutions that don't utilize this amount of data daily so to me it seems odd and excessive.

Instead of querying with HTTP/HTTPS protocol which consumes more bandwidth, we have decided to query with small DNS packages and if it also fails then we are querying with HTTP.

We query a sub domain of Zemana (magic.zemana.com) trough OpenDNS which always resolves to a hard-coded A record which is "168.62.41.41", if it fails we are trying DynDNS, if it also fails then start checking known content with HTTP on http://cdn9.zemana.com/CacheControl.bin. Where the CacheControl.bin content is always expected to be 5A454D414E41

This process does not pose any risk to you nor does it decrease the performance of your PC. Since we are using small DNS packages every 5 sec, it consumes a very small network traffic, nearly invisible.

 

[TwinHeadedEagle]

 

[Atlas147]

There used to be a function on Zemana AM where they showed which engines detected the threats on the system during the scan, I thought that it was really useful to see how many engines detected the threat and make an informed decision if the file is actually a threat or just a false positive.

 

[TwinHeadedEagle]

That has been discussed many times and there are several reasons why is this information kept in secret. So please do not spam this question anymore.

 

[JHomes]

I guess it really depends. I've never heard of this program, but I back up my machine with Drive Cloner and Rollback and the few times I've gotten Ransomware, I just went back a week or so and problem solved. Maybe I'm doing it the dumb way lol but traditional back up is just the way I go. Maybe it's the cranky old man in me who refuses to accept that anything else aside from a solid backup would work...

 

[Atlas147]

I guess it really depends. I've never heard of this program, but I back up my machine with Drive Cloner and Rollback and the few times I've gotten Ransomware, I just went back a week or so and problem solved. Maybe I'm doing it the dumb way lol but traditional back up is just the way I go. Maybe it's the cranky old man in me who refuses to accept that anything else aside from a solid backup would work...

I mean if you have gotten ransomware SEVERAL TIMES I think you need to rethink your situation man

 

[JHomes]

I mean if you have gotten ransomware SEVERAL TIMES I think you need to rethink your situation man

I can't help it that my wife has the computer literacy of a decrepit canine.

 

[Atlas147]

I can't help it that my wife has the computer literacy of a decrepit canine.

You should think of a better way of preventing it from coming onto the system rather than restoring backups. Probably a better AV or an AV like Avast that has harden mode to default deny any unknown apps

 

[FleischmannTV]

Regarding these reports the most interesting (and perhaps revealing) part is always which products have not have been part of the test lineup, but should have, because it would have been interesting. I am not only missing WAR, but also major full-fledged products, like Kaspersky, Emsisoft and the likes. What if they would have stopped even more threats with less false positives? We'll never know. The report as it is, holds very little value, aside from a marketing standpoint from Zemana's point of view.

ZAM may, and I stress may, have an advantage over other companion apps, which comes at the price of false positives, but that alone doesn't tell people if it is necessary or beneficial, if they already have KIS or EAM etc.

 

[Stas]

Not fare to test anti-malware with multiple engines against just anti-ransomware no av engines, of course Zemana will be on top. Zemana should be tested against products like paid Bitdefender Antivirus witch has anti-ransomware module.

 

[Solarlynx]

it consumes a very small network traffic, nearly invisible.

In average, what traffic should we expect from ZAM in realtime?

Thank you.

 

[TwinHeadedEagle]

Not fare to test anti-malware with multiple engines against just anti-ransomware no av engines, of course Zemana will be on top. Zemana should be tested against products like paid Bitdefender Antivirus witch has anti-ransomware module.

Yes, but it is not about engines here, it is about solid code and Zemana technology. You can test Zemana against any Antivirus product and results will be the same.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

In average, what traffic should we expect from ZAM in realtime?

Thank you.

I'm going to get a net calc and do the math on what it uses daily just idle with no scans, I will post it here
in this thread then you can multiply that and get weekly and monthly totals ect.
If what Netbalancer reports is correct I think it will come as a surprise to many
but i have to isolate it on a system with no other net usage and i have a spare system i can install it on and leave it idle for 3 24hr periods and block all windows services from net access so I get accurate numbers.

 

[frogboy]

This laptop has been on for approx 10 hours here is a usage report it does not use much.