App Review Zemana AntiMalware vs Ransomware (Juan Diaz)

[Nestor]

Content source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo8pSruYO_w

 

[hlopets]

Thanks for video. I am not surprised by the test results. Zemana - is just an multi engine antivirus using signatures from antivirus vendors. One unknown cryptographer is enough. For example, Emsisoft AntiMalware has a behavioral analyzer in the cloud, and even with disabled file protection shows excellent results.

 

[LDogg]

Great video. Was surprised at how the last one performed and functioned too as a Ransomware.

~LDogg

 

[oldschool]

Thanks for video. I am not surprised by the test results. Zemana - is just an multi engine antivirus using signatures from antivirus vendors. One unknown cryptographer is enough. For example, Emsisoft AntiMalware has a behavioral analyzer in the cloud, and even with disabled file protection shows excellent results.

Thanks for the explanation as I was not aware of this. I wonder if there will be BB in Version 3?

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Thanks for video. I am not surprised by the test results. Zemana - is just an multi engine antivirus using signatures from antivirus vendors. One unknown cryptographer is enough. For example, Emsisoft AntiMalware has a behavioral analyzer in the cloud, and even with disabled file protection shows excellent results.

Emsisoft has BB complete offline.
However :
If you are connected to inet , it queries their cloud for suspicious pattern behaviours.
If not it pops up the decision to the user hands with different flags : yellow (PUP), RED ( Ransom, Crypto lockers, Stealers).
Unfortunately the downside here in offline a lot of safe programs get the same warrant.
Better be online and make the process automated.

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Thanks for the explanation as I was not aware of this. I wonder if there will be BB in Version 3?

Well... The last sample in the video edits the file "C:\Users\UpdatusUser\NTUSER.DAT" (can be seen in the CMD window), which causes Zemana to classify this change as dangerous and to recognize and block the sample (4:05). So I'd say that Zemana has something in that sense.

Also, I wouldn't say that Zemana is a bad product. Paired with OSArmor or Hard_Configurator it would work fine.

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

Paired with OSArmor or Hard_Configurator it would work fine.

And what would be the point exactly running Zemana with H_C?

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

And what would be the point exactly running Zemana with H_C?

Hard_Configurator (or Windows Smartscreen) can only block files, but does not delete them. Zemana would then be able to recognize and delete them a few days later using signatures, which can be an advantage for many.

In addition, Hard_Configurator is much more a backup for an antivirus (emphasizes @Andy Ful several times). In the Malware Hub I test H_C in a VM without any support from an AV. But on my "real" system I would prefer a combination of WD (or something else [@Andy Ful recommends Avast]) and H_C.

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

Hard_Configurator (or Windows Smartscreen) can only block files, but does not delete them. Zemana would then be able to recognize and delete them a few days later using signatures, which can be an advantage for many.

In addition, Hard_Configurator is much more a backup for an antivirus (emphasizes @Andy Ful several times). In the Malware Hub I test H_C in a VM without any support from an AV. But on my "real" system I would prefer a combination of WD (or something else [@Andy Ful recommends Avast]) and H_C.

Oh please spare me the self-importance. Your testing in the Malware Hub is a moot point because the testing methodology over there is far from realistic compared to real-world scenarios and the results are far from credible when whole layers of protection are being bypassed.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Hard_Configurator (or Windows Smartscreen) can only block files, but does not delete them. Zemana would then be able to recognize and delete them a few days later using signatures, which can be an advantage for many.

In addition, Hard_Configurator is much more a backup for an antivirus (emphasizes @Andy Ful several times). In the Malware Hub I test H_C in a VM without any support from an AV. But on my "real" system I would prefer a combination of WD (or something else [@Andy Ful recommends Avast]) and H_C.

Hard Configurator isn't a AV backup, it is SRP.
Comparing SRP vs AV is nonsense, it is like comparing which between a bunker and a house is more comfortable...

 

[hlopets]

Well... The last sample in the video edits the file "C:\Users\UpdatusUser\NTUSER.DAT" (can be seen in the CMD window), which causes Zemana to classify this change as dangerous and to recognize and block the sample (4:05). So I'd say that Zemana has something in that sense.

Also, I wouldn't say that Zemana is a bad product. Paired with OSArmor or Hard_Configurator it would work fine.

I agree. I would like to believe that Zamana is a promising security solution. But it all depends on the technology used in the product. Technologies that go beyond simple anti-virus detection are not easy to implement.

 

[Andy Ful]

Hard Configurator isn't a AV backup, it is SRP.
Comparing SRP vs AV is nonsense, it is like comparing which between a bunker and a house is more comfortable...

The bunker and the house is the right naming.
I think that @askalan has in mind that a recommended way of using H_C (for most users) is supporting the AV (back up ~ support).

 

[Deleted member 178]

@Andy Ful yes I got his meaning, I rather say HC being a complement than backup. Backup would be an OD scanner. Well... maybe i'm too picky on semantics lol

 

[Andy Ful]

Oh please spare me the self-importance. Your testing in the Malware Hub is a moot point because the testing methodology over there is far from realistic compared to real-world scenarios and the results are far from credible when whole layers of protection are being bypassed.

There is an important difference in what is really tested. The @askalan tests can show the preventive capabilities of SmartScreen and script blocking, which are not tested in most MH tests. So, those tests cannot be directly compared, because they are rather complementary.
Of course some users can adopt the setup which is tested by @askalan and add ZAM as on demand scanner, but there are only a few cases, when this could be advantageous (as compared to any free AV):
AV-Test - Hard_Configurator - January 2019 Report
Update - Hard_Configurator - Windows Hardening Configurator

P.S.
I put here the above links for the other readers, because you probably know those posts already.

 

[silversurfer]

Oh please spare me the self-importance. Your testing in the Malware Hub is a moot point because the testing methodology over there is far from realistic compared to real-world scenarios and the results are far from credible when whole layers of protection are being bypassed.

Your latest comments are provocatively, another example here: Update - WiseVector Free AI Driven Security

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

Your latest comments are provocatively, another example here: Update - WiseVector Free AI Driven Security

You know where is the report button if for some reason you feel offended by my posts. I for sure know you'll be more happy if I wouldn't be here anymore, it'll just prove the point what's been a hot debate over last months in the MT and why people were banned over defending their own opinions.

 

[Exterminator]

Relies should be civil and not condescending,or provoking members.

 

[Andy Ful]

davisd,

silversurfer is right - those two posts were slightly provocative.
But, I also noticed many your posts on MT, which were really helpful.
I do not think that silversurfer felt especially offended or wanted to offend you.
Let's do not fight (there is no reason for that) and go back to the topic, please.

 

[oldschool]

Relies should be civil and not condescending,or provoking members.

Thank you! And I agree with @Andy Ful as well.

 

[Exterminator]

If there is a conflict between members then you may use the PM system to work it out like gentlemen.