IE9 decimates competition at malware prevention

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by guest, Jul 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    http://www.neowin.net/news/ie9-decimates-competition-at-malware-prevention

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2011
  2. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    Internet Explorer 9 utterly dominates malware-blocking stats

    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...-utterly-dominates-malware-blocking-stats.ars

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2011
  3. Hungry Man
    Offline

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Re: Internet Explorer 9 utterly dominates malware-blocking stats

    To me this is very important. Having a 100% security method won't help if you get people into the "Default Allow" mood with tons of false positives.

    Still, it's great to see browsers moving to block socially engineered malware.
  4. Daveski17
    Offline

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Oh no ... I'm using Opera at the moment ... :eek:
  5. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    Re: Internet Explorer 9 utterly dominates malware-blocking stats

    This "higher-than-average" definitely doesn't mean "tons of false positives". It's a very slight difference.
  6. Phant0m
    Offline

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Regarding ”This is why people ignore security warnings: IE9 blocks official Microsoft update”...

    “The IE9 issue is mainly because the installer package is unsigned, which is probably an oversight that will be fixed soon.”

    ... I don’t know how anyone could get a “false positive” from a screen informing of a 'possible' malicious program, reasons giving "little or no information about this unsigned program".

    I guess people rather see no screen than a screen to lead to user caution, .. I don’t feel sorry for those types of people who disables security features or ignore warning screens.
  7. vasa1
    Offline

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Just curious: are there copyright issues with large cut-n-paste jobs?

    Also, does "decimate" mean reduce to 1/10th or reduce by 1/10th?
  8. Hungry Man
    Offline

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    Reduce by.
  9. moontan
    Offline

    moontan Registered Member

    this IE9 protection might be good for Joe/Jane Average but i am not concerned whatsoever with social engineering malware.
    i don't think anybody here at Wilders is daft enough to fall for such thing.

    i only worry about drive-by exploits and those seems to be very rare...
  10. Hungry Man
    Offline

    Hungry Man Registered Member

    I'm somewhat concerned with social engineering malware. I don't like having to worry about what I download. That's why I enjoy sandboxing, I can download whatever I like and get a sneak-peak of it but it's stuck in the sandbox waiting to be deleted if it's malicious.
  11. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    Same question.. I hope mods will edit my posts if there are any copyright issues.

    Please, use the report button to make the mods look at this faster. I can't report my own posts.
  12. J_L
    Offline

    J_L Registered Member

    I'm surprised IE's URL Filter is that effective over other browsers (if the test was truly independent).
    The Application Reputation can block 99% of malware, but only if the user makes the right decision. It also has tons of false positives, meaning virtually everything unsigned.
  13. Noob
    Online

    Noob Registered Member

    Interesting :D
  14. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    But the IE9 SmartScren Filter alone can block 92% of malware, with virtually 0 false positives and without user interaction. You can always keep it and disable the App Reputation filter.
  15. Robin A.
    Offline

    Robin A. Registered Member

    How is it done? Isn´t it bundled in the SmartScreen filter?
  16. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    I was wrong about this one. There is no way to disable it without disabling SmartScreen Filter.

    You will have to live with that extra click in order to run a not commonly downloaded app. :p
  17. CogitoTesting
    Offline

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    If the cut and paste is properly cited, then I do not think so. Since a link was provided to the original article; thus, there is no copyright violation.

    Thanks.
  18. CogitoTesting
    Offline

    CogitoTesting Registered Member

    Don't bet on it because you would be terribly surprised.

    Thanks.
  19. Phant0m
    Offline

    Phant0m Registered Member

    "SmartScreen Filter is a feature in Internet Explorer that helps detect phishing websites. SmartScreen Filter can also help protect you from downloading or installing malware (malicious software).

    SmartScreen Filter helps to protect you in three ways:
    • As you browse the web, it analyses webpages and determines if they have any characteristics that might be suspicious. If it finds suspicious webpages, SmartScreen will display a message giving you an opportunity to provide feedback and advising you to proceed with caution.

    • SmartScreen Filter checks the sites you visit against a dynamic list of reported phishing sites and malicious software sites. If it finds a match, SmartScreen Filter will show you a warning notifying you that the site has been blocked for your safety.

    • SmartScreen Filter checks files that you download from the web against a list of reported malicious software sites and programs known to be unsafe. If it finds a match, SmartScreen Filter will warn you that the download has been blocked for your safety. SmartScreen Filter also checks the files that you download against a list of files that are well known and downloaded by many Internet Explorer users. If the file that you're downloading isn't on that list, SmartScreen Filter will warn you." - What is SmartScreen Filter and how can it help protect me? - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/SmartScreen-Filter-frequently-asked-questions-IE9#


  20. J_L
    Offline

    J_L Registered Member

    I don't use IE at all, or trust this report anyhow.
  21. Noob
    Online

    Noob Registered Member

    Yeah, kinda hard to believe.
    I have always though things like URL checker etc, have small differences not this HUGE! :blink:
  22. Phant0m
    Offline

    Phant0m Registered Member

    As it was stated on the comments section, they’re not saying it blocks 92% of ALL Malware URLs on the web ... but just 92% of the tested farmed URLs that they used. As far as we know..., they could have simply used 10 Malware URLs. Not so hard to believe now? Is it?
  23. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

  24. Phant0m
    Offline

    Phant0m Registered Member

    "2.1.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF MALICIOUS URLS IN THE TEST
    From an initial list of 5,000 new suspicious sites, 706 potentially-malicious URLs were pre-screened for
    inclusion in the test and were available at the time of entry into the test. These were successfully
    accessed by the browsers in at least one run. We removed samples that did not pass our validation
    criteria, including those containing adware or that were not valid malware. Ultimately, 650 URLs
    passed our post-validation process and are included in the results, providing a margin of error of
    3.84% with a confidence interval of 95%." http://www.nsslabs.com/assets/noreg-reports/2011/nss labs_q2_2011_browsersem_FINAL.pdf
  25. guest
    Offline

    guest Guest

    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.