I have read that you plan to add voodooAI to xvirus. Do you have an estimate date for this? Is xvirus based on another commerical engine or everything is xvirus tech? For example Zemana use commercial engines through metadefender/metascan
The engine is Xvirus tech. About voodooAI, I'll have to test it first before implementing and releasing to public. (it should take a while)
If you add VooDooAI, I think your SW will be really great I have tried it a little and I really like the behavior blocker and the startup monitor What about making it cloud-only instead of downloading a local signature database?
Great Even as it is now, I think Xvirus anti-malware can be a good complement to VooDooShield: it uses its own engine, so it adds another opinion because it isn't part of VirusTotal check it adds startup monitor and behavior blocker, extra layers in case of false negatives from VooDooShield Just a couple of questions: do you plan to release a x64 version? does it have a self-defense against malware trying to terminate it?
@imuade 1. Xvirus is compatible with x64 computers. I don't know what you mean. 2. I'm also working on self defense for the next version. The current version does not have any kind of self protection.
Yes, if you were asking if there will be a dedicated x64 version, there are no plans for it. But x86 is compatible with x64 and there are no performance gains in a program like Xvirus on making a dedicated x64 version.
It doesn't matter if there isn't a separate x64 version since there are no limitations from the x86 version on x64 systems; Xvirus Anti-Malware doesn't need to inject DLLs into external processes or load kernel-mode device drivers and the such (meaning a cleaner trace on your system and less potential problems), so it's fine. You won't experience random BSoD crashes or program crashes due to Xvirus AM. I like it.
I don't get it, how will this be integrated, and why would Dan allow other security tools use this tech? What behavior does it monitor? If I recall, it was very basic.
Been a while since I posted anything on this forum. I was looking at the Xvirus website. The dev claims that Xvirus has "many awards" but lists none that are of any consequence. In fact, the "awards" listed are completely meaningless for an anti-malware application or any application for that matter. I've also seen the dev point out that he offers free, real-time protection unlike Malwarebyte's, Emsisoft and others. That's really of little consequence either if the application only has "thousands of downloads" after 7 years. It would be of great benefit for the dev to submit Xvirus to testing sites if he truly has faith in his product. These sites exist because people view the test results. He can see how his product stacks up against MBAM, Emsisoft, Zemana and others as well as get a bit of free advertisement. He might even get an actual award that's worth something. I would advise against having a choice of "Cloud only" or "Local only" for malware database. "Cloud only" means malware can more easily make it useless by simply breaking internet connection.
About the award, I was thinking about it too, but those things take time. About the choice. Choice is good, you can choose one of those or both. So I don't know how that can be bad for the costumer?
Xvirus Anti-Malware 7.0.5 - download Changelog: Added VoodooAI to System Guard; Added Self Protection; Improved Anti Ransomware; Improved Quick Scan; Improved cloud scanner; Minor bugs fixed.
What's the threshold for VooDooAi to kick in? I mean, VooDooAi score can be from 0 to 1. What score a file should have to be considered as suspicious? Higher than 0.5 ?
It only shows suspicious alerts when higher than 0,7. It doesn't say the score in the alert right now, but I'm working redesigning the alerts for the next version. I could also add a option to make the user choose the threshold on which the file is flagged as malicious.
Yeah, this would be great If you look at what Dan said about VooDooAi (http://www.voodooshield.com/artwork/AlgoBenchmark.PNG), anything scoring lower than 0.3 is safe, anything scoring higher than 0.8 is a malware. If it's in the middle, there is a chance of false positive or false negative. The best would be to have an option to set two thresholds, one to warn (i.e. when Ai score is higher than 0.3) and one to block/quarantine (i.e. when Ai score is higher than 0.7)
