Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Minimalist, Feb 20, 2018.
Nice try, but I don't buy into it. But each is entitled to their own opinion on the issue. But before forming that opinion, look into if DNS filtering is really an effective mitigation:
And we are supposed to believe Emsisoft is presenting an unbiased point of view? Yeah right.
As the article points out, there are dozens of free products. These include Avast! Free, Avira Free, Comodo Free, ClamWin, and more.
But which is only one Emsisoft mentions? Windows Defender, of course. The one already included in Windows that is already effectively protecting 100s of millions of users. The one Emsisoft wants users to abandon for their own not free product.
That article is clearly a marketing ploy by Emsisoft! Don't believe it? Then why promote Emsisoft Anti-Malware, and only Emsisoft Anti-Malware in the last paragraph?
Bottom line, that's just marketing propaganda - and IMO, as a forum post, should be considered as a spam post, and deleted.
Marketing ploy? Its an article on their website, do you want them to promote another product instead? Nothing done here that every other anti-virus firm doesn't do on their websites, not an issue, either read it or not, your computer your choice.
As far as if DNS filtering would be effective against the current web based SSl/TLS threat status, perhaps some statistics would help. Then draw your own conclusions:
I didn't see any comparison yet about how each method is effective. I doubt that we will ever see one, it's like comparing apples and oranges. In statistics, that you posted, we don't know how many of those threats would be blocked by DNS filtering.
Maybe they have already forgotten which firewall(s) were first to block EternalBlue exploit and thus prevented WannaCry from spreading over networks. Hint: it was not the Windows firewall
Of course it is a marketing ploy. The blog article is supposed to be about "13 mistakes to avoid when choosing antivirus software". I want the article to be about those mistakes. Instead, it is yet another opportunistic bash at Windows Defender and a promotion for their own product.
I agree. And as such, the product does not need to be promoted here! The article is clearly intended to persuade users to buy their product. Therefore, it is spam here.
Just as this is just another opportunistic bash at Microsoft. For what purpose? To promote Eset. This thread has nothing to do with firewalls but in comes someone representing Eset for the sole purpose of trashing Windows Firewall.
or he's just trying to correct people's believes about the almighty windows firewall
lets not talk about windows defender....
You mean because it works? And it works great for 100s of millions of users? And the propaganda from 3rd party makers and MS bashers is just that? Propaganda? Then I agree.
Tell that to the Emissoft blogger.
None of the discussion in this thread should be about any brand.
i honestly can't argue with you without going personal.
keep using microsoft provided "security tools" and god help you.
Mistake 14: Running Windows instead of Linux?
Good point and really something someone should do.
In regards to DNS filtering, I use the "common sense" rule. If it alone was effective, like solutions such as SmartScreen would all that be needed to block malicious web sites and/or downloads. In reality, the sheer volume of web site based malware and the ease with which legit web sites can be infected makes DNS filtering ineffective. Also, DNS traffic is already being filtered by your DNS provider and your ISP for that matter.
One other point I forgot to mention.
The "contra" SSL/TLS scanning camp always selectivity omits how security vendors that employ it do so. The implication is all SSL/TLS browser based traffic is scanned. That is not true. Most of the AV vendors that scan encrypted browser traffic exclude trusted web sites. These are sites that employ EV certificates or have been verified to be safe. Additionally, web sites can be easily excluded in these products for any SSL/TLS web site. Which one would want to do where privacy is the primary consideration such as healthcare provider sites and the like.
Finally, SSL/TLS scanning is not only employed for web browsers but can also be done for any other Internet facing app such as e-mail clients, pdf readers, and the like. The ability to scan client-based e-mail for malware prior to hitting your disk alone makes the feature worthwhile.
not using antivirus for around 10 years but if i were to use one i would go for windows defender free or kaspersky paid
If you cannot debate technical facts without getting personal, that just goes to your personality. I can't help you there.
The "facts" are this. If Microsoft's security tools are as bad as you think they are, and as you want others to believe, then there would be 100s of millions of infected users out there and even the biased IT press would be reporting that millions and millions of users are infected. But since that is not happening, even the biased IT press cannot report mass infections are happening. All they can do is parrot each other about how bad they want WD and WF to be, or parrot biased articles like the one above, or unrealistic synthetic lab tests like the one cited in that biased article above. And all naysayers like yourself can do is parrot each other or make such comments as God help you.
This forum is full of people like you who believe as you do. Yet this forum is also full of Windows Defender users who, surprise, surprise, are not infected as you claim they should be. Go figure.
Not saying that there are 100 million infected users out. But to be fair not all infections are 'in your face" like ransomware. Take for example what happened with CCleaner.
It may be a great anti-malware solution, but I sure would not trust it. There is too much evidence showing the company, Kaspersky is not calling the shots.
The CCleaner incident is hardly proof of anything - except, perhaps, poor management at Avast. But even with that, to suggest that indicates Windows Defenders were the only ones affected just illustrates my point about not understanding the reality of things.
well you talk about propaganda but you sound like the one believing in them.
how about you go and test wd against fresh malware samples instead of constantly preaching ********.
in a weak moment of my life, i did it. well lets just say, every sample required a vm snapshot restoration.
Bill you mention "trust". Well that is exactly the reason I won't leave my security to Microsoft. They aren't making any money from WD stuff and they could decide tomorrow to stop supporting it..
Imo, I've noticed some flaws and self-contradiction:
> "Given that there are so many vendors that can provide protection rates well above the 95 percent mark"
Based on what to give such percentage? -- I know they then give example some malware files collected by those so-called independent tests. But I'm not sure if it's professional enough to mention such thing.
> "it’s no longer safe to rely solely on a real-time guard that simply scans files for known threats."
Then proceeds to say "Emsisoft Anti-Malware takes the multi-layered approach to the next level by using dual scanner technology to maximize the chances of detecting and removing any suspicious software"
So, you're telling me not to rely solely on a real-time guard and rely on Emsisoft because you use 2 engines, much like that how 'multi-layered' protection should be, and of course they would then mention their "Behavior Blocker".. and that's basically their product, yet-another-product using bitdefender engine with their own touch in a different UI.
This is, as said, just a marketing article which can be titled as "Why you should only use Emsisoft", because if you're going to use that title you may as well keep some fairness of mentioning other features that is present in other products but not yours, those features which can be truly named "multi-layered" protection, such as Comodo.
If you also look at the list, it's like running down with "Emsisoft Features List" and nothing more.. to note just one thing, that is a BB is not the only valid multi-layer approach to security.
13 mistakes to avoid when choosing antivirus software.
Only one, buying antivirus software in the first place (snake-oil).
emsisoft again. after using it for a while they spammed me with such boring news. its a selling trick, no more. they also gamble with users fear
really? oh my god. how many of those are impacting my pc every day? in fact: none! not while browsing average pages, loading some music or regular software.
it does not need a double triple quadruple multi-layer crap to protect me, it only needs ONE. and if double then NOT in one software where components are depending on each other. futile crap.
They will just offer it in the Win Pro+ vers.. So they will make money there from folks upgrading. Then any protection mechanisms with any "meat" to them will only be provided in ATP. So MS will make money from the monthly subscription fees. Of course, you will have to be a tech geek to properly configure WD + ATP + WDEG to get maximum security protection.
Bottom line - if anyone knows how to make money, its Microsoft. And we all know how they do it .................