Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Mops21, Sep 14, 2016.
Emsisoft....tell me it isn't true....what is happening?
Those tests are like the weather forecast, one day it is raining, another is sunny...nothing to fret about.
Also switching scale to 0-100% would show how minimal differences are. 96% or 99%? Not a big difference IMO.
More accurate graphical presentation of results:
guest- some seem always to need an umbrella...
yeah, change one setting and the umbrella may not be needed anymore
And honestly, what is 0.3% failure when a typical (careful) user will not encounter more than 10-20 malware in his all life... 10 x 0.3% = 0.03 malware?
It is why i always considered those tests as...ummmm..."powder to the eyes" (to be polite)
Some years back, I followed the tests posted here almost as a religion. Every few months I'd find myself switching to the 'latest and greatest' antivirus/trojan/malware/whatever. A few years ago, I'd had enough. I installed Comodo firewall and set it to proactive. Not many months ago I checked a couple of more boxes - the now famous Cruelsister settings. That's all I use. I still enjoy reading the tests, but only from curiosity.
*edit* Correction. I also have Win Defender running.
Chuck- About WD- so do I. It's too much of a bother to shut it off.
guest- My issue with "Pro" testing has always been this- the lack of diversity in the type of malware samples used (God Forbid they ever use a Scriptor) and the time since initial detection of those samples that are actually used. The fact that so many products get a 95%+ ratings is indicative of the Pro's use of samples D+2 and older (my cat coughs up a hairball every time see sees Pro testing results). The issue here is that any Blackhat that is serious will morph malware every 12 hours, thus making such tests on "legacy" malware totally pointless and invalid.
As someone borderline ignorant of most of what Win Defender covers now in Win 10, I leave it alone because once, years ago, I played with a firewall and locked myself out of my own computer.
In between listening to Marty Robbins, I watch various 'experts' on YouTube test malware, much of which I believe is of dubious vintage (and present company excepted). It's either that right now or nothing, since I'm once again banned from posting on Facebook for a few more days. I take most of it with a grain of salt.
I totally agree. AV-tests are marketing tools for vendors, nothing else. Not saying, by just changing the origin/localization of the samples, the unknown AV from who-know-where may beat the top dogs.
Haha, I think everyone of us at least once have locked out ourselves of our own computer while changing router/firewall/user accounts settings. I sometimes still destroy my internet connection when I forget that changing Wifi reception channel on my TP-Link renders it completely inaccessible, unless I reset to defaults. Regular users indeed better to stay with Windows Firewall, experimenting with 3th party Firewalls may sometimes cause more harm then good, but you don't learn if you don't fail.
Davisd- The suggestion to use Windows firewall is a dangerous one. The lack of Outbound protection at default, as well as the ability of many malware to change/shutdown WF even with complex rules in place makes it almost pointless to use. Whereas WF will be totally oblivious to thinks like malware-forked processes connecting out, just about any other 3rd party firewall will block these silently and totally. A good firewall should be viewed as a powerful malware effect blocker, and sadly this does not seem to be common consensus.
(ps- I see you are from Latvia- I'll be in Dome Square in Riga in July. The highlight of my year!).
guest- What also revolts me about the Pro testing sites is that with the emphasis is placed on raw detection of malware of indeterminate age this both demeans a quality product that detects and pushes out definitions for new malware quickly, while at the same time inflates a marginal product that may only be efficacious against D+3 samples.
Same goes with UAC, which can easily be bypassed.
which was never the original purpose of a FW; they were supposed to just block unwanted inbound connections. The rest were added by the industry to make cash.
Malware prevention isn't the goal of a FW but the one of the anti-malware, if the system is secure, it doesn't need a FW monitoring outbound connections since all outgoing processes are supposed to be safe.
Anyway, this discussion is not really related to the thread lol
But I do so love going off on a tangent (one of the reasons why I never spoke on my videos- if I did they would have gone on for hours...).
Emsisoft Enterprise Console 2018.4.1 Released (May 18, 2018)
The Redesigned Emsisoft Referral Program
is it true that emsisoft is not compatible with comodo firewall? i was planing to run them both alongside one another ... can someone please tell me ?
i renewed emsisoft as i find it really strong and simple
The changelog for Emsisoft Anti-Malware 2018.5.0.8668 beta contained the following change:
Fixed an issue related to Comodo Firewall
So, I would assume that you should be fine.
I found something strange a few days ago and can someone say what happened. WD is off but is still does pop up whenever it finds things .
Is there a way to totally disable Windows Defender
I am using emsisoft but I find wd find things
Do you have periodic scanning enabled in WD?
i checked but i did not find a way to disable it
Open Windows Security Center
Click on Virus Protection
At bottom click on Windows Defender Antivirus Options drop down arrow.
Turn Periodic Scanning to off.
Hope that helps
Separate names with a comma.