yes sure; honestly and without offense to them , Cylance marketing model remind me some old scamwares. "pay first because we are the best , then let see if you are not satisfied"
Yep, I'd have a hard time arguing. I dont thing it's scamming though, I just suspect they don't want the home market and this is there way of handling it. That's fine, but it's a waste of time here
Personally if I was a CIO of a major corp., I would be seriously looking at enterprise solutions that employ advanced learning behavior analysis such as ENC's ECAT solution: https://www.emc.com/collateral/software/data-sheet/ds-ecat-final.pdf . These solutions are a logical progression from existing HIPS and behavior blocking technology. In a nutshell, they record actually process behavior such as .dlls loaded, memory use and mapping parameters, API calls executed, network connections, disk usage, etc., etc.. This is stored as a profile and used as a baseline along with default and user based deviation from norm parameters to determine if a process malware breach is in process. MIT just completed a study in the use of AI in network malware detection with the result being it is 85% effective: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mit-csail-ai-cybersecurity-solution,31620.html. The conclusion reached by the article author: Prevention, Not Detection, As The Real Solution Ultimately, these sorts of systems are all about the detection and not the prevention of breaches. To make a real-world analogy, it would be like your alarm starting after the thief has already gone through all of your rooms and picked your stuff to steal. The ideal solution would be to prevent the thief from even getting into your house in the first place. All detection-based solutions, including the ones powered by advanced AI, will always know a hacker got in after the fact (if that), and the detection may only happen after the damage has already been done. Prevention-based solutions that use the principles of least privilege, virtualization, and other solutions based on not allowing the attackers complete control once they get in would likely fare better in the real world at stopping massive data breaches from happening. Appears many Wilder's folks agree with the author's conclusions.
True, but you are comparing Ai network malware detection (eg. PatternEx) against endpoint Ai detection (eg. Cylance, VoodooAi), and they are completely different animals, and use COMPLETELY different features and algorithms for their machine learning models. I have not seen Cylance's algorithm curves, but from what I have seen, it is 99%+ effective, so it is very, very good. As far as PatternEx is concerned... I am not that familiar with their technology (Ai network malware detection), but it is completely different from endpoint Ai detection, but here is their curve: https://www.patternex.com/pattern-detection-ratio And here is one of VoodooAi's curves: http://www.voodooshield.com/artwork/stats.png BTW, I do agree, Emsisoft is amazing software as well! There are a lot of really great solutions out there... I just wish we could combine them all into one super product .
Dan don't put down your own product! VS does the same 99%, 100% default deny and block. And Cylance is more into Enterprise and $60 to try I don't think so and I even tried to get some free licenses as and old Webroot Employee is now working for Cylance and he said they don't do that.
Oh, I am not at all... I think they are both great, and they both have strengths and weaknesses, and actually they make a phenomenal combo. See, since Cylance is basically a real time scanner, it has to be a little more careful with false positives then VoodooAi does, and as a result, it is probably not as good in general with greyware as VoodooAi is... but as far as a full system scan, it is amazing. Also, keep in mind, it has to automatically reach a final verdict either way on whether to allow something or not, since it is doing a full system scan. VoodooAi is different, and we can use a little more aggressive algorithms since VS is going to block the file either way (well, unless VS is on AutoPilot), and then show the user the VoodooAi graph to let them know how malicious VoodooAi believes that file is, along with making a recommendation to the user based on the scored probability. This way, if the user sees a result that is say .7500, and it was not something that they really wanted to run anyway, they can just block the file... so VoodooAi is extremely helpful when it comes to greyware. For example, if and when VoodooAi has a full disk scan, we will have to back off the sensitivity quite a bit (only for the full disk scan), otherwise there will be a lot of false positives, and as a result, the full disk scan will miss some greyware. So while the underlying technology between the two is somewhat similar, the implementation is completely different... but this is why they make such a great combo! I just cannot wait until I am finished retraining the machines in a few days... our graphs prove that our math / models are correct. We just need really great training data sets and then we will be good to go . Thank you TH!
I am sooo confused as to why this thread is even here. If it is for feedback and the only offer you have is trust me, test it out and give feedback only upon purchase, Not many here will do it The only thing going for this thread is the developer of Voodoshield. Otherwise none would be posting at all. Does this corp version work on a home computer at all?
Yeah, maybe we should start a thread where we discuss Ai malware classification in general... does that sound good? I think there are a lot of users who are interested in discussing Ai and learning more, and I think it would be an interesting conversation... but I agree, it does not belong on this thread .
Ya I agree and am still confused as to why use both when Voodoshield would catch anything Cylance missed? What would be the point in having both? I did read your comments mentioning both would be best. AI and the internet of things is the future for sure. A company just released today a rist band app for banking. You set the amount you do not want to go under and if you get close, it gives an audiable warning, if you go below it gives you a shock. Maybe antimaleware needs to use such actions LOL You get a virus you are connected to internet of all things and get zapped.
So I spent the 60 bucks and when I installed it I got this message and it is not going well. What The heck does this mean? never got any token in email. This was the 60 dollar home version.
I prefer Ai malware detection because it all happens pre-execution, and I believe it is the future of malware detection. Neither Cylance or VoodooAi will detect 100% perfectly, but when you combine the two, the detection is approaching 100%... add VS's computer lock and you are even more safe. Cylance is optimized for full system scans and VoodooAi is optimized to work the an anti-executable, and for greyware. If you have any specific questions, please pm me. I like your banking example, that is quite funny... that is pretty much how a lot of VS works, except it does not shock you... although, now that you mention that... Also, MM should send you the token, if not, just email them and they should help you. Thank you!
i rather use anti-exe like ERP or Appguard or ReHIPS than any detection-based model softs. However i can understand that average Joe may not be able to handle those tools easily.
I agree with all or most of the above regarding no trial or demo, but last Sunday at 200am for reasons I no longer recall, I paid the $60!! and installed on XP in hope of having another layer to compliment Voodoo 2.86 as VS_v3betas are not for XP. Cylance created an unacceptable level of disharmony aboard this ship, and after 36 hours I uninstalled it (no easy feat to get to the uninstaller before BSOD, I kid you not). Not saying anything bad about Cylance, it was just not compatible on my XP with 2016 kis, VS 2.86, appguard, mbae. But will say Cylance was very strong and timely with support. Email replies within a few minutes on Sunday 200am! Next day, Cylance headguy wrote me that they had never seen problems like they'd seen with my XP and immediately offered me my $60 back, no questions asked, and at that point I had not even asked for the $ back. So Cylance seems to have good intent, even if their marketing policy is questionable. And to be fair to skeptical side of this too, I still haven't taken them up on their refund offer, thinking I have some other machines I'd like to test it on. Your experience may be different.
Looking at that combo, I'm still amazed you didn't get countless BSODs even before you decided to throw Cylance on top of it.
For those people confused as to why you would need additional security protection in addition to Cylance home, read what I posted in reply #27. For Cylance to provide optimal protection, policies need to be configured. That can only be done by using its console feature that is only available in the enterprise versions of the software. None of this is new for anyone familiar with enterprise endpoint solutions. The security administrator configures the software, tests it, and then rolls it out to all the client PCs. I assume that the home version is configure with a default policy. Problem is I don't believe there is any way to display what that policy is? Also I am not surprised by what was posted in reply #68. Kaspersky uses an aggressive HIPS and AppGuard likewise can be aggressive depending on how it is configured. BTW - I also wonder why the OP is using both of those together.
Here's the link to the combined MRG/A-V Comparatives test of Cylance and Symantec Endpoint last February: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/avc_mrg_prot_2016_02_24_cyl_sym_en.pdf . Do place close attention to Cylance's score for exploits. -EDIT- There is language in the .pdf report that I have never seen from either A-VC or MRG, namely: Both, AV-Comparatives and MRG Effitas tried to get a license for CylanceProtect. Unfortunately, this was nearly impossible. It was tried via two IT system houses (one in Italy, one in Austria). Both did not get any license, even if they asked for a regular sales. Fortunately, a third party granted access to the license of Cylance. This behaviour is seen by many of the newer products that claim to be next generation. It looks like they try to avoid getting tested in order to continue to attract users simple by unproven marketing claims. This might explain why the latest ver. of Cylance wasn't tested?
I agree, Ai helps the average Joe tremendously to make an informed decision on whether to allow an item or not... not just for malware, but also for greyware / pups.
Which is exactly why I was hoping that Wilders users would help MM develop their product for home and smb.
They probably would if Cylance followed VoodooShield's lead. Cylance creates a free beta home ver. available to registered testers only. Once the beta goes production mode, testers get a free one year subscription. How does that sound folks?
I got a quick reply from support and they think one of my other security programs stopped the program from connecting to their server during install. I didn't get any warning from anything so I am not sure at this point.
