Try this exploit test by Exploit Prevention Labs, now part of AVG

Check if SafeSurf is able to stop it. :wink:


N.B. Dots added to prevent this page being further indexed as containing a link to a live exploit.

First, I ran it inside Sandboxie, using Opera and it didn’t succeed (I mean, LinkScanner Pro blocked it, but showed no alerts). Then I ran outside Sandboxie and LinkScanner Pro blocked it, of course. :wink:

I would like to know if SafeSurf is able to stop the exploit test.

Nope it doesn’t,

But the test is just a signature to see if LinkScanner is working.

If it had been a BO attack I am fairly confident that SafeSurf
would have done the job.

Curious though… wonder if you were running both LS & SS and
it had been a BO attack which would go off first.
Or based on the approach would link scanner go off at all?

The pic is from the test page I’m not, nor do I feel a need to run LS.

edit: to clarify my position.

Does linkscanner block also the actual fake exploit? :wink:

Is the exploit eXploitTest_Demonstrator01_byXPL ? ;D

Linkscanner Pro blocked it and Safesurf AI handled it correctly, of course. :smiley:

I’m aware of that Bad Froger, but still is an exploit test. And being so, it will simulate an exploit. I guess that any other anti-exploit (or that also contains this sort of protection) would also be able to block it?

I understand what you are saying, but then again, couldn’t we say the same about Comodo’s BO Tester, which SafeSurf and CMF will block perfectly? (No need to answer, at all. It is just a rethorical question.)

But, I do trust LinkScanner Pro. This was the tool that actual protected my system when I go redirected sometime ago from a site rate green by myWOT, Finjan and LinkScanner it self, and indeed there was nothing wrong with the link I clicked, the problem was in the redirection that happened after clicking it. LinkScanner Pro prevented it. I got clean from powerantivirus ■■■■. :slight_smile:

This tool has proven itself to be needed. :slight_smile:

I was just wondering if SafeSurf or even CMF were able to prevent it, as well.

The correct way to pass this “exploit” is to silently ignore it.

As long nobody disagree that an harmless word like eXploitTest_Demonstrator01_byXPL couldn’t be considered a PoC to test any security product other than Linkscanner.

I guess explabs should mention that on the test page to avoid any misunderstanding and prevent unaware users from flooding security forums.

PS: please as long the test is fake IMHO stretching this topic purpose to advertise linkscanner would be too much

Note that informed discussion about Comodo and competitor offerings or any related hardware, software or services is welcome and encouraged in these forums - whereas fraudulent, misleading or malicious postings related to the above are not.

I’m shocked to to confirm that you still asked a rhetorical question about CMF and Safesurf considering I clarified the real nature of that test. As much I know you like to ask such rhetorical questions IMHO in this case it is easy for everyone to confirm your intentions.

Same reason I mentioned Comodo BO Tester. If I well remember (I might be wrong), I never saw a mention saying it was meant just to test SafeSurf or CMF.

Are Comodo’s BO Tester real? Or do they mean to show that CMF/SafeSurf are working? (I never understood the purpose of such testing.)

1st - No one is advertising anything.

2nd - This is the " Anti Virus/Malware Products/Other Security products" board, which I did not place the thread here. My intent was not to advertise LinkScanner Lite/Pro in no way. But, I guess that if this is a “Anti Virus/Malware Products/Other Security products” we all end up advertising, no?

Why didn’t I get such a reaction in your first post? Was it because I questioned about Comodo’s BO Tester now? (Again, no need to answer.)

3rd - Is it a crime wanting to know if SafeSurf/CMF could block such attempts? (I do not have SafeSurf installed, as for that I need to, also, install the ■■■■■■ toolbar, which I know I can uninstall it and still get SafeSurf, but I don’t have to do that just to get SafeSurf; CMF, in my system, somehow, conflicts with cmd.exe, because of D+ being in Safe Mode.)

Why is it that everytime someone asks if Comodo’s products can block this or that, some people get touchy?

Comodo BO tests are BO exploit PoCs. I wonder why you still mention Comodo BO test as you should know by now that the fake exploits from explabs involved a detection of an harmless text string. If this explabs test could be considered a PoC then it would be only a Proof of Concept of how Linkscanner Pro is supposed to work.

This is very different from Comodo BO test which is not designed to be detected by signature like the supposedly “exploit” test you linked.

That explabs test can only be detected by a signature and since the detected string is utterly harmless nor it represent what is usually supposed to be an exploit PoC AFAIK only the makers of that test detects it.

If anybody still wonders Comodo BO tests are not meant just to test SafeSurf or CMF like the OP claimed.

The advice of testing Free Antivirus Download for PC | AVG Virus Protection Software with whatsoever product is misinformed and misleading and contextual with a series of comments about how Linkscanner supposedly efficiently block them in comparison to other products any reader could be mislead to test.

Obviosly this topic was about linkscanner as no other product could be tested with that fake exploit. Thus this topic pertained Anti Virus/Malware Products/Other Security products. Anyway only informed discussion are allowed.

My first post was meant to let you notice the nature of that test, and let you confirm that it was not applicable for testing ANY product.

I hope members will remember this topic when they read your other contibutions and comments about Comodo products.

It’s up to them to believe you.

Although other posts about linkscanner, you posted in other topics, were policy compliant this topic developed in a questionable way.