But Melih does not want !
THE END !!!
To offer Bitdefender Free to their friends and clients.
It detects with his powerful heuristic.
in majority of the scenarios data is stole via infection, hence preventing infection protects data.
But in a proper architecture one cannot claim it provides data protection by simply providing protection against infection as data could be stolen in many other ways. So we are being technical and honest about capabilities.
You would be misguiding users if you were to say other AV’s protect the data, as DLP (Data Loss Prevention) is a whole another category and I don’t see how another antivirus will stop an insider from encrypting and sending data on an email!
+1
Nothing will every protect you 100%, if you believe something is protecting you 100% you are very wrong.
It all boils down to common sense in the end.
Dennis
No
No AV can protect every potential data loss pathway - and I certainly don’t expect that from CIS nor any other AV. It’s absolutely unrealistic to expect any home-grade security soft to protect everything.
Melih is talking about internal data theft - which no AV can prevent.
I, on the other hand, am referring to data loss during virtual sessions.
Data loss is data loss - difficult problem - for security soft vendor, for company, for home user.
Until security soft can tell you - “Hey, your sensitive\personal data is in process of being stolen” - it is difficult challenge.
I just would like to see Comodo protect the browser better - afterall - that is the typically the primary route onto & into a system…
and also the primary mechanism for phishing.
Despite Comodo’s philosophy being against real-time script scanning in CAV, strangely it does scan scripts in Internet Explorer only. However, when a malicious script is found, CAV just tries to put a copy of it in the quarantine, allowing it to run regardless. If Comodo’s philosophy is against script scanning in browsers, then why CIS have a not fully functional version of it?
perfect !
we are not.
we are against being dishonest to our users by adding all sorts of ■■■■ to our application and pretend that it brings more security. We give you what we truly believe is the best security in the market place.
This concept applies to the many vendors but not for Bitdefender.
Bitdefender web filter really detect many phishing zero-day.
Bitdefender has developed a technology capable.
Test yourself with Bitedefender Free.
Phishing is a problem of inability to identify if the site is real or not.
Currently the only effective method is by using a blacklist of sites.
So people are selling a list of Blacklist phishing sites and vendors are putting this blacklist and provide it as a solution.
This is a old method to detect phishings sites.
Bitedfender use web filter for detecting some caracteristics of the falses pages what I call heuristics.
So it Bitdefender can detect zero-day phishing sites.
Perhaps you can provide a white paper or some explanation of how this technology works?
It’s like I mentioned before, phishing pages must have elements that identify them in relation ace true. Analysts need to identify who are these elements. After the web filter should be able to locate these elements in the scripts.
Then why Comodo AV scan scripts in Internet Explorer, and allow them to run even if detected (by just trying to put a copy of it in quarantine)?
If Comodo’s philosophy is not entirely against script scanning, then we should report this behavior (plus the fact that CAV does not scan scripts in other browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Dragon, etc.) as a Bug.
Exactly !
Can we please have some links to this suppose function as you cannot supply a white paper or some explanation of how this technology work.
All I can find in quick search is.
Bitdefender blocked 97.4 percent of all URLs,
It maintains knowledge of websites that have a reputation for scamming and credit card phishing, and blocks your access to them.
Nothing about this suppose function.
Dennis
hey hey I’m talking about zero-day phishing sites and not blacklist.
Bitdefender detect zero-day phishing sites not yet included in the blacklist.
Do you understand ?
Since CIS have a Website filtering included in Firewall that works with blacklist, why can’t this Website filtering have at least the quoted above? It is not updated for weeks and does not detect anything, known or zero-day.
It cannot even block detected HTTPS sites properly and does not filter FTP Protocol. Is this Webfiltering module for what since it does not bring protection? Melih said that they won’t add all sort of things that don’t bring protection, yet they added this Webfiltering module that is not updated and cannot even function properly for parental controlling since it does not work properly on HTTPS and FTP.
Proof links please.
Unless you can supply the above I will have to presume it is a suppose function.
Dennis
If you want to discuss the Website filtering in CIS please start a new topic.
Thank you
Dennis
The OP is mentioning PHISHING SITES in the topic title… CIS Webfiltering module is supposed to detect phishing sites… Have you at least read it?
Also why you double posted, as it is against Forum Policy? :a0
I was trying to bring to Melih’s attention the fact that he said they won’t add things that don’t protect yet they added this Webfiltering module that is not updated and don’t function properly.
Since this Webfiltering module is intended to detect Phishing sites I believe it is relevant to mention it here, as it is the Phishing detection module of CIS. Also the subject of this topic is Phishing sites.
Also as you can see below another user mentioned it here.