dallas7

Bit Defender in v7 Surf Protection?

Recommended Posts

Well, it looks like my inquiry got burried amongst all that fascinating heavy/light and FP discussion in the EAM v7 Beta new engine topic, so I'll re-post it here.

Post #21: "Speaking of Bit Defender, will you be incorporating into Surf Protection their blacklists as currently used, for one, in their TrafficLight browser extension? Or will you continue with the DNS-BH Malware Domain Blocklist? I pray you never return to hpHosts. "

It looks like bokkie123 in post #24 also expresses interest in the integration of BD's Web protection as well.

And NSG001 agrees with me on hpHosts, post #23, so I think he might be interested, too.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The malware host list we gather from various sources by ourselves.

It is my understanding according to emails with Support your primary source is the DNS-BH Malware Domain Blocklist and all of them are categorized as "Malware hosts" under the Host Rules tab thus making that the only setting of relevance under the Surf Protection tab. Not that this is a deal breaker; I have for years used DNS-BH in Adblock Plus but I wonder how much of that is devoted to anti-phishing. I run the TrafficLight extension in my browser so I can take advantage of BD's superb feature sets in that arena. It sure would be nice to see it plugged into EAM's Surf Protection.

Would it be redundant to use Malwarebyte's malicious website blocking with EAM7 or do they not overlap?

As of July, 2011 Malwarebytes acquired hpHosts which was once used in Emsisoft's Surf Protection. So, in this case, overlap is good as two databases are in use and if both contain WeRphishersOfU.ru, who cares? I have been using EAM and MBAM Pro for the better part of a year and neither one knows of each other's existance - each app is so well behaved it's a joy to behold.

However, if you use Adblock Plus in your browser and subscribe to its Malware Domains filter there will most surely be some resources wasted.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be redundant to use Malwarebyte's malicious website blocking with EAM7 or do they not overlap?

No, it would not be redundant. The Surf Protection in Emsisoft Anti-Malware is based on domain names, while the IP blocking in Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is based on IP addresses of servers known to harbor malicious content (so they block entire servers while we only block websites that are known to be malicious). Both technologies work in different ways to protect you, and both technologies are compatible. I use Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware (with real-time protection and IP blocking enabled) alongside Emsisoft Anti-Malware 7 and there are no issues that I have ever encountered.

As of July, 2011 Malwarebytes acquired hpHosts which was once used in Emsisoft's Surf Protection. ...

Just an FYI: Steven Burn of hpHosts has worked for Malwarebytes for several years, and he is the one who maintains their IP Block List. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, if you use Adblock Plus in your browser and subscribe to its Malware Domains filter there will most surely be some resources wasted.

I need to digress on that.

Comparing Malware Domains filters in Adblock Plus and Surf Protection's Hostname lists, they appear to be quite different.

I'll be running them both.

BTW, ABP protects only the browser it's running in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

BTW, ABP protects only the browser it's running in.

Quite true. While browser-based blocking does tend to slow down your browser a little bit, it can also be quite effective, and I am not aware of any issues where it would be a needless redundancy.

Of course, please don't forget that you have the option to import rules into EAM in the form of a HOSTS file (which, for those who want the protection of hpHosts or MVPS HOSTS without the disadvantages of installing a large HOSTS file in Windows, then you can simply import it into EAM and use it to supplement our own rules). You should also be able to use this to block advertising sites rather than using a browser-based ad blocker, however I have never testing this to see if there would be any less impact on browsing performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot has happend since last post in this thread and now both "Malware Hosts" and "Phishing Hosts" seems to populate very well in EAM 7´s Surf Protection.

But no sign of anything in "Privacy risks" ??

Is this reserved for the future or work in progress ??

EDIT 17/10-2012 : i see "Privacy risks" are now also populating very well as of today on each update.

Everything working as expected. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.