4 ms·

1st - that "heuristic" used by BitDefender or other AV solutions are simply scanning the .exe for those APi calls. This is easy to overcome by simply encrypting

1st - that "heuristic" used by BitDefender or other AV solutions are simply scanning the .exe for those APi calls. This is easy to overcome by simply encrypting with even a simple XOR and dynamically loading said API's for keylogging (I suspect you are referring to SetWindowsHookEx - the most used API loggers, malware or not). 2nd - BitDefender is a Romanian AV, but people forget that Windows Defender is Romanian too, at its heart, the formerly RAV (Reliable AntiVirus) that Microsoft acquired it in the ancient times of early 00's. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeCAD_Software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeCAD_Software and https://www.networkworld.com/article/2334189/microsoft-to-buy-romanian-antivirus-company.html https://www.networkworld.com/article/2334189/microsoft-to-bu... 3rd - BitDefender is the most hog resource AV. Also the most annoying. And it behaves like is the only application you are need it, constantly begging attention. I worked at a company who had it as license, I hated every day there only because of it. Windows Defender on the other hand is so quiet that I always forget is running. My 2 cents.

aetherspawn 5y ago
According to this site [1], Bitdefender is amongst the most efficient antivirus packages for passive slow-down, and I can confirm that this has been my experience running an engineering firm that uses their enterprise security product, Bitdefender GravityZone. If you solve for efficiency (effectiveness over performance), Bitdefender has one of the highest detection rates (over 99.9%) and lowest false positive rates in the industry, making the effectiveness-performance ratio very impressive. Many other A/V packages are bigger hogs and yet detect less malware, with more false-positives. I'll admit their interface isn't great, but they did a refresh recently in their Enterprise product and now it's much more subdued (finally). They also changed their branding from bright Red to White, so it doesn't pop in the taskbar as much as it used to. It's worth noting that Windows Defender is amongst one of the only AVs that scores as effective as Bitdefender, but from my research it seems like Bitdefender's predictive engine is significantly better in benchmarks at fighting new/novel malware. Is it worth the approx. $100/yr? Not sure. I have considered canceling our subscription to Bitdefender and using Windows Defender, as the premium offering is already included in our Office365 licensing.. but I think that obscurity (using a non-standard security product) could be a defense in itself. [1]: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/av-software-least-system-impact,review-6276.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/av-software-least-system-impact...
- icare_1er 5y ago
  No later than a few days ago, as I was refining my exploit, this is the detection rate I could get too: https://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/15/63/53/97/pasted10.png https://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/15/63/53/97/pasted10.png I often end up not being able to bypass ESET32, although bypassing Bitdefender and others, is much easier.
  - aetherspawn 5y ago
    What is your experience with SOPHOS or other hardware firewall products? Are they effective at blocking novel malware?

aetherspawn 5y ago

According to this site [1], Bitdefender is amongst the most efficient antivirus packages for passive slow-down, and I can confirm that this has been my experience running an engineering firm that uses their enterprise security product, Bitdefender GravityZone. If you solve for efficiency (effectiveness over performance), Bitdefender has one of the highest detection rates (over 99.9%) and lowest false positive rates in the industry, making the effectiveness-performance ratio very impressive. Many other A/V packages are bigger hogs and yet detect less malware, with more false-positives. I'll admit their interface isn't great, but they did a refresh recently in their Enterprise product and now it's much more subdued (finally). They also changed their branding from bright Red to White, so it doesn't pop in the taskbar as much as it used to. It's worth noting that Windows Defender is amongst one of the only AVs that scores as effective as Bitdefender, but from my research it seems like Bitdefender's predictive engine is significantly better in benchmarks at fighting new/novel malware. Is it worth the approx. $100/yr? Not sure. I have considered canceling our subscription to Bitdefender and using Windows Defender, as the premium offering is already included in our Office365 licensing.. but I think that obscurity (using a non-standard security product) could be a defense in itself. [1]: https://www.tomsguide.com/us/av-software-least-system-impact,review-6276.html https://www.tomsguide.com/us/av-software-least-system-impact...

icare_1er 5y ago
No later than a few days ago, as I was refining my exploit, this is the detection rate I could get too: https://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/15/63/53/97/pasted10.png https://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/15/63/53/97/pasted10.png I often end up not being able to bypass ESET32, although bypassing Bitdefender and others, is much easier.
- aetherspawn 5y ago
  What is your experience with SOPHOS or other hardware firewall products? Are they effective at blocking novel malware?