More sources not better for malware blocking

[Bill Woodcock]

Interesting that the TechRadar roundup says they're "not convinced that more sources is better" for malware blocking, when there are a ton of independent lab tests that give actual quantitative results... There's no need for them to guess, particularly when they guess wrong.

https://www.skadligkod.se/general-security/phishing/malicious-site-filters-on-dns-in-2020/

https://www.andryou.com/2020/05/31/comparing-malware-blocking-dns-resolvers-redux/

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Admittedly, it's a lot easier to be 97% effective when you aren't conflicted by also being in the business of hosting malware for money.

 

[shabbs]

Admittedly, it's a lot easier to be 97% effective when you aren't conflicted by also being in the business of hosting malware for money.

Heh. Fair point.

Which is why I run Pi-hole locally. It's awesome.

 

[Nodiaque]

Heh. Fair point.

Which is why I run Pi-hole locally. It's awesome.

Interesting that the TechRadar roundup says they're "not convinced that more sources is better" for malware blocking, when there are a ton of independent lab tests that give actual quantitative results... There's no need for them to guess, particularly when they guess wrong.

https://www.skadligkod.se/general-security/phishing/malicious-site-filters-on-dns-in-2020/

https://www.andryou.com/2020/05/31/comparing-malware-blocking-dns-resolvers-redux/

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Admittedly, it's a lot easier to be 97% effective when you aren't conflicted by also being in the business of hosting malware for money.

wrong thread?

 

[shabbs]

wrong thread?

Was a tangent off the link I posted earlier in this thread...