Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Edge Beats Chrome and Firefox in Malware-Blocking Tests (computerworld.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Computerworld:Microsoft's Edge easily beat rival browsers from Google and Mozilla in third-party tests of the behind-the-scenes services which power anti-malware warnings and malicious website-blocking... NSS Labs says Windows 10's default browser is better at blocking phishing and socially-engineered malware attacks than Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox... According to NSS Labs of Austin, Texas, Edge automatically blocked 92% of all in-browser credential phishing attempts and stymied 100% of all socially-engineered malware (SEM) attacks. The latter encompassed a wide range of attacks, but their common characteristic was that they tried to trick users into downloading malicious code. The tactics that SEM attackers deploy include links from social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, and bogus in-browser notifications of computer infections or other problems.
Edge bested Chrome and Firefox by decisive margins. For instance, Chrome blocked 74% of all phishing attacks, and 88% of SEM attacks. Meanwhile, Firefox came in third in both tests, stopping just 61% of the phishing attacks and 70% of all SEM attempts... Both Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox rely on the Safe Browsing API (application programing interface), but historically, Mozilla's implementation has performed poorly compared to Google's. No shock: Google created the API. Edge also took top prize in blocking attacks from the get-go. In NSS's SEM attack testing, for example, the Microsoft browser stopped nearly every attempt from the first moments a new attack was detected. Chrome and Firefox, on the other hand, halted 75% and 54% of the brand-new attacks, respectively. Over a week's time, Chrome and Firefox improved their blocking scores, although neither reached Edge's impressive 99.8%.
The researchers spent three weeks continuously monitoring the browsers on Windows 10 computers. But in the real world, Edge runs on just 5% of all personal computers, while Firefox runs on 13% and Chrome on 60%.
Edge bested Chrome and Firefox by decisive margins. For instance, Chrome blocked 74% of all phishing attacks, and 88% of SEM attacks. Meanwhile, Firefox came in third in both tests, stopping just 61% of the phishing attacks and 70% of all SEM attempts... Both Chrome and Mozilla's Firefox rely on the Safe Browsing API (application programing interface), but historically, Mozilla's implementation has performed poorly compared to Google's. No shock: Google created the API. Edge also took top prize in blocking attacks from the get-go. In NSS's SEM attack testing, for example, the Microsoft browser stopped nearly every attempt from the first moments a new attack was detected. Chrome and Firefox, on the other hand, halted 75% and 54% of the brand-new attacks, respectively. Over a week's time, Chrome and Firefox improved their blocking scores, although neither reached Edge's impressive 99.8%.
The researchers spent three weeks continuously monitoring the browsers on Windows 10 computers. But in the real world, Edge runs on just 5% of all personal computers, while Firefox runs on 13% and Chrome on 60%.
Hopefully Edge crashes less in the spring creators update due Wednesday.
problem solved.
...does it block Windows ?
All browsers are malware these days, Firefox 57 is extension breaking malware, Chrome is ram stealing malware and Safari is Mac malware.
so much butthurt from Chrome & Firefox fanboys
enjoy your botnet browser, boys
Firefox has addons for ad blocking, 3rd-party request blocking, script blocking, and other security and privacy enhancements; use those, and this ranking will reverse itself.
Because they achieve their goal by sending all the URL's you visit to someone else's servers. That, of course, is bad because you have no control what else they will do with that information.
Summary malware writers don't support Edge.
Might be malicious but still needs to leverage existing functionality which Edge has.... 0 I mean it was designed not to support anything no plugins addons etc, which is why it is not used. Suggest researchers try using Chrome etc with an addblocker and a script blocker.
Would be interested to see how IE faired as this seems like a fairer test.
A brick doorstop was 100% effective at blocking phishing and socially-engineered malware attacks. It also performed nearly 98% as effectively as Edge at rendering websites properly.
We shall leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether Microsoft's telemetry should be considered "malware".
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Does anyone else suspect... that this is because Chrome and Firefox both allow downloading of Firefox?
Right now, Firefox appears to have a big, ripe target on it.
It doesn't help that there are a lot of WebGL based games that insist on Firefox, despite being supported on other browsers which disallow plugins.
and a hosts file cannot differentiate between a malicious and a benign javascript file coming from the same host.
host blocking is a tool in the toolkit, not a catch-all.
Edge doesn't actually DO anything but turn off a lot of things we are used to having in IE. They basically don't support all those dangerous activities, so of course it's safer.. They just turned off all the dangerous legacy behaviors and don't support them at all, so you'd just as well use wget and a text based web browser....
Somehow I get the impression that we are just extolling the virtues of M$ here... Not really considering what they actually did which was to toss the legacy stuff out the window then start a marketing campaign about how much safer and faster THEIR browser is over the rest just don't expect it to work on your favorite websites...
I'm still not going to use it!
It fells to me this is just telling you that the malware writers aren't targeting bypassing edge, and are concentrating on chrome. If edge had a larger user base, and was worth attacking, then the ways around the blocking of malware would be found, and we'd see a change in these stats.
https://www.gnu.org/proprietar...
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I've tried, but I can't get it to run in Fedora.
Okay, I lied. I didn't try.
Life is too short and too important to { take seriously | use windows }.
Edge uses spyware (phones home) to monitor your browsing habits to pair with a list of unsafe for Windows or bad for business websites, so of course it's going to find more. Most Linux websites and non-Microsoft hardware are probably on their list. At least Firefox and Chrome users GET TO VOTE on what websites are actually malicious or not. I wonder how much it costs to get a competitor listed? Simple example: Ever wonder why you keep getting malware warnings for video sites and it's getting worse? Hollywood.
See subject: I turn off scripting in my browser in classic Opera (& if sites need script I do a bysite preference allowing that site to use script + globally block it for all others) & before NoScript can parse tags for ads, hosts blocked them already @ a faster level (kernelmode IP stack vs. slower usermode, which addons IF 'stacked', especially in FF this shows, SLOW browsers down & tear up resources like mad vs. hosts).
* Lastly/Additionally - I never said "hosts do all" (nothing does) but that no SINGLE addon by itself does more than hosts...
APK
P.S.=> I simply built the best tool for populating hosts for speed, security, reliabilty & anonymity online DOING MORE FOR FAR LESS in resources used by natively using what you HAVE already vs. illogically "Bolting on 'MoAr'" in addons which are highly detectable, blockable & exploitable (per my post you replied to's "evidence thereof")... apk
These results are meaningless without testing for false positives.
See subject: Browsers do even better (& go faster) APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.
Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).
Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!
Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!
* Via what u NATIVELY have in a FASTER kernelmode IP stack!
APK
P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/
Hosts protect where addons can't (or as well):
Bad sites (past ads)
Botnet C&Cs
DNS down or poisoned
Trackers (dns logs/ads/transparent ISP proxy)
Dns blocks
Spam/phish payload
Slowdown 2 ways: adblocks & hardcodes
Hosts = Ez edit.
AB+ 151mb https://www.google.com/search?q=Adblock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/
UBlock 64MB https://www.google.com/search?q=UBlock+memory+consumption&btnG=Search&hl=en&gbv=1/
Hosts~16mb
Addons = ClarityRay defeatable & crippled http://www.businessinsider.com/google-microsoft-amazon-taboola-pay-adblock-plus-to-stop-blocking-their-ads-2015-2/
NoScript tag parses. Hosts block script prior to it!
No 1 addon does as much.
Stacked addons slowup.
ADDONS = EXPLOITABLE https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11166303&cid=55266729/
APK
P.S.=> APK Hosts File Engine https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/
Yet another rubbish and unreliable study on Slashdot. I checked the article, but I couldn't find what they actually measured this result, how they tested it and I could not find a replication documentation. Without this is just a marketing claim. I also would like to know who paid for that study and why. If it was part of a research project what is their goal.
go figure...
If the answer is "no", I'm not interested.
Its market share may be very low now, but isnâ(TM)t it worth it to evaluate a security profile based strongly on privacy? Wouldnâ(TM)t many hacks be mitigated by virtue of the same code that blocks tracking, ads, and fingerprinting?
Worth a shot at least.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
we must be careful from any malware.
Les privat Surabaya
MS deserves credit for this accomplishment. Even though their browser keeps coming in last on exploitability, malware and phishing protection is really important to users.
However, the result only states recall. What about precision? False positives can completely undermine a feature like this, as we've seen with cert warning click-throughs. Worse, false positives poison the well for all browsers by training users, while bad recall can be fixed. It would be a shame if, in a race to beat tests like this, all the browser companies put recall ahead of precision.
Are false positives for phishing and malware a problem, or is my browser, Chrome, just really good about not having them?
Hah. I have to work with NSS (not for browsers, but for another security area). They're incompetent. Their results are all about how much money you've paid them (and how long you've been on top; they like to rotate to make it look like they're doing something).
For an example, one time they were attempting to test our stuff, but for some reason no traffic was getting through anything. Our guy had to point out that all the lights on the switch were flashing like crazy. Yeah, turns out they had turned off spanning tree and looped their network, but couldn't figure out how to troubleshoot a broadcast storm. This is Networking 101 level stuff. You think they do any better on the higher level stuff?
No idea why these morons get any respect, except that security is hard and most customers just want a rubber-stamp to cover their ass.
Assuming the summary and study are accurate, a big assumption, they only tested the false negative rate, not the false positive rate. How many non-malware sites were blocked? That might indicate how much better Edge is than a red brick.
You know also a good way of blocking most of those? Using ad blockers and other privacy oriented plugins, most of which Edge does not support.
And then, people should know that these tests are always giving different results because the stats change all the time... here:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Here:
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Just keep using whatever you like and feel more comfortable with, all browsers have their own vulnerabilities and risks.
computerworld is pro windows, a tangent from the IBM PC is god "cover a variety of enterprise IT topics (with a concentration on Windows, Mobile and Apple/Enterprise)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Were taking their word Edge is best as one can't prove them wrong anymore. Best most have is EICAR to test malware ability of any program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... vx.netlux.org and their database of malware was forced down very early and my source of test files.
I take any test from computerworld as one sided, I've known the publication since my Amiga days.
I see Firefox didn't do so well in this test. However, I'm back nowadays on Firefox (from Safari) on both my Mac and the media PC that's running Windows 10. Linux only runs on my servers, which don't usuall run a GUI.
Seriously, you may want to give it another shot. The current beta has the new user interface, which is very sleek. Also, the're revamping the plugin architecture. Although it sucks for existing plugins, I have no doubt a more simple plugin arch is greatly going to benefit stability.
Plus they've got this multi-process thing fully operational now, and although it's a behind-the-scenes thing, my experience so far is pretty good.
Give it a shot, I'd say.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
... Edge is the least-used browser and attackers aren't going to expend much energy going after it.
The others are high-profile and coders hammer away at them.
Not mentioned in the article (and fairly so because of relevancy) is that Edge sucks so hard that Nature abhors it.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
All of the computers in my organization are either running Windows 7 or MacOS. I would prefer the people on Windows use Edge that try to use Windows Explorer like idiots and then complain when nothing works, but no one is going to upgrade all those computers to Windows 10 when they already have Chrome installed.
Browser with no market-share beats out one of the world's most targetted browser?
How could this be???
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
> Microsoft Edge Beats Chrome and Firefox in Malware-Blocking Tests
Spyware browser 1 beats Spyware browser 2 and Spyware browser 3 in Malware Blocking Tests
WARNING: Link redirects to goatse.
In many respects that is the same advantage linux and osx have over windows. Or pick your favorite hobby os and kernel... virtually no malware affects it.
It may not tell you much about the quality of that software, but the advantage is still real.
In other words, doing your banking from a machine running Haiku (based on BeOS) might not be a bad idea...
See subject: ... THAT is the worst most LAME bs you've ever, Ever, EVER tried - no joke!" In my estimation (there is no other)? YOUR PERFORMANCE (always amusing for me, you make ME look GOOD after all) is DOWN lately..."
* THIS is your theme song along w/ China today https://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11236517&cid=55373679/ lol, just for you (it IS you).
"YOU CAN'T GET NO - S A T I S F A C T I O N..."
APK
P.S.=> Especially vs. "yours truly", me - but I'll tell you what - I get a TON from making utter chumps of you, as after all - YOU MAKE ME LOOK GOOD (yourself? Well...lmao)... apk
ie9 is the best:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/16/200209/ie-9-beats-other-browsers-at-blocking-malicious-content
ie is the best:
https://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/15/1927213/nss-labs-browser-report-says-ie-is-the-best-google-disagrees
NSS Labs please...
Here are links to some previous study results;
2013: NSS Labs Test Results Reveal Which Browsers are Most Effective Against Socially Engineered Malware
https://www.nsslabs.com/company/news/press-releases/nss-labs-test-results-reveal-which-browsers-are-most-effective-against-socially-engineered-malware/
2016: NSS Labs Tests Leading Web Browsers for Secure End User Experience
https://www.nsslabs.com/company/news/press-releases/nss-labs-tests-leading-web-browsers-for-secure-end-user-experience/
and 2010: Study: IE Scores Highest Against Social Malware
https://rcpmag.com/articles/2010/12/15/ie-scores-highest-against-social-malware.aspx
Last article particularly mentions:
Austin, Texas-based NSS Labs is funded by Microsoft but the study does not disclose that information with great clarity. Instead, this statement appears on page 12 of the study: "This private test was contracted by Microsoft's SmartScreen product team as an internal benchmark, leveraging our Live Testing framework."
Microsoft funded shill site
Shut up, you idiot. Edge is a piece of shit and so are those shills at NSS for taking money from M$
The sooner they die the better off we'll be.
GNU/Linux is constantly being upgraded. Constantly changing and evolving.
Various different distributions have different release cycles to a achieve a balance suitable for their audience.
Ubuntu, one of the more popular distributions has a release cycle of every 6 months. (April and October of every year).
Debian, the parent distribution to Ubuntu, has a less rigid cycle, but is generally about every two years, with one additional year of support for the previous release resulting in 3 years per release.
The differences in each of these releases are not typically as significant as those between different versions of Windows. In addition, I don't believe a six-month update has resulted in breaking a system in a number of years.
Though, I did just uninstall Ubuntu WUBI from my desktop. The upgrade from 2012 LTS to 2014 LTS killed the OS, resulting in a kernel panic. Didn't think it worth fixing this time, plan on reinstalling on an SSD by itself. Might be why they dropped support for WUBI in 2014.
Fortunately, I have not been hit by the same from Microsoft and Windows 10, despite hearing reports that it is now the same story, different brand.
Add-ons do have advantages, they can be more selective and block based on paths, they can hide DOM elements and they can block based on context (e.g. 3rd party)
Considering EDGE and its underlying platform is a huge malware magnet it better be.....nor that it will matter though
...you insensitive cl$%#(*X{}X{{
NO CARRIER
Edge sucks so bad that users don't even turn it on. 100% effective against malware and phishing.
Nothing brings out the crybabies, trolls and flamers to chase away any substance like an article about something Microsoft.
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
(NEED MORE? Ask!)
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk
I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell
his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant
his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg
(APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon
I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo
APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat
Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad
I like your host file system by Karmashock
(NEED MORE? Ask!)
* It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!
APK
P.S.=> China imitated me http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/26/boffins_supercharge_the_hosts_file_to_save_users_plagued_by_dns_outages/ ... apk
No single addon does nearly as much & they eat FAR more! See subject & https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11236647&cid=55372251/?-saysitallwithproofthat'sundeniable,concrete&verifiable.APKP.S.= To each his own... apk