Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Security Statistics and Reports
AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test: FEB-MAR 2024
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1083620" data-attributes="member: 99014"><p>I doubt this is the case because the very same samples, delivered the same way, most likely through malicious downloads, are detected by everyone else.</p><p>Could be QuickHeal, having less users and safe files on their hands (less telemetry) under default settings is “milder”. To avoid FPs.</p><p>Or just their engines aren’t that well tweaked, I wouldn’t expect them to have the same know-how as other companies that have far higher margins and can invest a lot more in R&D.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1083620, member: 99014"] I doubt this is the case because the very same samples, delivered the same way, most likely through malicious downloads, are detected by everyone else. Could be QuickHeal, having less users and safe files on their hands (less telemetry) under default settings is “milder”. To avoid FPs. Or just their engines aren’t that well tweaked, I wouldn’t expect them to have the same know-how as other companies that have far higher margins and can invest a lot more in R&D. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top