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
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
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Of LoLBins, 0-Days, ESET, and Microsoft Defender
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Practical Response" data-source="post: 1083471" data-attributes="member: 109138"><p>Thank you for the demonstration folks, I knew you would not let me down. This is how you treat and respond to those you disagree with. Its a wonder why the forum reads it has 60,000 members but in actuality you rarely see more than 50 on at any given time.</p><p></p><p>Keep treating users the way you do, and while your at it go look at other sites where they discuss this one, and what a joke they think it is because of things just like this. No one takes this place seriously because of it.</p><p></p><p>I left a simple link to Marcos explaining this test was invalid because it was a benign file they don't block intentionally and it housed no payload.</p><p></p><p>It was stated well what if it did and it was a zero day, well Eset has many modules designed to monitor detect based on behavior ect for unknowns.</p><p></p><p>It does not matter what others opinions of the product are, whether they think its great or worthless, it matters to do this correctly in testing if you are going to present a theory that reflects upon the product.</p><p></p><p>Legit testing.</p><p></p><p>-Actual payload with sample from the wild.</p><p>-Route of infection, not just mysteriously showing up on the desktop to be executed.</p><p>-No disabling of any of the modules of the product, let it work as intended</p><p></p><p>If these are applied and the product fails, then so be it, it was tested in a respectful responsible manor.</p><p></p><p>I wont say anymore on the subject regardless of the jabs, baiting and illogical things thrown.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Practical Response, post: 1083471, member: 109138"] Thank you for the demonstration folks, I knew you would not let me down. This is how you treat and respond to those you disagree with. Its a wonder why the forum reads it has 60,000 members but in actuality you rarely see more than 50 on at any given time. Keep treating users the way you do, and while your at it go look at other sites where they discuss this one, and what a joke they think it is because of things just like this. No one takes this place seriously because of it. I left a simple link to Marcos explaining this test was invalid because it was a benign file they don't block intentionally and it housed no payload. It was stated well what if it did and it was a zero day, well Eset has many modules designed to monitor detect based on behavior ect for unknowns. It does not matter what others opinions of the product are, whether they think its great or worthless, it matters to do this correctly in testing if you are going to present a theory that reflects upon the product. Legit testing. -Actual payload with sample from the wild. -Route of infection, not just mysteriously showing up on the desktop to be executed. -No disabling of any of the modules of the product, let it work as intended If these are applied and the product fails, then so be it, it was tested in a respectful responsible manor. I wont say anymore on the subject regardless of the jabs, baiting and illogical things thrown. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top