Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Solarquest" data-source="post: 572993" data-attributes="member: 25489">[USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] , thanks for the interesting test.This time I have to disagree on one point. On youtube you said one missed sample is enough not to use an AV. I agree it would be best if an AV detected 100% of malware. Unfortunately we know this is impossible, at least nowadays...we all hope AI , BB, HW solutions etc will help to reach the 100 % detection one day.One missed Ransomware is bad, very bad...but what about the other ones you had on your desktop? Did Bit detect them?Fabian made some good point but I also don&#039;t agree 100%.In my opinion a (great) AV should always protect the pc from&nbsp; malware, independent from his origin.Aggressive URL filters, modules that consider zone identifier help for sure and it is good to know some AV use them...but what if the malware is not detected by the filter or the zone identifier is modified and the malware appears on the HD?At the end the AV should detect it and protect the device, it doesn&#039;t matter what it is, how it appeared on the HD...at least this is what most user expect from it.No test is perfect as no AV, at least not as of now.Av-comparatives makes real world test. This is great....but, what samples are used? How old are these? 100% detection, for some AV for many times? Really? Why do we still have so many infected PCs? Are all users so bad and heavy clickers?Tests where malware is already on the HD show how strong &quot; the final line of defence&quot; of AVs is if all other failed but cannot consider the other detection mechanism.I like to read the real world tests but I still prefer the ones where many samples are scanned and missed ones are run, at least until someone starts new test based on better criteria.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Solarquest, post: 572993, member: 25489"] [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER] , thanks for the interesting test. This time I have to disagree on one point. On youtube you said one missed sample is enough not to use an AV. I agree it would be best if an AV detected 100% of malware. Unfortunately we know this is impossible, at least nowadays...we all hope AI , BB, HW solutions etc will help to reach the 100 % detection one day. One missed Ransomware is bad, very bad...but what about the other ones you had on your desktop? Did Bit detect them? Fabian made some good point but I also don't agree 100%. In my opinion a (great) AV should always protect the pc from malware, independent from his origin. Aggressive URL filters, modules that consider zone identifier help for sure and it is good to know some AV use them...but what if the malware is not detected by the filter or the zone identifier is modified and the malware appears on the HD? At the end the AV should detect it and protect the device, it doesn't matter what it is, how it appeared on the HD...at least this is what most user expect from it. No test is perfect as no AV, at least not as of now. Av-comparatives makes real world test. This is great....but, what samples are used? How old are these? 100% detection, for some AV for many times? Really? Why do we still have so many infected PCs? Are all users so bad and heavy clickers? Tests where malware is already on the HD show how strong " the final line of defence" of AVs is if all other failed but cannot consider the other detection mechanism. I like to read the real world tests but I still prefer the ones where many samples are scanned and missed ones are run, at least until someone starts new test based on better criteria. [/QUOTE]

Verification