Comparison | AV-Comparatives
Microsoft 106 FPs. How is this even possible? I guess software cracks are in the mix?
Microsoft 106 FPs. How is this even possible? I guess software cracks are in the mix?
You have to look at the prevalence table, which for Microsoft is:Comparison | AV-Comparatives
Microsoft 106 FPs. How is this even possible? I guess software cracks are in the mix?
The developers can submit the application installers to Microsoft (I do it from 2 years), and then the application is whitelisted by Microsoft.
Smartscreen flags this for me too, but I think it has more to do with it not being digitally signed. I'm not sure how many people use it either so its overall prevalence may have a factor too. Usually you should be able to allow it through Smartscreen without issue. One thing I've noticed is that once you allow it once through Smartscreen, it seems to remember this the next time around, at least this is how it worked for me.Just FYI hard configurator executable at your github was blocked a couple of weeks ago by my Smartscreen
That is normal. SmartScreen is a reputation service. Hard_Configurator installer and its executables are whitelisted by WD - If not, then they will be recognized as the hack-tools, and quarantined. Usually my installers are accepted by SmartScreen after some months - that depends on how many users install the new versions. Actually, the 64-bit ConfigureDefender is accepted by SmartScreen (but not the 32-bit version).Just FYI hard configurator executable at your github was blocked a couple of weeks ago by my Smartscreen
Technically, SmartScreen will still recognize it as not safe, if you will download it again. But after the first SmartScreen bypass (by the user) the information about downloading the installer from the Internet (Mark Of The Web) is deleted, so that particular file is ignored by SmartScreen....One thing I've noticed is that once you allow it once through Smartscreen, it seems to remember this the next time around, at least this is how it worked for me.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the clarificationTechnically, SmartScreen will still recognize it as not safe, if you will download it again. But after the first SmartScreen bypass (by the user) the information about downloading the installer from the Internet (Mark Of The Web) is deleted, so that particular file is ignored by SmartScreen.
I agree.Everyone can see one important thing in the report. The differences between most AVs are very little. So, there is a little advantage of comparing them.
The Hidden secret in those test labs is that all AVs are equivalent, why?Everyone can see one important thing in the report. The differences between most AVs are very little. So, there is a little advantage of comparing them.
The Hidden secret in those test labs is that all AVs are equivalent, why?
1- all of them are between 98-100%
2- how many malware a classic user will encounter on his whole life? 10-20 for safe users, 50-100 for happy clickers?
Even the worse happy clicker will become cautious after the 20th infection...
In my all digital life I never crossed any malware unless I looked for them.
Now do the math between the worst AV (~98%) and the best (~99-100) = 2%
So at worst, 2% of 100 malware in your whole life? 2 malwares...
At best, 2% of 10 malwares = 0.2 malware...
Those test labs are BS, they are marketing proxies for vendors, and they get their fare share of money from them... While stupid fanboys are fighting over the results and noobs changing AVs like underwears when their current one get a "low" score.
And spare me, the "but this is an extrapolation to properly measure the AVs efficiency".
No dude, in real world scenarios there is no extrapolations, only real usage, and those labs are far away from it.
One of the best posts I've seen in this forum.The Hidden secret in those test labs is that all AVs are equivalent, why?
1- all of them are between 98-100%
2- how many malware a classic user will encounter on his whole life? 10-20 for safe users, 50-100 for happy clickers?
Even the worse happy clicker will become cautious after the 20th infection...
In my all digital life I never crossed any malware unless I looked for them.
Now do the math between the worst AV (~98%) and the best (~99-100) = 2%
So at worst, 2% of 100 malware in your whole life? 2 malwares...
At best, 2% of 10 malwares = 0.2 malware...
Those test labs are BS, they are marketing proxies for vendors, and they get their fare share of money from them... While stupid fanboys are fighting over the results and noobs changing AVs like underwears when their current one get a "low" score.
And spare me, the "but this is an extrapolation to properly measure the AVs efficiency".
No dude, in real world scenarios there is no extrapolations, only real usage, and those labs are far away from it.
Invisible dot, maybe.how can bullguard be compromised 16%, when it blocked 98.4% ???