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
ESET Behavior Test
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Amelith Nargothrond" data-source="post: 617213" data-attributes="member: 60405"><p>That's irrelevant. The developer will say what he needs to say in order to defend its product. But if a module is dependent on another, this should be reflected in the product in certain cases. If the product allows you to disable (a) module(s), the other module(s) should react accordingly if dependent on the disabled modules, e.g. display a warning or let the user know somehow in the UI that the others are not working as expected anymore. How else would the user know about the consequences of his actions? He can't guess what's under the hood. It's common sense really, the tester did not tamper with critical NOD32 files, deleted NOD32 registry entries etc. All he did is to disable some modules from the UI, to test the others (exclusively).</p><p>It's a security product, not notepad++ with plugins, no matter how many KB articles, help files or forum posts you may have.</p><p></p><p>Some things need to be made "poor user judgement proof". This could be one case (?). You simply can't rely on users to do the things you think they should do, especially when you are a security product developer.</p><p></p><p>I think the test is valid because NOD32 failed to warn the user about crippled module(s) functionality (if this is the case), or failed to disable the crippled modules, and if something needs to be done, it needs to be done by ESET (again, if the disabled modules affect other modules). This is called product design or software architecture.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Amelith Nargothrond, post: 617213, member: 60405"] That's irrelevant. The developer will say what he needs to say in order to defend its product. But if a module is dependent on another, this should be reflected in the product in certain cases. If the product allows you to disable (a) module(s), the other module(s) should react accordingly if dependent on the disabled modules, e.g. display a warning or let the user know somehow in the UI that the others are not working as expected anymore. How else would the user know about the consequences of his actions? He can't guess what's under the hood. It's common sense really, the tester did not tamper with critical NOD32 files, deleted NOD32 registry entries etc. All he did is to disable some modules from the UI, to test the others (exclusively). It's a security product, not notepad++ with plugins, no matter how many KB articles, help files or forum posts you may have. Some things need to be made "poor user judgement proof". This could be one case (?). You simply can't rely on users to do the things you think they should do, especially when you are a security product developer. I think the test is valid because NOD32 failed to warn the user about crippled module(s) functionality (if this is the case), or failed to disable the crippled modules, and if something needs to be done, it needs to be done by ESET (again, if the disabled modules affect other modules). This is called product design or software architecture. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top