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 Internet Security 2019 Review
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RoboMan" data-source="post: 780334" data-attributes="member: 53544"><p>What I mean is that the methodology in this test is not valid, like any other basic test he does. We all know malware <strong>does not have to necessarily be manually double clicked in order to run</strong>. There's a reason why we do not download malware on our host machine, even if we don't execute it manually. And that's because that malware file <strong><u>can be triggered</u> </strong>without double clicking it, for example: when our antivirus scans it, when some tool accesses it, when we extract it or move it. Depending on the coding, several ways a malware can find to be triggered without our explicit consent. I think we all know that, don't we? And that's the simplest reason and argument to explain how antivirus detect and delete files without us even opening it: because they scan before we get to execute, and this can trigger the malware. So, if scanning, moving, extracting, can trigger the malware, and we move a huge malware folder from one place to another, with our real time protection disabled, this can be <strong>potentially harmful for our system</strong>, can it not? Plus, we all should know that a single active infection <u><strong>can alter</strong></u> the whole testing process and methodology, therefore why we always recommend to test one malware at a time and reset the VM. How can we know this wasn't the case? You may say: Leo always does this and other software performed better. Haven't we all also mentioned all OS are different? Aren't all malware different? Aren't all antivirus different? Don't wanna sound like a fanboy, but all software have their PRO's and CON's. ESET may suck at default settings, but this doesn't make it a bad software, it makes it a suitable software for advanced users. I don't recommend ESET to novices or people who don't wanna deal with alerts, and this is why. But if we're gonna say this methodology is valid then I believe this discussion is over.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RoboMan, post: 780334, member: 53544"] What I mean is that the methodology in this test is not valid, like any other basic test he does. We all know malware [B]does not have to necessarily be manually double clicked in order to run[/B]. There's a reason why we do not download malware on our host machine, even if we don't execute it manually. And that's because that malware file [B][U]can be triggered[/U] [/B]without double clicking it, for example: when our antivirus scans it, when some tool accesses it, when we extract it or move it. Depending on the coding, several ways a malware can find to be triggered without our explicit consent. I think we all know that, don't we? And that's the simplest reason and argument to explain how antivirus detect and delete files without us even opening it: because they scan before we get to execute, and this can trigger the malware. So, if scanning, moving, extracting, can trigger the malware, and we move a huge malware folder from one place to another, with our real time protection disabled, this can be [B]potentially harmful for our system[/B], can it not? Plus, we all should know that a single active infection [U][B]can alter[/B][/U] the whole testing process and methodology, therefore why we always recommend to test one malware at a time and reset the VM. How can we know this wasn't the case? You may say: Leo always does this and other software performed better. Haven't we all also mentioned all OS are different? Aren't all malware different? Aren't all antivirus different? Don't wanna sound like a fanboy, but all software have their PRO's and CON's. ESET may suck at default settings, but this doesn't make it a bad software, it makes it a suitable software for advanced users. I don't recommend ESET to novices or people who don't wanna deal with alerts, and this is why. But if we're gonna say this methodology is valid then I believe this discussion is over. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top