Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="509322" data-source="post: 780860">Not really. Most publishers really don&#039;t care what security soft geeks and enthusiasts think. There are people who have brought stuff to me. I look at it carefully. And except for 1 or 2 cases I&#039;ve just blown the reports off because the issue wasn&#039;t really an issue. In the mind of the reporter it was a big deal, but in reality it was nothing to fret about.When people get all bent out of shape over a soft, then that is entirely irrational behavior. The reactions to this ESET test are way disproportionate to the actual issue - from both sides. Those that are upset that ESET failed and those who are doing their best to discredit the test. The emotions are very obviously running quite high.ESET signature detection failed in a single instance. So what ? If a user downloads unknown files, opens those files on their system, and gets infected, guess whose fault that is ? It certainly isn&#039;t the AV publisher... because in their EULA it puts all responsibility onto the user.Security software do not guarantee perfect protection. That&#039;s certainly true of default allow. Had the HIPS been used, ESET would have alerted the user and it&#039;s the responsibility of the user to know what to do.People would do themselves a big favor by educating themselves instead of being entirely dependent upon (enslaved) to default allow security softs.I know what Leo&#039;s opinion is... that the soft needs to do everything on behalf of the user. Wanting security softs that get it right 100 % of the time without user involvement is an unrealistic expectation. That&#039;s false hope. Technologically it is an impossibility. Go sell that crap somewhere else. However, the sad part is people keep buying into and believing the crap. And some don&#039;t understand how or why they got infected.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="509322, post: 780860"] Not really. Most publishers really don't care what security soft geeks and enthusiasts think. There are people who have brought stuff to me. I look at it carefully. And except for 1 or 2 cases I've just blown the reports off because the issue wasn't really an issue. In the mind of the reporter it was a big deal, but in reality it was nothing to fret about. When people get all bent out of shape over a soft, then that is entirely irrational behavior. The reactions to this ESET test are way disproportionate to the actual issue - from both sides. Those that are upset that ESET failed and those who are doing their best to discredit the test. The emotions are very obviously running quite high. ESET signature detection failed in a single instance. So what ? If a user downloads unknown files, opens those files on their system, and gets infected, guess whose fault that is ? It certainly isn't the AV publisher... because in their EULA it puts all responsibility onto the user. Security software do not guarantee perfect protection. That's certainly true of default allow. Had the HIPS been used, ESET would have alerted the user and it's the responsibility of the user to know what to do. People would do themselves a big favor by educating themselves instead of being entirely dependent upon (enslaved) to default allow security softs. I know what Leo's opinion is... that the soft needs to do everything on behalf of the user. Wanting security softs that get it right 100 % of the time without user involvement is an unrealistic expectation. That's false hope. Technologically it is an impossibility. Go sell that crap somewhere else. However, the sad part is people keep buying into and believing the crap. And some don't understand how or why they got infected. [/QUOTE]

Verification