- Dec 29, 2014
- 1,716
I better advice these users, to test it for themselves rather than depending on videos alone. Sometimes it proves nothing to download samples and just double click which means nothing to me. To really test the limit of an antivirus is to penetrate and go against the will of the Antivirus in any WORST situation and configurations. I did that to my own Antivirus and it failed miserably. Notified my AV vendor and they improve the detection. Few months later, tested again, found another loopholes.
Yes, this is my way to look at the programs too. I prefer to test their standard natural abilities to reliably respond to system changes and settings changes mostly (and otherwise system activity), but I do so with a focus on the efficacy of the alerts and schemes. Yet, I think I understand what you mean by this statement.
Seems noteworthy to me, though, in both cases to do protection testing, although I don't believe you are saying that standard detection/block testing is completely pointless. I can see the point for both, since they look at the potential for problems by looking at separate vectors for trouble.
I appreciate the information. Surprising to hear how a-vs were failing your inspections, and I hope you were somehow rewarded for your efforts. Definitely, the worst kind of malicious activity imo has somewhere in the attack chain an actual face in front of a keyboard poking for holes in the system.
I feel like there is much work to be done in the future to interconnect protections in security schemes with regards to the various vectors for attack, this to achieve comprehensive protection. Good luck with your testing, and I hope you continue looking for loopholes in security self-defense and that you are rewarded fairly along the way...