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
General Security Discussions
If you pay for malware protection, who's at fault if you get infected?
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 89360" data-source="post: 929492"><p>Under very rare and special cases you might be able to prove that the company has been selling products unfit for their purpose - for example a very old vulnerability has been neglected and has been used to infect you, or they didn't maintain the needed hygienic design. An example of "unfit for purpose" is Norton's engine which has been rumored to emulate threats in Kernel Mode prior to the SDS switch and also to use old, vulnerable un-archiving plug-in. There are articles on that if one is interested. Other than that, there are no legal processes one can instantiate and this one by itself is almost doomed.</p><p></p><p>So to summarise: AV is at fault only in the case when the overall product, a threat or situation has been neglected, this led to infection and can also be proven. In that case users are protected by local authorities and trade standards, just like with any other goods.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 89360, post: 929492"] Under very rare and special cases you might be able to prove that the company has been selling products unfit for their purpose - for example a very old vulnerability has been neglected and has been used to infect you, or they didn't maintain the needed hygienic design. An example of "unfit for purpose" is Norton's engine which has been rumored to emulate threats in Kernel Mode prior to the SDS switch and also to use old, vulnerable un-archiving plug-in. There are articles on that if one is interested. Other than that, there are no legal processes one can instantiate and this one by itself is almost doomed. So to summarise: AV is at fault only in the case when the overall product, a threat or situation has been neglected, this led to infection and can also be proven. In that case users are protected by local authorities and trade standards, just like with any other goods. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top