Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1036840" data-attributes="member: 99014">You know these compromises yourself, you have discussed them many times <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="😀" title="Grinning face&nbsp; &nbsp; :grinning:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/6.6/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" data-shortname=":grinning:" />Like not scanning large files, not doing this, not doing that…Hexadecimal detections or even Kaspersky smart hashes (a hash that remains similar if only minor changes are made to the malware) are just few out of the hundreds ways to optimise performance.You might be able to provide phenomenal detection but if you are slowing the user down, they will uninstall your app and will move on to someone else. This is why a balance must be achieved.This is what I’ve been explaining there but it looks like it remained misunderstood by some.As to K7, you can’t make a great piece of software if you are selling cheap, lifetime licenses. K7 is very cheap and it easily shows on its results. It’s definitely to be avoided.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1036840, member: 99014"] You know these compromises yourself, you have discussed them many times 😀 Like not scanning large files, not doing this, not doing that… Hexadecimal detections or even Kaspersky smart hashes (a hash that remains similar if only minor changes are made to the malware) are just few out of the hundreds ways to optimise performance. You might be able to provide phenomenal detection but if you are slowing the user down, they will uninstall your app and will move on to someone else. This is why a balance must be achieved. This is what I’ve been explaining there but it looks like it remained misunderstood by some. As to K7, you can’t make a great piece of software if you are selling cheap, lifetime licenses. K7 is very cheap and it easily shows on its results. It’s definitely to be avoided. [/QUOTE]

Verification