Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 944653" data-attributes="member: 32260">I respect this decision, although it has some serious cons.The case of Cylance is special. It is not a full AV that can detect all files - it can detect only PE files. So, one can argue that Cylance alone should not be tested at all on MH alongside the full AVs. The comparison with full AVs will probably prevent many users from using Cylance.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite111" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" />On the other side, testing it with an anti-script layer without showing the real detection of Cylance alone, would be confusing and could promote Cylance compared to other AVs. In my opinion, the only fair solution is performing the dual test = Cylance alone compared to Cylance + anti-script layer. This would clearly show the pros and cons of using Cylance. Furthermore, this would be fair for all, including Home users that search for sensible protection.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" />There is no perfect way of testing such products as Cylance, so we should accept the final decision of the MH testers.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" />Post edited.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 944653, member: 32260"] I respect this decision, although it has some serious cons. The case of Cylance is special. It is not a full AV that can detect all files - it can detect only PE files. So, one can argue that Cylance alone should not be tested at all on MH alongside the full AVs. The comparison with full AVs will probably prevent many users from using Cylance.:( On the other side, testing it with an anti-script layer without showing the real detection of Cylance alone, would be confusing and could promote Cylance compared to other AVs. In my opinion, the only fair solution is performing the dual test = Cylance alone compared to Cylance + anti-script layer. This would clearly show the pros and cons of using Cylance. Furthermore, this would be fair for all, including Home users that search for sensible protection.(y) There is no perfect way of testing such products as Cylance, so we should accept the final decision of the MH testers.(y) Post edited. [/QUOTE]

Verification