Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 938804">Agreed!In school I would love to have gotten over 98% on every test I did!!!I&#039;ve learned that a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations when it comes to malware and AV&#039;s. Granted every test is a snap shot in time..they should be taken with a grain of salt. There&#039;s always more to the story than meets the eye. In this case 98% is hardly a fail...I don&#039;t know why/when 98% is considered poor, or a fail? No AV can catch everything....every single AV will miss things from time to time. Kaspersky is one of the best AV&#039;s around and I would hardly consider it failing by any stretch of the imagination.&nbsp; Same goes for Eset...Lets put this into perspective shall we...according to the test they had 10,013 samples...Kaspesky missed 4, Eset missed 10 and MD missed 15.... so I am failing to see the problem here. If you are expecting an AV to catch 99.9-100% of the samples each time...well just wait till the next test because Kaspersky may just get 100% and Avast may get 98.7%.&nbsp; I don&#039;t have a crystal ball, but you get my point.One thing this test highlights very well is how much most AVs rely on their cloud components for improved protection. Makes sense since the amount a malware created each day is insane and most vendors are off loading a lot of their capabilities to the cloud.We need to stop this sensationalizing and paranoia about these products. Most products today are very capable and will do a very good job in the real world. You know what will make the most improvement to your overall security compared to any AV tested?? You guessed it! Your overall computing hygiene. Poor habits lead to infection/problems eventually, it&#039;s just a matter of time...regardless of which AV you are using.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 938804"] Agreed! In school I would love to have gotten over 98% on every test I did!!! I've learned that a lot of people have very unrealistic expectations when it comes to malware and AV's. Granted every test is a snap shot in time..they should be taken with a grain of salt. There's always more to the story than meets the eye. In this case 98% is hardly a fail...I don't know why/when 98% is considered poor, or a fail? No AV can catch everything....every single AV will miss things from time to time. Kaspersky is one of the best AV's around and I would hardly consider it failing by any stretch of the imagination. Same goes for Eset... Lets put this into perspective shall we...according to the test they had 10,013 samples...Kaspesky missed 4, Eset missed 10 and MD missed 15.... so I am failing to see the problem here. If you are expecting an AV to catch 99.9-100% of the samples each time...well just wait till the next test because Kaspersky may just get 100% and Avast may get 98.7%. I don't have a crystal ball, but you get my point. One thing this test highlights very well is how much most AVs rely on their cloud components for improved protection. Makes sense since the amount a malware created each day is insane and most vendors are off loading a lot of their capabilities to the cloud. We need to stop this sensationalizing and paranoia about these products. Most products today are very capable and will do a very good job in the real world. You know what will make the most improvement to your overall security compared to any AV tested?? You guessed it! Your overall computing hygiene. Poor habits lead to infection/problems eventually, it's just a matter of time...regardless of which AV you are using. [/QUOTE]

Verification