Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 938822">Yup! A very solid point.&nbsp; Offline protection still need updates, so if you are offline over a significant period of time...your offline protection will suffer as time goes on.That is fair, but it still doesn&#039;t change the fact that the overall protection rate is still really high. I&#039;m not saying to ignore offline, but online is much more of a realistic scenario in this day and age. Ignoring USBs, chances of getting infected while offline is extremely low regardless. Furthermore all of these products implore other methods to help with their overall protection. Regardless I think we are stressing about something that doesn&#039;t need to be stressed about. End of the day, the final results are still very good and I still think one is being sensational assuming that the likes of Kaspersky, Eset and others are going downhill because of one tiny aspect of the test, while ignoring everything else in the test.&nbsp; To be brutally honest, the fact that both Kaspersky and Eset were able to stop over 80% of the malware while being offline is still a pretty impressive showing. That&#039;s still over 8000 samples of the 10013 used in this test.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 938822"] Yup! A very solid point. Offline protection still need updates, so if you are offline over a significant period of time...your offline protection will suffer as time goes on. That is fair, but it still doesn't change the fact that the overall protection rate is still really high. I'm not saying to ignore offline, but online is much more of a realistic scenario in this day and age. Ignoring USBs, chances of getting infected while offline is extremely low regardless. Furthermore all of these products implore other methods to help with their overall protection. Regardless I think we are stressing about something that doesn't need to be stressed about. End of the day, the final results are still very good and I still think one is being sensational assuming that the likes of Kaspersky, Eset and others are going downhill because of one tiny aspect of the test, while ignoring everything else in the test. To be brutally honest, the fact that both Kaspersky and Eset were able to stop over 80% of the malware while being offline is still a pretty impressive showing. That's still over 8000 samples of the 10013 used in this test.(y):) [/QUOTE]

Verification