Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 995919" data-attributes="member: 7463">Adrian- You missed nothing, and I thank you very much for bringing up this point! So to answer:The file could have showed up on my computer on any number of ways:1). I copied it from a USB and plopped it on the Desktop (which is actually what I did), or2). It was an email attachment that I opened (to my Dismay). or3). I got it from a torrent site, or4). I downloaded it from a website that I used a thousand times before without issue, or5). I downloading it from a website and decided to ignore a SmartScreen warning (since I know better than a stupid warning, don&#039;t I?), or6). I got it from any number of sources and methods that don&#039;t come immediately to mind.But stating that a test specifically to determine if a given product will stop specific malware is potentially invalid because the malware should have been acquires in a certain way to my mind essentially calls into question ALL testing including the &quot;gang-bang&quot; approach of Professional testers that will utilize hundreds of samples gotten from God-Knows-Where against a specific product.My testing has always been malware file source agnostic and restricted in scope (few malware samples) done in the hope of both education and amusement. And the choice of malware used to bypass a product tends to me much, much easier than picking a song to fit perfectly.M</blockquote>

[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 995919, member: 7463"] Adrian- You missed nothing, and I thank you very much for bringing up this point! So to answer: The file could have showed up on my computer on any number of ways: 1). I copied it from a USB and plopped it on the Desktop (which is actually what I did), or 2). It was an email attachment that I opened (to my Dismay). or 3). I got it from a torrent site, or 4). I downloaded it from a website that I used a thousand times before without issue, or 5). I downloading it from a website and decided to ignore a SmartScreen warning (since I know better than a stupid warning, don't I?), or 6). I got it from any number of sources and methods that don't come immediately to mind. But stating that a test specifically to determine if a given product will stop specific malware is potentially invalid because the malware should have been acquires in a certain way to my mind essentially calls into question ALL testing including the "gang-bang" approach of Professional testers that will utilize hundreds of samples gotten from God-Knows-Where against a specific product. My testing has always been malware file source agnostic and restricted in scope (few malware samples) done in the hope of both education and amusement. And the choice of malware used to bypass a product tends to me much, much easier than picking a song to fit perfectly. M [/QUOTE]

Verification