Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Microsoft Defender vs Top 100 Malware Sites (TPSC)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="monkeylove" data-source="post: 1066275" data-attributes="member: 19756"><p>Reviewers can't rely on users to do what they want the latter to do. At the same time, malware can now show up in what reviewers argue are safe sites and software (especially those with newly discovered vulnerabilities). In several cases, they can even run without user interaction, or stay hidden for a long time, go straight for embedded software, and so on.</p><p></p><p>Given that, "not as bad," "it's the user's fault," "just practice common sense," "use legit software," etc., no longer cut it.</p><p></p><p>Meanwhile, more careful analysis is preferred, and that means more expensive testing, which most can't afford to pay for.</p><p></p><p>Add more protection features, and there may be a performance hit. Let the user decide what to block or allow, and he may end up doing more harm than good. Harden the system and some features may malfunction, with the user trying to figure out what he tweaked and how to undo it. (At that point, the user realizes why the hardening wasn't enabled by default in the first place.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="monkeylove, post: 1066275, member: 19756"] Reviewers can't rely on users to do what they want the latter to do. At the same time, malware can now show up in what reviewers argue are safe sites and software (especially those with newly discovered vulnerabilities). In several cases, they can even run without user interaction, or stay hidden for a long time, go straight for embedded software, and so on. Given that, "not as bad," "it's the user's fault," "just practice common sense," "use legit software," etc., no longer cut it. Meanwhile, more careful analysis is preferred, and that means more expensive testing, which most can't afford to pay for. Add more protection features, and there may be a performance hit. Let the user decide what to block or allow, and he may end up doing more harm than good. Harden the system and some features may malfunction, with the user trying to figure out what he tweaked and how to undo it. (At that point, the user realizes why the hardening wasn't enabled by default in the first place.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top