Evjl's Rain
Level 47
Thread author
Verified
Honorary Member
Top Poster
Content Creator
Malware Hunter
- Apr 18, 2016
- 3,684
Why do you think so?Avira sucks..but grabs first place in all of the tests except Virus Bulletin
I dont understand god!! Avira Avira Avira
...
I don't think webroot is that worst..since i have seen its detections for latest zero day samples even when big heads are on the way!They are similar to Drweb..whereas Drweb works. Webroot is an ok av to run alongside any AV.Malwarebytes has been crap for years. Webroot has always been crap, from day one.
Trend's weakness I believe is the fact they can be very slow to respond to outbreaks and submissions. I've had to manually open a ticket and submit threats to them, then follow up over 3 days before it was detected. Trend is also poor with specific types of malware and some riskware. Otherwise, Trend is generally considered a solid product, just not the speediest reaction time. I'd almost always augment Trend with something like VoodooShield or OSArmor.
Did you miss PC Matic Home Security 99.9% RAP with 13754 False Positives? . Considered as "Buggy" back then by Virus Bulletin, I wonder how it is doing now. I think Avira is "dark horse" in AV security field this year.In fact, Avira had the best Reactive result as compared to any AV that passed that test.
I wrote: "In fact, Avira had the best Reactive result as compared to any AV that passed that test"Did you miss PC Matic Home Security 99.9% RAP with 13754 False Positives? . Considered as "Buggy" back then by Virus Bulletin, I wonder how it is doing now. I think Avira is "dark horse" in AV security field this year.
I truly don't understand why they have a "blocked in 24 hours" category. It's absurd. If malware executed and performed malicious activity then it should be counted as a miss. Detecting the sample in X number of hours after the infection took place is irrelevant if, like you said, your bank account was drained or all you valuable files were encrypted.A 24 hour or shorter infection can be sufficient time given to the malc0der to wipe out your bank account.
You are wrong.I truly don't understand why they have a "blocked in 24 hours" category. It's absurd. If malware executed and performed malicious activity then it should be counted as a miss. Detecting the sample in X number of hours after the infection took place is irrelevant if, like you said, your bank account was drained or all you valuable files were encrypted.
I'd argue it'd be based on the efficiency of the shooter and the weapon used.Some teenager using a semi-auto handgun who's never shot a gun before is not going to be as effective as someone who's been front-line military using an assault rifle.You are wrong.
This is the same as in the case of the shooter who kills the people demonstrating on the street. If the shooter will be disarmed after 5 minutes, the event of being killed is much more probable than in the case of disarming him in 5 seconds.
Please think it over again.I'd argue it'd be based on the efficiency of the shooter and the weapon used.Some teenager using a semi-auto handgun who's never shot a gun before is not going to be as effective as someone who's been front-line military using an assault rifle.
It does not matter at all. In the above case, you have to change 5 seconds to 5 days and 5 minutes to approximately one year. After one year of not detecting Petya, all computers in the world would be probably infected. Still, the first scenario is much better.What if that ransomware turns out to be something like Petya? Well then you come back to a bricked PC and the general population would have absolutely no idea how to fix something like that.
.You'll also notice that it's not considered a behaviour block, so is that 24 hour limit signature-only? What happens if the behaviour block happens 6 hours after the malware's been executed? Would that be considered a behaviour block or a "within 24 hours" block?