B

BVLon

It's needless to say that every AV fails somewhere and that's perfectly OK, no one dies out of it lol
That's why we use layered approach. Norton 360 offers backup functionality as well, so if configured properly, important data is not at risk. It does not rely on SONAR to protect you against anything and everything.
 

fabiobr

Level 9
Verified
It's needless to say that every AV fails somewhere and that's perfectly OK, no one dies out of it lol
That's why we use layered approach. Norton 360 offers backup functionality as well, so if configured properly, important data is not at risk. It does not rely on SONAR to protect you against anything and everything.
And it has a very good price for a good backup storage. I don't know how they can put that low price, it's much cheaper than Avira and Kaspersky.
 

Andy Ful

Level 63
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
The sample which bypassed Kaspersky TAM simply used a kind of flaw.
https://malwaretips.com/threads/kaspersky-security-cloud-test.89777/post-805845

Such samples should be interesting to the AV vendors to remove the AV flaws. Any AV has many flaws, finding them is only profitable to Bug Bounty research or to perform targetted attacks. Such tests have no impact on the AV evaluation of the detection in the wild, if the AV vendors react properly.
 

Raiden

Level 18
Verified
Content Creator
It's needless to say that every AV fails somewhere and that's perfectly OK, no one dies out of it lol
That's why we use layered approach. Norton 360 offers backup functionality as well, so if configured properly, important data is not at risk. It does not rely on SONAR to protect you against anything and everything.

Its true and it's a good lesson that no matter how good the AV program is, it will fail at some point. It's the reason why you still need to practice security 101. You need ensure you have backups of your data, don't click on ad's, or open every email attachment you get, etc... A security program is only one part of your over all security, your habits are just as important. Problem is people use x product that constantly scores well on tests, assuming that they will never get infected because AV-Comparatives said this product scored 100% on a test.

The sample which bypassed Kaspersky TAM simply used a kind of flaw.
https://malwaretips.com/threads/kaspersky-security-cloud-test.89777/post-805845

Such samples should be interesting to the AV vendors to remove the AV flaws. Any AV has many flaws, finding them is only profitable to Bug Bounty research or to perform targetted attacks. Such tests have no impact on the AV evaluation of the detection in the wild, if the AV vendors react properly.

At the end of the day security programs are software and like every other piece of software out there, they too are prone to having bugs and security flaws. Travis Ormandy from Google's Project Zero has proved this over and over. Sadly some will some how blame MS for this, because 3rd party programs are perfect, they never have problems, it's all MS fault for poor documentation, blah, blah, blah. Software is software and no matter how good the programmers are, they are human and mistakes can happen. Especially when programming for companies is more about, "we have to get this out, just make it work enough, we can fix bugs later."
 
Last edited:

Outpost

Level 5
Verified
At the end of the day security programs are software and like every other piece of software out there, they too are prone to having bugs and security flaws. Travis Ormandy from Google's Project Zero has proved this over and over. Sadly some will some how blame MS for this, because 3rd party programs are perfect, they never have problems, it's all MS fault for poor documentation, blah, blah, blah. Software is software and no matter how good the programmers are, they are human and mistakes can happen. Especially when programming for companies is more about, "we have to get this out, just make it work enough, we can fix bugs later."

This thing happens in any area. Blaming others has been fashionable in recent years and computer science is not exempt. It is much easier to blame an SW than to admit one's inability or unwillingness to use it properly.
 
Top