Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Shadowra" data-source="post: 1098883" data-attributes="member: 92939">I&#039;d like to say a few words.I have read most of the messages, which are very pertinent.But when I see AV-Comparative and others, I have to intervene.Please know that I have no animosity towards these test companies, nor towards my fellow testers. But when I don&#039;t like it, I tend to say things.Personally, I give no credit to Av-Comparative, Av-Tests etc...Not because they&#039;re bad, but I very rarely see their test protocols, which for me should be mentioned...These test editors very rarely execute, contenting themselves with contextual analysis which, frankly, doesn&#039;t make a test.=&gt; Using ONLY EXE files is not enough to make a test.There are different systems for infecting a machine.The classic e-mail trap with a PDF/ONE/JS or VBS file that downloads and launches a payload.There are also exploit sites called Drive-by Download, which will target all vulnerabilities at the same time until the malware is installed.And don&#039;t forget bloated or re-packed files, which can contain malicious code.=&gt; Relying ONLY on an analysis is TOTALLY insufficient for a test.Antivirus software doesn&#039;t just have an antimalware engine!There are several shields to counter a threat.Whether it&#039;s basic protection, HIPS/IDS or anti-attack shields, these protections are not often highlighted in these tests.If one day you&#039;d like to see my test protocol, I&#039;d be delighted to show it to you!The only one I&#039;ll give credit to is [USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER] , because it totally covers what I&#039;ve mentioned.Enjoy <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Shadowra, post: 1098883, member: 92939"] I'd like to say a few words. I have read most of the messages, which are very pertinent. But when I see AV-Comparative and others, I have to intervene. Please know that I have no animosity towards these test companies, nor towards my fellow testers. But when I don't like it, I tend to say things. Personally, I give no credit to Av-Comparative, Av-Tests etc... Not because they're bad, but I very rarely see their test protocols, which for me should be mentioned... These test editors very rarely execute, contenting themselves with contextual analysis which, frankly, doesn't make a test. [U][B]=> Using ONLY EXE files is not enough to make a test.[/B][/U] There are different systems for infecting a machine. The classic e-mail trap with a PDF/ONE/JS or VBS file that downloads and launches a payload. There are also exploit sites called Drive-by Download, which will target all vulnerabilities at the same time until the malware is installed. And don't forget bloated or re-packed files, which can contain malicious code. [U][B]=> Relying ONLY on an analysis is TOTALLY insufficient for a test.[/B][/U] Antivirus software doesn't just have an antimalware engine! There are several shields to counter a threat. Whether it's basic protection, HIPS/IDS or anti-attack shields, these protections are not often highlighted in these tests. If one day you'd like to see my test protocol, I'd be delighted to show it to you! The only one I'll give credit to is [USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER] , because it totally covers what I've mentioned. Enjoy :) [/QUOTE]

Verification