- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
If a AV does good in the malware hub, it probably will do great in real life. But maybe it is expensive, and maybe it does things to your system that drive you crazy... So in the end, you need to weigh up the pros and cons.
Real-World Protection Test August 2018
- Thread starter Hawaii007
- Start date
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
The margin of difference between ESET and the others was pretty small. Next month, ESET might beat them. Don't switch just because of that.
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
Also, there is no black-and-white definition of "infected".
Let's say a tester scans his system after running a malware sample, and he finds some junk. Maybe it is just dead, inert files that will never hurt anybody. Harmless debris from a foiled attack.
Even if there is an actual malware process running, it might be just stage one that never spawned the payload.
Even if the payload succeeded in running, maybe the firewall blocked it from doing actual damage.
So even if the AV allowed the system to become "infected", it might mean that the malware won the first battle, but in the end, your system won the war.
Let's say a tester scans his system after running a malware sample, and he finds some junk. Maybe it is just dead, inert files that will never hurt anybody. Harmless debris from a foiled attack.
Even if there is an actual malware process running, it might be just stage one that never spawned the payload.
Even if the payload succeeded in running, maybe the firewall blocked it from doing actual damage.
So even if the AV allowed the system to become "infected", it might mean that the malware won the first battle, but in the end, your system won the war.
Similar threads
