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
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
Community
Community Feedback
Suggestions for Malware Vault testers
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TheMalwareMaster" data-source="post: 660090" data-attributes="member: 47679"><p><a href="https://malwaretips.com/threads/ransomware-double-team-06-08-2017.74294/#post-659330" target="_blank">https://malwaretips.com/threads/ransomware-double-team-06-08-2017.74294/#post-659330</a></p><p>Here is an other example in which, in my opinion, second opinion scanners are not needed. Even if I can't understand why to run this kind of test (Why did the tester run only the dynamic test of zemana, when it can be seen that the two samples are already detected statically in the post above? The post above is an other one in which second opinion scanners are not needed, by the way). Both the samples were detected statically by Kaspersky. Then the tester tested zemana. Zemana, in this case, showed the notification used when the samples are detected by signatures. Even if the tester didn't show process explorer at the moment of running these samples,they didn't run in memory at all, because zemana had a signature for them. In this case, the result of the second opinion scanner would be all clean for sure.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TheMalwareMaster, post: 660090, member: 47679"] [URL]https://malwaretips.com/threads/ransomware-double-team-06-08-2017.74294/#post-659330[/URL] Here is an other example in which, in my opinion, second opinion scanners are not needed. Even if I can't understand why to run this kind of test (Why did the tester run only the dynamic test of zemana, when it can be seen that the two samples are already detected statically in the post above? The post above is an other one in which second opinion scanners are not needed, by the way). Both the samples were detected statically by Kaspersky. Then the tester tested zemana. Zemana, in this case, showed the notification used when the samples are detected by signatures. Even if the tester didn't show process explorer at the moment of running these samples,they didn't run in memory at all, because zemana had a signature for them. In this case, the result of the second opinion scanner would be all clean for sure. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top