- Dec 23, 2014
- 8,131
There is one important thing to be considered when going "beyond Earth". The KIS spaceship is known to be less stable than WD spaceship - hard choice.:emoji_pray:
There are still somewhere months and even years undetected malware.The point of the tests is to test which AV is the best, we all know that for old malware all the AVs can detect it, it's with zero-day malware where they struggle, otherwise there is little difference
Wise words in a out of this world analogy.There is one important thing to be considered when going "beyond Earth". The KIS spaceship is known to be less stable than WD spaceship - hard choice.:emoji_pray:
Yes, SmartScreen is probably the best application reputation service available. But, it cannot protect you against malicious files like: payloads (even with EXE extension), scripts, scriptlets, documents, etc....
And smartscreen is pretty good along with cloud check
There was once a french testing site, testing fresh samples daily, ESET had the top score 50-60%, the rest was around 30-40%. No wonder, it is gone.
It is a never-ending war, some battles are won, some lost. What is the point of fighting then?
Probably not gonna be prevalent on third world countries because they're always behind and they have too poor internet to use it.Like I said, Chromebook is perfect for the average person who doesn't use a system for anything other than surfing the net, watching movies, and the occasional office applications. For them, it is perfect and provides very high security.
For my own personal use, I have an Acer Chromebook for Work 14. And I love it. No problems. No hassles. Very long battery life. Light.
But sooner or later, once enough people start using Chromebook, it will be heavily targeted too. Just like Windows. And that time won't be too far off considering that Chromebook popularity and use is growing at a high rate.
You can make millions upon millions upon millions of bypass videos and nothing is going to change.
One prefers a 99% detection rate for their security solution given by an "Authority" instead of the actual Real World 20% or less.
That would assume AVs literally have a 0% detection rate on zero-day malware, which is not the case. It's not even that low, judging by the malware testing hub that we have here in MalwareTips. What you said implies as if zero-day protection is so bad that an AV is basically all about the signatures, and thus time-until-zero-day-malware-is-added-to-signatures is the only thing that matters in an AV, which is not the case I think.
Did you overlook that I posted that I guessed at least 60% of the new samples (or zero days) are blocked by AV's? I also mentioned that the real infection risk is lower because samples are shared and the chance of being a first victim is much lower (as the remaining 40% might suggest). Is it a typical case of black Tuesday short memory fall out as a result of enjoying a good weekend?Windows_Security said:When a typical blacklist antivirus provides protection against a new sample of malware (99% an adopted version of existing malware), somewhere in the world some poor PC user was the first victim in 40% of the cases (assuming static analysis, machine learning, code emulation, behavioral analysis, HIPS et cetera provide protection for other 60%).
Statistically, the majority of malware attacks are from old malware (not counting phishing and stuff), not brand new zero-day or close-to-zero-day which the AV may not have picked up yet, so AVs makes sense for the average user. Besides, there are free AVs that are pretty good relative to some paid AVs