Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Trident" data-source="post: 1092154" data-attributes="member: 99014">Not defending Trend Micro, it was always so-so on my tests as well. But it’s important to note here:1) missed samples seem to be mostly PUPs. Not every vendor has the same requirements to classify something as PUP.2) many samples were corrupted so there was nothing to detect.3) Trend Micro very quickly removes malware from their database once it stopped working. I remember I had a case with ParalaxRAT that was detected on VT by Trend Micro. Upon rescanning and testing with the installed TM, there was no detection anymore. Trend Micro likes to keep their database clean, it used to be 1.4GB at one point, now the local one is about 40 MB and the full Agent Scan database is around 500MB.4) This is not a realistic test as malware wasn’t introduced through the usual means.In a real-world scenario, TM would have done better.This is Trend Micro for you, you either love it or hate it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Trident, post: 1092154, member: 99014"] Not defending Trend Micro, it was always so-so on my tests as well. But it’s important to note here: 1) missed samples seem to be mostly PUPs. Not every vendor has the same requirements to classify something as PUP. 2) many samples were corrupted so there was nothing to detect. 3) Trend Micro very quickly removes malware from their database once it stopped working. I remember I had a case with ParalaxRAT that was detected on VT by Trend Micro. Upon rescanning and testing with the installed TM, there was no detection anymore. Trend Micro likes to keep their database clean, it used to be 1.4GB at one point, now the local one is about 40 MB and the full Agent Scan database is around 500MB. 4) This is not a realistic test as malware wasn’t introduced through the usual means. In a real-world scenario, TM would have done better. This is Trend Micro for you, you either love it or hate it. [/QUOTE]

Verification