What is more valuable to you, signatures and behavior component or technical support?

[PEllis]

If choosing an antivirus/antimalware product, which one would you place more value on:

Good signatures and behaviour component

or

Adequate technical support that aids with malware removal (like SpyHunter's Spyware HelpDesk)

 

[DJ Panda]

I would say signatures and behavioral components because by the time you go to tec support it may be too late or too time consuming compared to just running an AV.

 

[Deleted member 178]

I chose "others" because i want and need :

- Full control : i and only me decide what is running or not
- Lot of options : so i can tighten the soft for the reason above
- Lowest resource usage/footprint possible.

So based on those criteria, i have only one type of soft available : Anti-executables or sandboxes.

 

[Captain Awesome]

I chose Both Antivirus signatures and behavior component & Technical support.But here i vote for Antivirus signatures and behavior component.

 

[Aura]

Adequate technical support that aids with malware removal (like SpyHunter's Spyware HelpDesk)

Oh?
From what I've read all over the web, SpyHunter really have a bad support, especially when it comes to refunds, subscriptions cancel, etc. Weird. I should give it a go in an infected VM and see how it goes.

Also, you can't really compare these two if you ask me... How is technical support going to help you, if the Antivirus is bad when it comes to detections? Unless they improve their product, the technical support will be of no help at all.

Not going to reply to this poll sadly because the two main options don't go together and don't make sense at all.

 

[Der.Reisende]

I chose "others" because i want and need :

- Full control : i and only me decide what is running or not
- Lot of options : so i can tighten the soft for the reason above
- Lowest resource usage/footprint possible.

So based on those criteria, i have only one type of soft available : Anti-executables or sandboxes.

Yep, well said.

As for an AV, for me nothing beats good HIPS / BB (and firewall letting the user know than something unknown - or if set - anything tries to communicate in-/outbound). Signatures can always limp behind 0-days. In times of internet and the whole world lugging around in various forums, users can help each other faster than support.
Of course, software like VoodooShield are the golden path, but I will go for AV + 2 second opinion scanners for the ease of use (never change a running system ). Of course, I want it to be lightweight

 

[PEllis]

Oh?
From what I've read all over the web, SpyHunter really have a bad support, especially when it comes to refunds, subscriptions cancel, etc. Weird. I should give it a go in an infected VM and see how it goes.

Also, you can't really compare these two if you ask me... How is technical support going to help you, if the Antivirus is bad when it comes to detections? Unless they improve their product, the technical support will be of no help at all.

Not going to reply to this poll sadly because the two main options don't go together and don't make sense at all.

Well, in the case of SpyHunter, if the signatures fail, you can utilise their Spyware HelpDesk. A ESG technician can send you a custom fix, after taking snapshots of your PC. You also have one-on-one access to a ESG technician who can manually remove malware. This doesn't require signatures, you see?

The purpose of this poll was for me to see what was valued more, a program with good signatures and behaviour component that maybe doesn't have the best tech support, or a program with technical support that helps with malware removal, but doesn't have the best signatures and behaviour component.

If you do end up taking a look at their HelpDesk, please let me know how it does via PM.

 

[Aura]

Since you seem to like ESG a bit, are you aware of this?

Help BleepingComputer Defend Freedom of Speech

 

[PEllis]

Since you seem to like ESG a bit, are you aware of this?

Help BleepingComputer Defend Freedom of Speech

yes, I'm aware.

 

[Aura]

I wonder what are your views on this, since it's pretty much directly related to your poll.

ESG is known to have a bad detection ratio (and it's been proved multiple time), and as you can see pretty much everywhere (threads on BC, articles about the lawsuit, WoT comments on ESG's website, etc.) a lot of people aren't happy with the support they offer either.

Also, I would like to highlight what you said...

or a program with technical support that helps with malware removal, but doesn't have the best signatures and behaviour component.

Why would technical support that offers malware removal even matter? You were infected in the end, and if you were infected with a trojan that steals banking credentials, it's pretty much game over since the malware did what it had to do. Malware Removal via the Technical Support of your Antivirus program doesn't matter anymore, because it's too late. However, if your Antivirus had good signatures and behavior components, it would have stopped the malware before any harm was done.

So basically, the question you're asking is:

What do you prefer in an Antivirus company? A company that offers you a product which blocks infections before they occur, or a company that helps you clean up infections after you get infected and the damage is done?

Do you understand now why I said you can't really compare these two? Would you rather be infected and helped, or protected to not be infected?

 

[ravi prakash saini]

only behavior component for me ,as signature writer are always light year behind the malware writer and and i have check technical support of almost all big player in the industry so instead of asking for their help i would burn my system.

 

[SHvFl]

I only want a hips and some sort of virtualization. Rest are a gimmick and only useful as second opinion.

 

[FrFc1908]

A good combination of all three is preferable. take Emisisoft for instance in all three fields they are top notch! Symantec also has all three points covered! AVG has good signatures , good behaviour blocker , but a screwed up customer support! most of the time the employees do not even know what they are talking about! In my case my vote goes to a good bb / hips because sigs in all fairness will be a dead technology sooner or later anyway.

 

[PEllis]

I wonder what are your views on this, since it's pretty much directly related to your poll.

ESG is known to have a bad detection ratio (and it's been proved multiple time), and as you can see pretty much everywhere (threads on BC, articles about the lawsuit, WoT comments on ESG's website, etc.) a lot of people aren't happy with the support they offer either.

Also, I would like to highlight what you said...



Why would technical support that offers malware removal even matter? You were infected in the end, and if you were infected with a trojan that steals banking credentials, it's pretty much game over since the malware did what it had to do. Malware Removal via the Technical Support of your Antivirus program doesn't matter anymore, because it's too late. However, if your Antivirus had good signatures and behavior components, it would have stopped the malware before any harm was done.

So basically, the question you're asking is:

What do you prefer in an Antivirus company? A company that offers you a product which blocks infections before they occur, or a company that helps you clean up infections after you get infected and the damage is done?

Do you understand now why I said you can't really compare these two? Would you rather be infected and helped, or protected to not be infected?

Regarding the detection rate, here is a quote from PCMag in their review of SpyHunter, "In testing, eliminated active malware and malware that launches at startup, as promised." Eliminating active malware is the only thing that matters and yes, it is PCMag, and people don't hold a lot of stock in them, but this is one instance of SpyHunter not doing too bad. The review also looks good for their Spyware HelpDesk. Review by PCMag: Enigma SpyHunter 4. Here's another good review for SpyHunter: SpyHunter 4.

I think you should get a license and test it out for yourself (I'm assuming you haven't used the paid version). I'd be interested in what you have to say in regards to the technical support, considering it's the main selling point for the product.

As for your last part, I agree with everything you said, but as I'm sure you know, traditional antivirus is becoming obsolete and new malware is constantly being created, so what happens if the AV you purchased doesn't detect the malware? It's useless, that's what. I don't know about you, but if I was a novice user, I would want access to an easy technical support system in case my AV fails me.

 

[hjlbx]

For novice, excellent support should be important. However, even if support is excellent by industry standards, novices have unreasonable\ignorant expectations of it.

For security soft geek, protections are king.

For everybody else, they have ignorant expectations of what a security soft can\cannot do.

 

[FrankS]

I voted for "Antivirus signatures and behavior component". If the antivirus-solution is working well on my system I won't need the support at most of the time. But I think a good/competent technical support is also important. It should be a healthy mix of both.
Otherwise the technical support is excellent and the program components are terrible, I have no lust to contact the technical support all the time.

 

[Aura]

Regarding the detection rate, here is a quote from PCMag in their review of SpyHunter, "In testing, eliminated active malware and malware that launches at startup, as promised." Eliminating active malware is the only thing that matters and yes, it is PCMag, and people don't hold a lot of stock in them, but this is one instance of SpyHunter not doing too bad. The review also looks good for their Spyware HelpDesk. Review by PCMag: Enigma SpyHunter 4. Here's another good review for SpyHunter: SpyHunter 4.

I think you should get a license and test it out for yourself (I'm assuming you haven't used the paid version). I'd be interested in what you have to say in regards to the technical support, considering it's the main selling point for the product.

As for your last part, I agree with everything you said, but as I'm sure you know, traditional antivirus is becoming obsolete and new malware is constantly being created, so what happens if the AV you purchased doesn't detect the malware? It's useless, that's what. I don't know about you, but if I was a novice user, I would want access to an easy technical support system in case my AV fails me.

I can tell you that PCMag reviews aren't really considered in the online malware removal community due to the way tests are conducted, so personally I'm already discarding that one. And I never heard about the second site, so I cannot say anything objective about it.

Here's a most recent review of SpyHunter.
An objective test of the anti-spyware application SpyHunter — Certly, Inc.

Most of these samples were also old, and still not detected by SpyHunter. Also, the best review (test) of SpyHunter was done in 2014 by AVLab, and it didn't turn out very well.

https://avlab.pl/sites/default/files/files/free_antivirus_scanner_test_ENG.pdf

Also, ESG never asked any reputable lab to test their product (AV-Test, AV-Comparative, etc.) so that in itself is also suspicious.

Honestly, I won't be buying a licence for SpyHunter because I know what will happen: I'll be billed twice what they're asking for because of their poor payment processor (and this is still the case today).

spyhunter vs malwarebytes vs iobit - Page 4 - Anti-Virus, Anti-Malware, and Privacy Software

Not to add that ESG is also spamming BleepingComputer forums (and I'm sure, many others) with their own program via affiliate websites.

Aura on Twitter

In my book, there's literally no reason to use SpyHunter, nor side with ESG. You might say that I'm biased because I'm also a volunteer on BleepingComputer, and I understand that, though I dealt with users who used SpyHunter way before I joined BC, and the problems/issues people have with SpyHunter/ESG today, are the same as the ones I dealt with in the past.

I agree that no Antivirus will protect a system at 100%, and that's why no one in the security community recommend online using an Antivirus as their layer of protection. Most of the infections can be prevented by practicing safe computing, and hardening your web browsers. In the end, if you end up infected because you downloaded and ran a suspicious file on purpose without checking it first, the fault lies on you, not your Antivirus.

 

[PEllis]

I can tell you that PCMag reviews aren't really considered in the online malware removal community due to the way tests are conducted, so personally I'm already discarding that one. And I never heard about the second site, so I cannot say anything objective about it.

Here's a most recent review of SpyHunter.
An objective test of the anti-spyware application SpyHunter — Certly, Inc.

Most of these samples were also old, and still not detected by SpyHunter. Also, the best review (test) of SpyHunter was done in 2014 by AVLab, and it didn't turn out very well.

https://avlab.pl/sites/default/files/files/free_antivirus_scanner_test_ENG.pdf

Also, ESG never asked any reputable lab to test their product (AV-Test, AV-Comparative, etc.) so that in itself is also suspicious.

Honestly, I won't be buying a licence for SpyHunter because I know what will happen: I'll be billed twice what they're asking for because of their poor payment processor (and this is still the case today).

spyhunter vs malwarebytes vs iobit - Page 4 - Anti-Virus, Anti-Malware, and Privacy Software

Not to add that ESG is also spamming BleepingComputer forums (and I'm sure, many others) with their own program via affiliate websites.

Aura on Twitter

In my book, there's literally no reason to use SpyHunter, nor side with ESG. You might say that I'm biased because I'm also a volunteer on BleepingComputer, and I understand that, though I dealt with users who used SpyHunter way before I joined BC, and the problems/issues people have with SpyHunter/ESG today, are the same as the ones I dealt with in the past.

I agree that no Antivirus will protect a system at 100%, and that's why no one in the security community recommend online using an Antivirus as their layer of protection. Most of the infections can be prevented by practicing safe computing, and hardening your web browsers. In the end, if you end up infected because you downloaded and ran a suspicious file on purpose without checking it first, the fault lies on you, not your Antivirus.

Can you go into more detail about the problems with PCMag's testing?

Also, those reviews were of the free version. It's unfair to judge an entire product on the limited free version. I wish SpyHunter offered free trials.

 

[Aura]

Can you go into more detail about the problems with PCMag's testing?

Also, those reviews were of the free version. It's unfair to judge an entire product on the limited free version. I wish SpyHunter offered free trials.

Sadly I can't, I know it might sound selfish of me to say that, but you would have to take my word for it.

Also, even if these reviews were of the free version, we're talking about SpyHunter's ability to detect malware, the detection is the same in the paid version. The free version only offers scans, not removal. So there would be absolutely no difference if the paid version was tested.

 

[PEllis]

Sadly I can't, I know it might sound selfish of me to say that, but you would have to take my word for it.

Also, even if these reviews were of the free version, we're talking about SpyHunter's ability to detect malware, the detection is the same in the paid version. The free version only offers scans, not removal. So there would be absolutely no difference if the paid version was tested.

In order to divisively determine how effective SpyHunter is, the paid version has to be tested, and that has to include Spyware HelpDesk, which I said in a previous comment, is the main selling point of the product. Now, you can argue that it is pointless to do so if the malware is able to execute and do what it's supposed to. However, the real question here is, how effective is SpyHunter at keeping your computer free of malware? We don't know because the paid version is never tested, besides from PCMag (the most recent one), which was a good result.