Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arequire" data-source="post: 883339" data-attributes="member: 59283">I&#039;d go further than useless, I&#039;d label them as unconsciously deceptive. Not because I think the labs are corrupt or something just as ridiculously conspiratorial, but because they lack transparency in regards to their testing parameters, and don&#039;t adequately communicate that whatever results are achieved by the participating products, said results are only relevant within those exact parameters.That last point is why I label them deceptive; a user lacking the appropriate knowledge is likely to interpret the results as gospel both within and outside of the testing parameters, and unknowingly gain a false sense of security in doing so.I suppose I&#039;d fall into this category as VS is the only protection I use.It&#039;s not that I think my system would suddenly fall to infection if I just used a traditional antivirus, it&#039;s that I find default-allow to be an idiotic way of handling security.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arequire, post: 883339, member: 59283"] I'd go further than useless, I'd label them as unconsciously deceptive. Not because I think the labs are corrupt or something just as ridiculously conspiratorial, but because they lack transparency in regards to their testing parameters, and don't adequately communicate that whatever results are achieved by the participating products, said results are [I]only[/I] relevant within those [I]exact[/I] parameters. That last point is why I label them deceptive; a user lacking the appropriate knowledge is likely to interpret the results as gospel both within and outside of the testing parameters, and unknowingly gain a false sense of security in doing so. I suppose I'd fall into this category as VS is the only protection I use. It's not that I think my system would suddenly fall to infection if I just used a traditional antivirus, it's that I find default-allow to be an idiotic way of handling security. [/QUOTE]

Verification