Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1102516" data-attributes="member: 114717">Most testers are trying to prove a specific point. Their objective is not to say &quot;It is unlikely you will be targeted or infected, even through your own actions.&quot; Why? Because they want to prove their specific point, despite the low probabilities of system infection reality.Leo has talked about this before stating that the average user only downloads or launches the .exe or .msi file types. He knows all the various malware types and file types. He is not interested in demonstrating that. He just collects .exe for his demonstrations. He also knows that if a security software publisher&#039;s behavioral protections do not properly handle .exe, then those protections are very likely to fail at containing malicious scripts. That is not a given, but I understand Leo&#039;s logic. In most cases he is correct but his testing is just many others - it is very specific as opposed to being comprehensive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1102516, member: 114717"] Most testers are trying to prove a specific point. Their objective is not to say "It is unlikely you will be targeted or infected, even through your own actions." Why? Because they want to prove their specific point, despite the low probabilities of system infection reality. Leo has talked about this before stating that the average user only downloads or launches the .exe or .msi file types. He knows all the various malware types and file types. He is not interested in demonstrating that. He just collects .exe for his demonstrations. He also knows that if a security software publisher's behavioral protections do not properly handle .exe, then those protections are very likely to fail at containing malicious scripts. That is not a given, but I understand Leo's logic. In most cases he is correct but his testing is just many others - it is very specific as opposed to being comprehensive. [/QUOTE]

Verification