Antivirus programs

VanguardLH Fri,
09 Dec 2016 23:41:48 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

Then remember that these are for the payware versions, not for the
freeware versions, and also at the default settings for each
product.

Which makes no difference in terms of detection ability using it's
database. The database itself is the same for paid/non paid. The paid
version has more bells and whistles.

However, remember that the free version of BitDefender gives you
none of the configurability available in the free version of
Avast. Do you really run an AV using its install-time settings?

I suspect, that, few people actually know the AV has settings. [g] And
they just keep clicking until it's installed.

All AVs bounce too much regarding coverage, stability, and false
positives; however, users really don't want to keep changing every
3 months to a different AV program.

That's the nature of the malware game. You can't really blame a
particular AV for that.




--
Sarcasm, because beating the living **** out of deserving people is
illegal.

Diesel on 2017/02/07 responded to a thread *2 MONTHS OLD*:

VanguardLH wrote:

Then remember that these are for the payware versions, not for the
freeware versions, and also at the default settings for each
product.

Which makes no difference in terms of detection ability using it's
database. The database itself is the same for paid/non paid. The paid
version has more bells and whistles.

The freeware versions do not include all the vectors available for
infection. There is more to detecting malware than just signatures
(hash). Detection only via signatures is not alone an effective
anti-malware countermeasure. Yes, there are more bells and whistles in
the payware versions but very often they also include better coverage,
and not just by signatures. If all you rely upon for malware detection
are signatures then don't bother using that software.

However, remember that the free version of BitDefender gives you
none of the configurability available in the free version of
Avast. Do you really run an AV using its install-time settings?

I suspect, that, few people actually know the AV has settings. [g] And
they just keep clicking until it's installed.

And that same community of uber-boobs (with the exception of Google
Groupers which I filter out) are not the ones who find Usenet, install
and NNTP client, configure that NNTP client, define the NNTP servers,
and post in Usenet. That they are in Usenet elevates them beyond your
summarization of typical computer users.

All AVs bounce too much regarding coverage, stability, and false
positives; however, users really don't want to keep changing every
3 months to a different AV program.

That's the nature of the malware game. You can't really blame a
particular AV for that.

Taken out of context. The intent was to relay that users, even expert
ones, do not want and will not continually bounce between security
software every few months because some test site ranks a different
product as marginally than what they are currently using. Users may
change to a different security program after awhile but not as often as
the test sites switch which one came out on top for a particular test.

VanguardLH Tue,
07 Feb 2017 20:07:17 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

Diesel on 2017/02/07 responded to a thread *2 MONTHS OLD*:

VanguardLH wrote:

Then remember that these are for the payware versions, not for
the freeware versions, and also at the default settings for each
product.

Which makes no difference in terms of detection ability using
it's database. The database itself is the same for paid/non paid.
The paid version has more bells and whistles.

The freeware versions do not include all the vectors available for
infection. There is more to detecting malware than just
signatures (hash).

hashing is only one form of signature detection...Like I said though,
in terms of detection ability, the paid/non paid versions don't
differ; that aspect of them is the same.

Detection only via signatures is not alone an
effective anti-malware countermeasure.

I'm well aware of that. I'm quite versed in the subject of malware.
From both sides of the fence, having written the stuff and later,
written/supported apps that detected and removed it.

Yes, there are more bells and whistles in the payware versions but
very often they also include better coverage, and not just by
signatures. If all you rely upon for malware detection are
signatures then don't bother using that software.

I don't rely on resident av for malware detection, personally. But, I
do have a thorough understanding of how the technologies work. I did
work for a big player in the antimalware scene, after all. So I'm not
sure why you're attempting to talk down to me as if i'm some end user
idiot or something.

And that same community of uber-boobs (with the exception of
Google Groupers which I filter out) are not the ones who find
Usenet, install and NNTP client, configure that NNTP client,
define the NNTP servers, and post in Usenet. That they are in
Usenet elevates them beyond your summarization of typical computer
users.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure about that. I've met many an idiot who
managed to post to usenet with a real client.

All AVs bounce too much regarding coverage, stability, and false
positives; however, users really don't want to keep changing
every 3 months to a different AV program.

That's the nature of the malware game. You can't really blame a
particular AV for that.

Taken out of context.

? I didn't take anything out of context...


The intent was to relay that users, even
expert ones, do not want and will not continually bounce between
security software every few months because some test site ranks a
different product as marginally than what they are currently
using.

I tend to agree with that.


Users may change to a different security program after
awhile but not as often as the test sites switch which one came
out on top for a particular test.

I don't disagree with that, either.



--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are
too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get
by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:08:32 -0000 (UTC)
Diesel wrote:

me as if i'm some end user
idiot or something.


because your computer skills can not pay your bills
thus your day job of wire puller and errand boi.