Jump to content

Calendar of Updates


Recommended Posts

  • Staff

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=p...G=Google+Search

Google for yourself .

I cant find a HJT log with regsort v1.1.5 from this year .

We were not for sale then .

Also if a study does not have at least a few infections from each family then it does no mean anything anyway .

I have said this a few other times but will say it again .

If there is no way to catch malware in the real world any more than I will not be adding it .

There are vendors that spend a lot of time padding their numbers with pointless definitions (long dead infections) , we think this is dishonest .

I see that they have linked here so let me put fourth a real challenge .

Gather up some malware that has existed for less than 5 days and test that . Not just one or two either , get like 20 unique infections from the last 5 days .

There would be real truth in that .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gather up some malware that has existed for less than 5 days and test that . Not just one or two either , get like 20 unique infections from the last 5 days .
I was only curious as to why that was a featured Event for 21st April

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?act=calendar

If you feel this is not worth discussing then please hide or delete this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the author of those tests states that they were only to demonstrate the importance of having more than one anti-malware scanner- nothing more. And I think that was well demonstrated. It was not meant as a comprehensive comparative of the scanners' detection capabilities (nor could it be, with only 3 threats tested), nor as a basis on which products to use (all were specifically recommended by the author).

What I find most interesting is that a larger test using 20 rogues is planned by the author. Unlike for the AV industry, where independent testing against large databases exists (av-comparatives, AV-Test, etc) I can find virtually no independent/objective comparative tests of anti-malware scanners' ability to detect/remove threats. I see plenty of opinions on these scanners' relative merits (and I particularly respect the opinions of the HJT experts, based on their experience at working logs with these apps) but in the final analysis I think it's time that these scanners were subjected to the same rigorous testing that the AV programs get.

For that reason alone, I applaud the dozleng testing. It ain't much yet, but it's a start in the right direction from a reputable source. With so many anti-malware vendors now offering paid products, I think it's time the industry was subject to some impartial scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
Back to top
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This site uses cookies - We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.