Immunet Protect

[JonM33]

Malware links aren't a valid test. What about active scanning? What about P2P scanning? E-mail scanning? IM scanning?

Please stop your "testing" because it isn't proven, it's biased and it's full of variables that you failed to address.

All your opinion.

If you don't believe it's valid, then don't read any of it.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll continue my efforts.

Hard not to read it when you put it in all of your posts as if it's a valid reference. Only way to not "read" it is if I add you to my ignore list and I'd rather not do that here. Too many intelligent people with valuable knowledge and opinions.

 

[TheIgster]

Hard not to read it when you put it in all of your posts as if it's a valid reference. Only way to not "read" it is if I add you to my ignore list and I'd rather not do that here. Too many intelligent people with valuable knowledge and opinions.

Um, all of my posts? We are talking about system security here are we not? I simply stated my experience with a product that is VERY VALID thank you very much, in a thread that I MYSELF started.

What seems to be your issue with me? If you don't want to read my posts, add me to your ignore list but stop trying to act like your opinion is more valid than mine because it is not.

 

[JonM33]

Hard not to read it when you put it in all of your posts as if it's a valid reference. Only way to not "read" it is if I add you to my ignore list and I'd rather not do that here. Too many intelligent people with valuable knowledge and opinions.

Um, all of my posts? We are talking about system security here are we not? I simply stated my experience with a product that is VERY VALID thank you very much, in a thread that I MYSELF started.

What seems to be your issue with me? If you don't want to read my posts, add me to your ignore list but stop trying to act like your opinion is more valid than mine because it is not.

Oh, so it's an experience with a "valid" product and not a review of AV malware detection rates? I see!

I never "acted" like my opinion is more valid than yours. I merely pointed out that if you are going to test the malware protection capability of AV software then do it correctly and don't leave out so many unanswered variables.

This is synonymous with any review you see, whether software or hardware. You aren't going to see some video card benchmark with only one 3D test are you? No, they are generally going to use multiple tests using various 3D games/engines to show all the strengths and weaknesses. You need to do the same with AV software comparison. You can't just test it against one thing and call it a day...honestly.

 

[TheIgster]

I never "acted" like my opinion is more valid than yours. I merely pointed out that if you are going to test the malware protection capability of AV software then do it correctly and don't leave out so many unanswered variables.

What?

I can do MY tests anyway I wish. If people do not think the tests are valid, then they can ignore them and move on.

Amazing...do it correctly...lol. Correctly as in YOUR way? Please...:huh:

 

[GeorgeB]

Just tried the latest version. Did my usual test to see how well it would due against a few zero day malware.

I removed the software after the test. It did not detect one thing, pure FAIL and not recommended to install.

 

[JonM33]

What?

I can do MY tests anyway I wish. If people do not think the tests are valid, then they can ignore them and move on.

Amazing...do it correctly...lol. Correctly as in YOUR way? Please...:huh:

1. Calm down.
2. It's not "my" way. It's the proper way for any comprehensive review. I didn't make the rules, I just follow them. Here's a very good example: AnandTech: AMD?s Radeon HD 5830: A Filler Card at the Wrong Price
3. Indeed these are your tests. The issue is that you keep posting them as a statistical guideline for an AV program's capability. AV programs do a lot more than just scan the links that you click on.

 

[TheIgster]

1. Calm down.

I'm just fine thanks.

2. It's not "my" way. It's the proper way for any comprehensive review. I didn't make the rules, I just follow them. Here's a very good example: AnandTech: AMD?s Radeon HD 5830: A Filler Card at the Wrong Price

Doesn't matter. I did the tests the way I did the tests. I don't care about the "rules" as you state them or anyone else. Why can't my tests just be that, my tests. I'm not a professional and I stated so. I didn't do any reviews professionally for any magazine or web site or get paid for said tests. They were my own personal tests based on my own "guidelines" that I set. You have no basis for your argument. How can you argue my tests are wrong when I am the person who "created" the testing method for my own personal tests?

3. Indeed these are your tests. The issue is that you keep posting them as a statistical guideline for an AV program's capability. AV programs do a lot more than just scan the links that you click on.

No, I don't post them as a statistical guideline. I stated my experience with this product in the tests that I performed. People are adults and can take what they want from the tests that I do. If they think they are faulty, then they can ignore my results and move on, as you should. I can still state my test results and my opinion based on my testing if I wish to do so.

 

[Victek]

folks may be interested to know that Immunet Protect has added ClamAV to it's cloud protection. There is a new client reflecting this partnership. More information here:

Clam AntiVirus

It will be interesting to see how this impacts detection rates

Edit: I'm hoping TheIgster will kick in here and throw his tests at it. Though they may be informal I'm interested...

 

[antharr]

Trying now. Thanks.