Fellow Creatures, Recently there have been some rather heated debates on false positives, which have done harm to the user's systems. It would appear that some, unless I have misunderstood, default settings on many AVs are set to delete without user decision, which is understandable because the average user would not know how to decide. I remember one I was using that was set to: if can not clean then delete, can not remember which one. My question is do the AV producers run their signatures through any testings on real systems before releasing them for download to their customers. I would think yes, but am not sure. This could and would also be the same for ATs too. Or any malware program. But AVs are so must have. I'm really restricting the question some what. Certainly we all agree that there are false positives, but how do the companies avoid them. What makes one AV company have fewer then another? You would think extra care would be taken to avoid a release that would cause system damage no matter how rare an event, because the damage to the AV's reputation would be worse then missing a nasty or being a little later then your nearest competitor with you signature release? Of course an occassional software conflict due to a signature release is understandable. Also some are quicker then others to fix. Of course deciding which are legitimate and which are false reportings from ones customer base in and of itself would be a real task I would think. I would like to know these things as I just do not know. And this issue most certainly would effect my decision on AV purchase.