F-Secure reviewed at Remove-Malware.com:Bad results

The annoying fact is not that F-Secure couldn't remove the sample, but that it displayed tons of popups, it made anything unusable..

 

IMHO any av may have a problem with a piece of malware. Example my daughter got vundo on her's it snuck past Nod3, I removed it with F-secure...is one better than the other? NO bottom line is in the case shown F-secure didn't do well on that one sample, that's all , all AVs have a weak point, nothing is perfect...

 

Yes its all anecdotal. Like I said before, some of the ones hes tested to remove malware, I've used on my friends computers and they didn't work.

I'm a little out of my depth here too cuz I don't know understand the windows lower level stuff. My logic is here that if malware is already installed, it has as deep access to windows as any av does and it is there first. So it can do lots of things to prevent an av from functioning properly. Does that make sense?

 

Gee. maybe software should be design to never let it in the first place. after all if it cant detect it, It sure the hell cant remove it. plain and simple fact is you should stop the infection before it ever got to that stage. its like trying to put a band aid on something that needs stitches. if your AV misses it, Image and restore is the only way to go. to make sure your cut don't get infected once again. But then again some "Fan Boys" hold on to the Removal of a virus as top priority. Even if there favorite AV could not detect the infection in the first place.

 

Slow? How slow?

 

Not as a top priority, but it doesn't hurt to have that quality.

 

I am not saying F-Secure is good or bad, I just feel this test here is really stupid. Once your computer is heavily infected, you don't rely on the av's removal to save your ass. Why? because I can safely say that no one single av could remove all the viruses AND repair your system to a good state. Maybe some av could remove more viruses, some could remove less, but in that case, you'd better go and image your system back. The main function of an AV is real time prevention to keep the viruses away from your computer rather than remove the viruses afterwards, because once infected, your system may be already well destroyed----whether or not your AV can plant itself on that "damaged system" is a question already.
In one word, it's very stupid relying your av to remove 1000 viruses AND repair your totalled system. Gee!!!

 

Days or weeks. It's slow. When I was not a collector in F-Secure system I received reply in some hours. I really don't understand it. If I'm a collector I suppose that I find new malware and that the malware need to be added to detection. I get a lot of new malware directly from creators website sometimes... but I send the samples and need to wait for 1 week to see F-Secure detecting. In 1 week the malware is present worldwidely.
F-Secure has the sample that I sent but it's not detected yet.
It's not only about F-Secure. Most all AV companies are very frustrating about it. Probably Kaspersky and Avira are the two that don't go in that way.

 

I agree about it. The video is being super-estimated. If we search we find a lot of videos showing AVs failing... NOD32, kaspersky, Avira, F-Secure... All fail sometimes.

 

That's true but instead of giving that amount of popups couldn't it just say that the threat couldn't be removed? Or perhaps the adware was specifically designed for F-Secure?

 

You are super-estimating the video.
You show something like it and say that F-Secure is a bullshit that is no functional and do nothing about protection.
Firstly, we know that no AV detects 100% of malwares. Second, the malware in video is already in the system. It's more difficult to remove an installed malware.
I consider that F-Secure failed not by detection but about the difficulty to remove the installed malware and a lot of pop-ups that it showed.
Despite the failing I say that at least F-Secure tried. Probably many AVs haven't detected the malware.
I see difficulty of F-Secure to change the number of processes the AV uses (despite less resource usage 14 processes scare users) because they created an structure based in these processes. I criticizes other aspects of F-Secure and I think they can improve the AV faster. But get F-Secure and define it as garbage because it didn't remove a sample and put F-Secure in the same level of poor AVs because of one sample and/or one fail is so sensationalistic and nonsense that I have to think if have no other companies behind the "news".
This kind of proclamation coming from users of NOD32/Norton/Dr.Web and other AVs that I consider totally poor is trust-less.
We can see a lot of videos of fails of all AV software. If we want we can create a lot of videos of many AVs with the same purpose.

 

That's why you have Prevention as your first line of defense, Not detection.

Josh

 

The Comodo slogan again. Too bad it isn't of much use unless you know what it is you're preventing.

 

Actually detection is prevention by itself... If you detect something before you execute it, isn't that prevention? I think it is...

 

No, you have to detect before you can protect. Protection is meaningless if it never detects anything. So you detect first, then protect, or clean.

 

I see your point, but how do you know you are protecting against malware if there is no detection. Hence my sig. Works well Avira detects and a reboot with SD protects.

 

cant argue with that. As long as either approach works, is what counts.

 

Detection= Signatures.
Prevention= Behaviour, etc.

How can "detection" detect something if it's not in the baddie list? If an AV doesn't have a signature for example, you're pretty much gone, and NO AV detects everything under the sun. Even testing organizations don't have every malware in the world to test AV's, But this is for another day.

 

But how many times has Aigle shown where protection software lets something pass. In the end, their is no horse and cart as far as first, you just want to make sure you have a horse and cart.

 

All in all layered security is the way forward.

Prevention
Detection
Cure.

 

I agree with you, but don't you think that the same result can be obtained using a multi-layered defense especially HIPS-based ?

 

They can't get enough processes...I think I counted 16. :S