* This covers anti-malware & anti-virus apps; I wasn't quite sure where to post it. Move this post to another area, if you wish. * I had 12 files in a net download DIR., (a mix of .hta and .txt and .log and .pdf and .exe files) and I scanned this DIR with 7 security apps. Results were: TrojanHunter - gave no file count. SuperAntiSpyware - 12 files, A-Squared - 12 files, Ewido - 12 files, SpySweeper - 18 files, DrWeb - 209 files, Nod32 - 213 files. My point here, or what I'd like to ask, is this: while the two AVs looked deeper than other apps, were I doing a full hard drive scan NOD32 and TrojanHunter are the same ones that most often can't open/peer into or unpack this or that... "a file's locked, in use, packed by this or that..." which to my mind seemingly defeats the stated purpose of a security app (and I may be wrong about that, as to how these apps go about their actual work). I think someone in these forums mentioned that KAV products can open or unpack or check or otherwise peer into almost anything. That true? If so, I don't know if that alone would make KAV products vastly superior but somehow I always find it a bit vexing watching long lists scroll by, and the app saying it can't check file A or B, due to it being packed by this or that. If the app can't check file or files before hand then we're all banking on or assuming that one or more of our apps'd catch something, as it unpacks/uncloaks, to do its work if a file did in fact harbor something not in our best interests? Is it assumed that said file is not "bad" just by virtue of landing on our PCs, until/unless it reveals its true colors of ill will? And given scan results above: are AVs made to dig deeper, or conversely, do the anti-spy/malware apps not have to look as deeply perhaps, in order to do their work?