I posed this question to Eset yesterday in the thread “Nod 32 Not Detecting Viruses”, but that thread was closed before they had a sufficient opportunity to respond. Some people I’ve been in contact with believe the closing of that thread amounted to overt censorship which was orchestrated by Eset, so they could avoid answering my question. But I told them no way, because there are numerous other Internet forums and newsgroups available for me to post in which they have no control over. So censoring me in this forum would be pointless--and would make them look EXTREMELY bad in the other forums, etc. Besides, I have a news release I’m working on that an international news media conglomerate has already expressed interest in. In any event, I don’t believe Wilders Security administrators could be pressured into engaging in such blatant censorship. As the word would soon spread around the Internet that the views expressed on this forum ‘didn’t reflect the whole story‘. And my experience, so far, has been that as long as your statements are factual, your post will not be deleted or otherwise censored. The following is an open letter I posted to the Eset Moderator named Marcos: “Congratulations on the continued improvement of your program--it’s looking better and better all the time. Now if you could just fix that darn security hole so prospective customers could rely on your program to work ALL of the time. You know, the hole that allows a kid to shut your million dollar program down with a free worm. Any chance that you could provide an estimated date as to when this hole will be patched?? I realize that your competitors subject their customers to the same security flaw. But why not be the first to set an example, and thereby establish a reputation as a TRUE leader in your industry? As this would be far better than the alternative--which is the embarrassment of a competitor beating you to the fix. It would be a prestigious opportunity that’s lost to you forever--and probably something that your company would regret forever. Especially as the AV market heats up and becomes more competitive, since you'll need every marketing edge you can get. Remember, the $7,500 a year software programmers in India will be nipping at your heels before you know it. So NOW is the time to crank things up and establish a pace FAR ahead of the pack. Imagine being able to prominently advertise on your web site “The industry leader in anti-virus programs. We are the first company in our industry to patch the gaping hole that allows a 13-year-old kid to shut down your defenses with a worm.” Or something along that line. And just think of all the extra market share you’d snatch away from you’re competitors as they’re scrambling to catch up with you. The bottom line is that someone WILL fix this flaw in the near future--so why not let it be you, so you can be the industry leader instead of just part of a long line of followers? Also, consider how much better you'll sleep at night knowing that you're no longer forcing your customers to use the equivalent of a security guard who can have sleeping pills dropped into his water bottle while he's on his rounds. Cordially, Jack” And here’s a previous letter I posted to Marcos in the same thread, that he apparently didn‘t have time to respond to either: “Marcos, I’d like to complement you on your program, as I think it’s very nice after reading so much about it--and I think it has a lot of potential. Although I have no connection with the software industry, I’d venture to guess that it has a market value in excess of $1 million. But the problem is that it can be surreptitiously disabled by a 13-year-old hacker with a free worm, leaving users with ZERO protection. So after you fix this massive security hole, please let me know--as I’d love to buy NOD32 when I‘m able to rely on it. Jack” So this new thread will now give them an opportunity to publicly respond to this issue and disclose how they intend to deal with it. As I’m sure they realize ‘the enquiring minds’ of 99.9% of their customers who use forums will be interested in their response.