Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

The DonationCoder "Superior Antivirus" Award/Certification

<< < (9/13) > >>

Stoic Joker:
fair enough -- it is sort of outside the scope of the other requirements.
-mouser (December 05, 2009, 04:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not so sure...as it falls heavily into the user friendliness category. Many installs/updates require or at least strongly suggest that the AV software be temporarily disabled while they are running. If the AV software can not be disabled (uninstalling doesn't count here), then the AV software is basically begging-for-a-fight with what ever may innocently need its draconian iron glove out of the way for a moment. Who suffers? ...The user.

Proactive vs. reactive scanning mode availability is directly related to that central (key) point.

JavaJones:
Most AV apps I've ever seen or worked with can be temporarily disabled. That's different than being explicitly friendly to co-existing with other AV apps or having a mode where they're easily installed but have all "active" scanning disabled, and only available for "on-demand".

Something I forgot to mention also is that an increasing number of AV vendors now have scan-only (i.e. "on demand") solutions in the form of web-based (though in many cases not really web-based) on-demand scanners. BitDefender, Kaspersky, TrendMicro, Panda, NOD32, and more. So maybe these are the solution?

- Oshyan

longrun:
I think this discussion misses the point to some extent: the goal is to eliminate false positives, not explain them. Given a choice between product A, which produces almost no false positives but offers no explanation, and product B, which produces reams of them but explains them perfectly, I'd choose A.

mouser:
I think this discussion misses the point to some extent: the goal is to eliminate false positives, not explain them.
--- End quote ---

Well sure, but the problem is that it's hard to think of concrete "regulations" or guidelines that would reduce false positives.  In addition the antivirus companies are scored based on number of detections and rarely if ever on the number of false positives so they have little motivation to reduce them.

So I think this award is a recognition that we can't get rid of "false positives" but instea is an attempt to make sure that when an antivirus does alert, it is honest with the user about the assessment of the situation.

In my opinion, I would rather have an antivirus pop up an alert to me saying that it found something that *might* be problematic, and give me enough information to decide if it is, than to keep quiet or scream that the house is on fire.

EDIT: One thing that would reduce the number of false positives is if antivirus benchmarking sites evaluated and scored and reported on the number of false positives in antivirus products.  I'm not sure how our award could address that though.

DocSavage:
RANT!
probably off the true topic, but I often wish for an AV UI that is understandable to non-experts. (me). i wish there were some agreed on naming convention. What in the world is "Resident Shield" anyway & do I need a "Network Shield, P2P Shield, Standard Shield or Web Shield" also? Am I going up in smoke without a "Link Scanner" or a "RootKit" warning? Is "Defender" enough? Do I need "MS Security Essentials" also? Or will all these guys fight each other & send my machine up in smoke?
Oh Well. I guess I have stumbled on a good mix since I don't seem to get Virus or Trojan infections. (that I know of!?) :huh:
dk

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page