quote:
Conclusion: If a malicious file is not detected as malicious in such a multi online scanner, you cannot automatically conclude, out of this analysis, that some new malware is actually not detected or stopped by your AV product. Online multi scanners do not consider all the other protection technologies!
The last sentence is his actual point. It's 'unfair' to judge a meta scanner against an installed A/V product because the capabilities differ.
I think we got that. But since meta scanners aren't used to protect end user systems, why is he even comparing the two?
I believe it's because IT professionals are using meta scanner results, as a factor in their evaluation of A/V products.
Over time, uploaded 0day malware samples can indicate which A/V companies are superior in detecting them.
What our blogger is leaving out is this:
If Mr. IT Pro is uploading a sample, it's likely because the installed A/V product
has failed to protect the end user. Failed, even with it's full arsenal deployed.
For me, meta scanners introduce a unique bit of competition into the A/V product field. I think vendors are finding that isn't what they'd prefer.
·
