Emsisoft Scanner Tests

[Bear]

Not in my opinion.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/false-alarm-tests

[...]

Not the first time I disagree with av comparatives...many times actually.

So you are saying you agree that a program that has more false positives
but detects more malware is worse than a program with less false positives
but misses more malware?

 

[FromTheRafters]

email.me:

What's not clear here is how you equate a detection rate without
regard for the FPs. Detection rates (and tests generally) always
diminish a rating when FPs are encountered.


Not in my opinion.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/false-alarm-tests

[...]

Not the first time I disagree with av comparatives...many times actually.

So you are saying you agree that a program that has more false positives
but detects more malware is worse than a program with less false positives
but misses more malware?

No, but the comparisons should be weighted by the ratio.

 

[Bear]

Bear wrote:
email.me:

What's not clear here is how you equate a detection rate without
regard for the FPs. Detection rates (and tests generally) always
diminish a rating when FPs are encountered.


Not in my opinion.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/false-alarm-tests

[...]

Not the first time I disagree with av comparatives...many times
actually.

So you are saying you agree that a program that has more false
positives but detects more malware is worse than a program with less
false positives but misses more malware?

No, but the comparisons should be weighted by the ratio.

I disagree. I prefer the most malware to be detected over anything else.

You seem to be doing fine with your methods at any rate eh!

I've been using Emsisoft for quite a while and the false positives are a
mere nothing,

 

[James E. Morrow]

I disagree. I prefer the most malware to be detected over anything else.

You seem to be doing fine with your methods at any rate eh!

I've been using Emsisoft for quite a while and the false positives are a
mere nothing,

When a security program is prone to false positives the user is left in
doubt as to whether the results are reliable. Doubt hinders effective
attack of the virus or malware. It is better for a program to give me
results I can rely on.

I've used Emsisoft software in the past and thought it did a generally
good job. But I found scan times to be very slow. I don't doubt the
software is thorough. But FP is a pain in the ass.

 

[Bear]

When a security program is prone to false positives the user is left
in doubt as to whether the results are reliable. Doubt hinders
effective attack of the virus or malware. It is better for a program
to give me results I can rely on.

I've used Emsisoft software in the past and thought it did a generally
good job. But I found scan times to be very slow. I don't doubt the
software is thorough. But FP is a pain in the ass.

It would be swell if false positives were easy enough to eliminate
without eliminating it's ability to detect the most malware, but it
seems this just isn't possible as there are no other tools that detects
as many real positives as Emsisoft...which is the main attraction. I
don't want a trade off there.

It is always wise to use the scanners to detect (but not clean) and if
you are not capable of determining if the hits are false positives are
not, or determining if the others are malware, you should submit them to
one of the many good online services to verify - SOP,

At any rate, I recommend following the Malware Removal Guide for Windows
instructions for removal.
http://goo.gl/1xrWO+

Now if you are an expert, you should be able to manage the false
positives on your own easily and might not even need the removal guide



--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail