Virus Guy wrote:
> Far Canal wrote:
>
>> Snip the same old bollocks you've posted before.
>>
>> Here's a clue, we ain't interested
>
> What's your problem?
>
> The article is right. AV software is not catching exploits as they
> enter the typical system via browsing,

if they have a signature for it, they'll catch it when it's written to
disk...

> and they are not able to keep
> up in real time with new varients.

it's true that they often can't detect new/unknown malware, but novelty
is one of the few advantages malware can have that expires over time...

> The best they can do now is alert
> you to the odd miscellaneous leftover files that got onto your system
> ->a month ago<-, and more and more they either can't get at access to
> them to get rid of them, or they come back at your next start-up.

the problem here is that of mismatched expectations... people have, for
quite some time, operated under the delusion that known virus/malware
scanning was the be-all and end-all of anti-malware... however just
about every single anti-virus professional to have participated in
alt.comp.virus (and that includes a number of company heads like dr.
solly and frisk) has made it clear that known-virus scanning alone was
not complete protection and that people would be better off using
multi-layered approaches...

the people perpetuating the ridiculous notion that av was supposed to
protect you from everything are shifty-eyed marketroids and hack
reporters like the author of that article...

--
"it's not the right time to be sober
now the idiots have taken over
spreading like a social cancer,
is there an answer?"