cbgerry wrote:
> On Apr 7, 10:35 am, Virus Guy <V...@Guy.com> 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, and they are not able to keep
>> up in real time with new varients. 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.
>
> ==========================>
>
> Do you know what "heurisitics" is in antivirus ?

unfortunately, heuristic technology is not the savior you seem to think
it is... retrospective testing by the likes of av-comparatives.org have
revealed that heuristics are generally not all that good at detecting
new/unknown malware (which is the very class of malware it's supposed to
help with)... last time i checked i think the highest detection rate was
somewhere in the 50th percentile... of course that's better than
nothing, but it still falls far short of the claim of detecting
"virtually all viruses and worms" you made further on...

> For the early years
> of 2000 on, Norton antivirus hjas always been kinown for this feature

2000? heuristics predate that by a rather wide margin...

> and as part of it's selloing feature and track record for blocking
> virtually all viruses and worms.

someone has been filling your head with lies, i'm afraid...

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