Dustin Cook wrote:


> I don't dispute that BugHunter is retroactive in what it does, and I
> wouldn't want anyone to think they are 100% safe regardless of the
> software they use, but I still believe some protection, even if it's
> retroactive in nature is better than none.


Aside from the added complexity and the inability of the user to judge the
output of the mentioned program, what exactly is a ****load of false
positives worth? Say it, f.e., claims that there's some oh-so-bad "tracking
cookie", and as well a trojan horse in user32.dll (because it doesn't match
the original one any more, probably due to a normal update). Now it deletes
both, demands a shutdown, and the system doesn't boot up anymore.

Just try running it over a completely fresh install of Windows, or even over
a well secured system with a lot of known-good third-party software, and the
shame of its report. Same goes for almost any malware scanner under the sun.