(04-05-2010, 04:43 PM)«Ðartz™» Wrote: [ -> ]It is classed as an Anti-Malware product, since this is the area in which it specializes. You have made a fair point, but even once MBAM is activated it is probably still focusing on real-time malware detection. 
And MBAM's real-time protection is pretty poor by todays anti-virus standards.
Not at all. It's updated daily with nice runtime protection.
[/quote]
The run-time protection is poor compared to anti-virus products.
(04-05-2010, 04:44 PM).D0T Wrote: [ -> ]Not at all. It's updated daily with nice runtime protection.
The run-time protection is poor compared to anti-virus products.
[/quote]
Again, I would disagree. But we're all entitled to our own opinion.
But Avast is also good. Great runtime protection.
(04-05-2010, 04:45 PM)«Ðartz™» Wrote: [ -> ]The run-time protection is poor compared to anti-virus products.
Again, I would disagree. But we're all entitled to our own opinion.
But Avast is also good. Great runtime protection.
[/quote]
I agree with you on the Avast! runtime detection. It has high detection rates.
Here is some information to back-up my clams about MalwareBytes Run-Time detection.
Quote:Using 50 positive and unique malware samples, the real-time protection by CounterSpy perform better than Malwarebytes. CounterSpy’s Active Protection has caught 18 out of 50 samples while MBAM’s real-time protection only caught 1 out of 50 but not during the transfer. MBAM's real-time protection only worked when I opened the folder containing the 50 samples.
(CounterSpy was just another product being tested.)
Source: http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-s...56589.aspx
(04-05-2010, 04:48 PM).D0T Wrote: [ -> ]Again, I would disagree. But we're all entitled to our own opinion.
But Avast is also good. Great runtime protection.
I agree with you on the Avast! runtime detection. It has high detection rates.
Here is some information to back-up my clams about MalwareBytes Run-Time detection.
Quote:Using 50 positive and unique malware samples, the real-time protection by CounterSpy perform better than Malwarebytes. CounterSpy’s Active Protection has caught 18 out of 50 samples while MBAM’s real-time protection only caught 1 out of 50 but not during the transfer. MBAM's real-time protection only worked when I opened the folder containing the 50 samples.
(CounterSpy was just another product being tested.)
[/quote]
Doesn't mean it's bad, but I think it's still good.
I use Avast! for runtime and MBAM for scanning (monthly)
(04-05-2010, 04:52 PM)«Ðartz™» Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with you on the Avast! runtime detection. It has high detection rates.
Here is some information to back-up my clams about MalwareBytes Run-Time detection.
Quote:Using 50 positive and unique malware samples, the real-time protection by CounterSpy perform better than Malwarebytes. CounterSpy’s Active Protection has caught 18 out of 50 samples while MBAM’s real-time protection only caught 1 out of 50 but not during the transfer. MBAM's real-time protection only worked when I opened the folder containing the 50 samples.
(CounterSpy was just another product being tested.)
Doesn't mean it's bad, but I think it's still good.
[/quote]
Yeah ok, like you said, everyone is entitled to thier own opinions. I respect your opinion.
What anti-virus are you currently running? Just out of curiosity.
Might want to change the red font, but other than that it looks good. I'm sure new users will take advantage of this.
Backslash is correct. Refrain from using red. I'm sure you'll find a more fitting colour.
Are they in order?
If they are, should I get Kaspersky?
If you want a paid program, yes. If you don't, I can suggest some other free, efficient, AVs.
(04-05-2010, 07:41 PM)Paradoxum Wrote: [ -> ]If you want a paid program, yes. If you don't, I can suggest some other free, efficient, AVs.
I currently have ESET, is Kasper better?