![]() In this testing, most anti-virus software benefitted from the larger and more thoroughly-researched sample set, with a significant increase in detection rates. In a number of cases (though not all), testing was done with the complete malicious installers, applications, plugins or scripts, as found in the wild. I removed some samples from testing, and the list of samples I published made it more evident exactly what I was testing against. In my next test, I changed my methods a bit. In the interest of fairness, though, I reserved judgement until after my second round of testing. However, the problem with that argument was that the VirusTotal links I provided to the samples used in my test often only identified a portion of the malware, while in some cases a full installer or app was actually used in testing. ![]() For most of the rest of the samples, I was told that MacScan did not detect them because they were just parts of the malware, not the whole thing as found in the wild. Other companies had expressed concern about the same items. ![]() They had some legitimate concerns about some of the malware in that test. Unfortunately, it failed my tests abysmally! The question that came to mind immediately was: why?Īfter my first test, I contacted SecureMac for comments. It has a long history with the Mac, having been around since the very first versions of Mac OS X. MacScan, made by SecureMac, is one of only a very few Mac-only anti-malware tools. February 12th, 2013 at 5:53 PM EST, modifiedĪfter testing many different anti-virus programs over the last few months, I found something that disturbed me greatly.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |