Scut AntiVirus Solutions verfügbar, Kennt das jemand? Einstellungen

[Gast_Nightwatch_*]

Hi

Ich bin vorhin zufällig über ein Youtube-Review gestolpert, das über das obengenannte Programm berichtete. Es scheint sich um einen ganz neuen Anbieter zu handeln, der mit seinen Produkten erst seit September auf dem Markt ist:

Novus Ordo l.t.d is a new company founded in 2008 that aims exclusively on security information systems. After almost 2 years from the start of the project Scut AntiVirus, Novus Ordo launches Scut AntiVirus product on the market in 8 September 2009.

Homepage:
http://www.novusordo.ro/index.php?meniu=sol

Hier die Produktübersicht:
http://www.novusordo.ro/index.php?meniu=dsc

McAfee´s SiteAdvisor kennt die Seite noch nicht.

Ist das ein reliables Programm, oder ein Fake-Scanner? Habt Ihr davon schonmal gehört?

Gruß,
Nightwatch

[MobiusScutAntiVi...]

Our policy on Scut AntiVirus is to not give false-positive. False-positive is a disgrace to the world of software security, by any expert opinion.

What are you talking in German is not fairplay, you must understand that the following list of antiviruses give many false-positive, in the following order : BitDefender,GDATA,Nod32,McAfee-GW-Edition,A-squared,eSafe,Comodo,DrWeb,eTrust-Vet,K7AntiVirus,VBA32,Fortinet,CAT-QuickHeal,AntiVir,AhnLab-V3,Authentium,AntiVir. Another security specialist may approve what I say here !

List of antivirus which will not give fals-positive, in the following order, are: Kaspersky, F-Secure, AVG, McAfee, Norman (for which I have a great respect), Panda, Symantec,Avast, Ikarus,F-Prot (a very old engine)

As the first forum that I talk ever, I was thinking since last night to give each member of the forum a Scut Total Security license. So that will be done, well understood.

[Virusscanner]

...
What are you talking in German is not fairplay...

In case you're referring to me: I think I was very fair. I didn't criticize you or Scut. To me you just seem to be very optimistic about your product. That's absolutely normal. But I also added that I can't exclude the chances of you being a top class malware specialist.

Of course false positives are annoying, but as long as we have a signature based malware recognition it's what we have to live with. Sometimes you better include a false positive and remove it later than to not include a signature and be sorry afterwards because it was a malware. So a real zero-false-positive policy is about impossible to achieve unless you want to take the risk of missing one or another malware. Because time is an important factor. And since there are plenty of new viruses spread around every day you sometimes have to make a decision. And I'd say you better include a possible false positive if you're not entirely sure at the moment.

Der Beitrag wurde von Virusscanner bearbeitet: 05.11.2009, 14:15