<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Antivirus Test</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/</link>
	<description>A technology blog covering software, mobile phones, gadgets, security, the Internet and other relevant areas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:51:56 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sensibleguy</title>
		<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/#comment-225437</link>
		<dc:creator>sensibleguy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=269#comment-225437</guid>
		<description>actually we cant trust any antivirus software because viruses are getting into pc still when an antivirus software is still installed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually we cant trust any antivirus software because viruses are getting into pc still when an antivirus software is still installed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kurt</title>
		<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/#comment-780</link>
		<dc:creator>kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=269#comment-780</guid>
		<description>it&#039;s difficult to use the test as a descriminator for which products you can trust and which ones you can&#039;t when all the products had such similar scores... combined with the question of how many of the samples really were viruses, it&#039;s impossible to tell which one really had the best score and by what margin did others really fall short...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>it&#8217;s difficult to use the test as a descriminator for which products you can trust and which ones you can&#8217;t when all the products had such similar scores&#8230; combined with the question of how many of the samples really were viruses, it&#8217;s impossible to tell which one really had the best score and by what margin did others really fall short&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/#comment-776</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2006 09:18:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=269#comment-776</guid>
		<description>I agree with you that the results are not the non plus ultra  but they probably help you in your decision which you should use and trust.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you that the results are not the non plus ultra  but they probably help you in your decision which you should use and trust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rwkohio</title>
		<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/#comment-771</link>
		<dc:creator>rwkohio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=269#comment-771</guid>
		<description>I use AVG Free, NOD32 and Avast! at home (on different PCs) and they all seem to be effective. One nice feature with Avast! is that you can do a boot-time scan, which can help catch some trojans before they get loaded into memory.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I use AVG Free, NOD32 and Avast! at home (on different PCs) and they all seem to be effective. One nice feature with Avast! is that you can do a boot-time scan, which can help catch some trojans before they get loaded into memory.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kurt</title>
		<link>http://www.ghacks.net/2006/01/06/antivirus-test/#comment-770</link>
		<dc:creator>kurt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:56:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=269#comment-770</guid>
		<description>unfortunately the test is probably worthless... with only 10,000 samples they&#039;ve sampled at most about 7% of the virus population, and there&#039;s no way to tell if that sample is representative of the whole virus population (in fact there&#039;s little reason to believe there is such a thing as a &#039;representative sample&#039; in this context)...

further, the documentation for the test gives no information on how the samples were validated (just because a virus scanner calls something a virus doesn&#039;t mean it really is one)... there&#039;s a great deal of so-called scanner fodder out there that doesn&#039;t actually self-replicate...

many anti-virus tests are invalid on these two points alone... few people/organizations have the resources to do proper anti-virus testing, and without proper methods the results are suspect at best...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>unfortunately the test is probably worthless&#8230; with only 10,000 samples they&#8217;ve sampled at most about 7% of the virus population, and there&#8217;s no way to tell if that sample is representative of the whole virus population (in fact there&#8217;s little reason to believe there is such a thing as a &#8216;representative sample&#8217; in this context)&#8230;</p>
<p>further, the documentation for the test gives no information on how the samples were validated (just because a virus scanner calls something a virus doesn&#8217;t mean it really is one)&#8230; there&#8217;s a great deal of so-called scanner fodder out there that doesn&#8217;t actually self-replicate&#8230;</p>
<p>many anti-virus tests are invalid on these two points alone&#8230; few people/organizations have the resources to do proper anti-virus testing, and without proper methods the results are suspect at best&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
