I've to admit that I was going to ask how do you guys compare EAM with Malwarebytes then I understood that this is an antivirus not an antimalware, well as we commonly understand it. Also what do you guys think of the "leading in comparative" from their web page?
EAM is a full-fledge antivirus, until few years ago, it was an anti-malware and could be used as a companion AV (the same way as MBAM). MBAM v1.75 to 2.xx was extremely good and efficient , since v3 they try to be a full-fledge AV too (with more or less success, based on users reactions across various security forums). which one? i dont find it.
i think every company in the world does it, if they don't they should do something else Now why i created this thread here at MDL? I knew the place, lurking here as guest since ages especially for Windows' ISOs, i recognized its value and knew some guys here also active on the security forum is used to moderate (way before i work for Emsisoft). So joining here was not part of a marketing "scheme" but just MY decision and if i can do my job at same time, why not. Anyway i could created an account long time ago, but i never felt the need, since i'm mostly a reader than poster about MDL main contents. Now saying stuff like " we don't sell much so we have to come here while others vendors don't" is so amusing.. MDL isn't the best place for a security vendor to advertise, there is not much discussion about security, so you don't see much other vendors coming. Note that i was authorized to do so, i asked the staff beforehand, i don't spam the board with ads, so if people have issues to have vendors posting here they can just ignore this thread or even me; not an hard thing to do, i won't mind much . Now that was said, back to the topic. thank you
As you write on a private level, I will answer there. Unlike the Firefox fellow in his thread, you do work in an acceptable way, not trying to force your stuff down others throat. Although, on a site like MDL I expect a published test result to be NEUTRAL. And not the one picked out from all of the other tests, because it favors a certain company. As I wrote I find EVERY Anti Malware Programm unnecessary. Windows Defender and an occasional Malwarebytes or Emisoft deeper scan (if it really is deeper, we will never know) totally sufficient. Not one of the heavy AV softwares in the WRT has been able to find any malware ever on my computer with that system in the last years. From long experience my basic conviction, as far as people working at IT companies go is, that they never question their jobs, their products or their companies. You are all basically corrupt, in the original sense of that word. Now matter what your company does, you will never stop working there, never refuse whatever unethical crap they will produce. You will rationalise everything away, and count your money! This all in spite the fact that for those who do not think by themselves, there has been a book (The Circle) and and even a movie about this problem out for a few years by now. And yet all those companies still find people willing to get paid for such dirty work, no longer really surprise me, Thank you...
Depend where the said test is posted and by who, if it is on our website it is quite logical and more than expected. Also, it depend of the overall performance of the said product in various tests and who does the tests; in our case we are most of the time well ranked, not the best (we don't often have the fancy "100%" or top rank, like bigger vendors. Indeed Windows Defender is what we used to call it in the scene the "baseline", it was the reference point to evaluate others, but since Creators Update, MS really put efforts on it and made it now more than an acceptable software. Windows Defender is really more oriented towards what we call "prevalent" malware (those most users will really encounter), while most of the security vendors like us focuses, in addition, on "0-days" (the newest nasty ones). 3rd party vendors also add various prevention mechanisms on top of the detection engine, in our case a behavior blocker (monitoring suspicious modificationof the system) and Surf Protection to cover the user. Also you have to take note of the user habits, i'm sure you have decent safe habits, you don't download dozen cracks, surf to suspicious sites or open every unknown mails you have. Unfortunately, many does and get infected, you can see it with the ransomwares catastrophe where users got their sensitive and important datas encrypted. So saying WD is enough is true, but using a 3rd party antivirus can be necessary (and sometimes must be) for some people. So all goes down finally on the personal taste of the user and how he behaves online. In the absolute you are right, if we work for a company, we support and promote it, especially me, my position being in the marketing department. That is common sense, and i don't know anyone who doesn't. And those who "disclose skeletons-in-the-closet" are often (and i say often) those who got refused something they expected, so it is more by revenge than benevolences and pure heart... Now as i said earlier, As a ex-moderator in a very popular security forums for more than 7 years before working for my company, i have a bit of knowledge about how things works behind the scene, things obscure to most people. I saw the movie, was quite good, this is human nature, people need to survive, and make their choice based on their priority in life. Some choose to work for crap companies, maybe they have a solid reason to do so, whatever it is financial or else. I applied especially to my company because i know and witnessed closely the values and principles it has, we really cares of our customers, sometimes we do things that some of them dislike but we try to compensate for it, you can't please everyone anyway. You can be biased about your company, that is normal to me, but you can still decide which company you works with. I could have worked for another company offering me a bigger salary, i didn't. Again all is down to personal choices and values. Humans are just human after all Thank you.
I agree, not saying most labs tested products at default settings, which is not the right thing to do; for example how can you assess a product correctly with a static test (the on-acess scan of a folder full of samples) when the product is set by default to scan when files are modified... Lately some new labs shows up with seems to be a better methodology; let see.