dallas7 Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Although the vaulted Comodo and Hitman Pro found zero threats and Malwarebytes found a link and an inactive executable, languy99 had to babble incoherently for most of his video inventing non-existent problems, a 0-day "slipping by" hallucination and other imbecilic dementia. Then even more senseless prattle about all the things Immunet still "needs." Like a firewall. A behavior blocker. And a... well, everything in suites one needs to PAY FOR. I swear, the few times I've forced myself to watch this blockhead work I felt like an animal in a trap having to gnaw my leg off to escape. But the bottom line: Immunet 3.0 Free kept that system safe from that sample set even if languy99 didn't want to admit it and had to start lying to himself. Much like all the other yoo toob clowns. Good work Immunet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 All his videos are like that. Since when does missing a rogue mean it has bad 0 day? It just means it missed one sample. Which alot of AV's do every day. 2 hour scan time? that certainly doesn't seem right perhaps he's using dial-up internet on the test? lol. Or most likely a bug or some conflict. Tbh, I think he'd manage to be able to compare a cup of coffee to comodo. "it's missing this this and this" Well, Immunet is an AV. if u want the others then add on - u don't buy a car expecting it to fly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokito Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 All his videos are like that. Since when does missing a rogue mean it has bad 0 day? It just means it missed one sample. Which alot of AV's do every day. 2 hour scan time? that certainly doesn't seem right perhaps he's using dial-up internet on the test? lol. Or most likely a bug or some conflict. Tbh, I think he'd manage to be able to compare a cup of coffee to comodo. "it's missing this this and this" Well, Immunet is an AV. if u want the others then add on - u don't buy a car expecting it to fly well the 2 hours scan is right.. theres a post of a user saying that a full scan took 11hours.... was for the review it self... i've contributed to the translation of CIS and have to give some credit to the reviewer... its a honest review... you have to understand that 0 day is one of the major cause of infectiosn in our days.... not having something that catches freshly malware and you are toasted check mrizos avg review.... 2 crapware sites killed is VM.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 What I mean is how can he put it to the ground when it misses "one" malware. A rogue at that which is very common to AV's to miss sicne the program itself is not malicious. If u can show me a antivirus that detects everything then I'll use it! impossible IMO I think it's a good score out of the small sample list he used to only miss one. Rogue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfred Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Sometimes people want to review you with a negative cast, no matter how well you do. The scan time does need work though, 3.0 introduced slower scan times. Here is why: 1. We have unpacking, un-archiving support on by default. There is a performance hit here - we may ship the next drop (3.1) without it on by default. For those of you who want to see speed pick up, turn it off for now. 2. Container support (the above archives I mentioned) is done such that they are opened and then a scan call to the cloud is done synchronously for each file. This is not an efficient way of doing it. The 3.1 version which is in QA now introduces asynchronous lookups for this. We probably need to re-tool the engine to be faster in general and we will. I have to admit though, I am a little confused about the need for speed being a deciding factor for reviewers. Very few people do (or should even bother to) do a full system scan more than once. If you do a full system scan one time and then have real time access protection on (which nearly every AV product has now) you do not need to keep doing full system scans. If I could I would pull 'Scheduled Scanning' out of the product, I think it's a hangover from AV in the 80's but people still really feel they need it. 3.1 will have a few things in it: 1. Better lookup speeds on the containers. 2. Perhaps different default settings for archivers. 3. X64 Rootkit support. 4. iTunes access issue resolved. 5. Sheduled scan issue resolved. 3.1 should ship in Feb, it's in QA now, we will see how it does. Perhaps early March. If I can get away with it the next release will be 3.2 and it will have: 1. TCP support in the agent. 2. Proxy support. 3. Plumbing for our 4.0 release. I expect that will take us into May. Hopefully we can also do an engine review in their as well. al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob.T Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 We added a support doc that provides a workaround for the iTunes issue - please see http://support.immunet.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=25 Thanks, RobT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob.T Posted March 24, 2011 Report Share Posted March 24, 2011 A 3.0.1 public beta is now available: http://forum.immunet.com/index.php?/topic/824-immunet-301-beta-available/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.