Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral
  1. Fabrian, your reply has surely tarnished image of emsisoft which i was having. i never forced you for anything. i just requsted points of engine options, then you said only pup is thing which is major reason advantge of keeping emsisoft engine.i never denied thhat. i jusst told you to give some example commparision which you have never produced, you just gave numebr (i will not repeat that request again) you asked false psotivie of emsisoft which i produced from my side. let me tell you verymuch frank and clear that i do not trust on blog wihout some justifying evidence for decision changing things ( not for small things). (why emsisoft putting av-c results and other detection or award result in emsisoft website? reason could be to make clear picture of presenting best thing of emeisoft product which is called marketing to pull customer for using product) when i got this errror run time during OS, i had to uninstall it already(emsisoft old version). if i get error again then surely wihtout asking to anyone i will just uninstall becz i can not take risk to format my OS.
  2. Fabian, Position does not required to tell truth to people. i hope you would agree. I also hope emsisoft will respect truth irrespective of position of person of this forum, No one can tell wrong thing in air including you, me and others in this forum let me know if this statement is wrong ( ) . i saw that you did not say anything on that. i posted malwaretips link for 1# adware for which you already agrred that for that specific post detection, bitdefender detected that pup. if any member tell here that this thing does not matter it mean that person does not know technical details himself and his supporters also.
  3. again i am telling you that i just gave example of youtube. i did not tell shut up. i just said person to read post which that person denied. anyone who is commenting should read all content in totality, understand it and then only comment. if any person talks in air without producing transparent supporting proof, then you can understand that proverb applies to whom. i m not owner of any AV or employee of any AV. i m just user. i said that for new sample detection, for which i produced proof. (regarding, your kaspersky, bitdefender as above) i also produced malwaretips link of adware which you also agreed and if you still want to disagree about knowledge then its not good thing. i have trust in you fabian for which you said that pup traces are detected by emsisoft (you told from my screen post but i did not see your post siting same thing which i was continously asking specially for that your blog which says that bitdefender detected just 37% pup while emsisoft 79%). anyway i do not want to repeat questions again.
  4. fabian, what you wanted to tell here? i did not get. if you are telling to me that i dont know. then you are behind me on that specific topic although you are from development side from emsisoft. people want proof which any one shold be able to understand. without proof anyone can talk in air which will be meaningless.
  5. Alexstrasza, people select av also based on false postive also which you missed in your reply. thats what i wanted to tell in one of my reply. becz it gave run time error. emsisoft earlier used ikarus but due to many false positive, they took bitdefender in their product and removed ikarus. fabian, thats what exactly i asked from you, if you can post threat detection sample detected by kaspersky new zero day , which is not detected by bitdefender i would appreciate. but before that i already asked you to post comparision video of pup detection between bitdefender and emsioft. but you have not done yet. you asked me evidence of false positive of emsisoft which i produced here but you did not produce any evidence you just said things only without any evidence. Feel like you dont want to post then its ur choice.
  6. Jerky, if you do not know details. then do not comments which is non techincal.
  7. Jerky, i m sure you have not read above reply. i already said final call is upto on emsisoft only. for you, please read above reply in details and then comments. becz your questions or arguments were already answered.
  8. Vetaran, again i m posting evidence to update you about detection fundamental. below was new sample 933# , bitdefender detected 933/933, while kaspersky only 410/933 in first scan. i want to update you that for new sample or zero day malware, bitdefender is only first one. 2nd is youtube video comparision between avira, avg, kaspersky, bitdefender, emsisoft in which btidefender detected highest for new sample, emsisoft detected becz its using bitdefender engine. avira and kaspersky was lower in new sample (around 1500 new zero day sample) detection. you can check yourself in youtube. becz its true transparent video comparision. you are development side from emsisoft. so i have doubt that you missed such things. its difficult to digest brother. http://malwaretips.com/threads/trojan-adware-kazy-packed-933-samples.45576/ again, you are telling statement for pup detection, you are not providing comparision evidence of pup detection between emsisoft and bitdefender. why?
  9. Veteran, let me upgrade you with information that while emsisoft selected bitddefneder engine, reason would surely be (1) detection (2) cost. if you want to tell that detection of bitdefender is last priority reason for decision of taking bitdefender engine then its wrong. everyone knows that . better i would suggest you to ask internally to your decision maker. other reason for pucharing bitdefender licence will be there but they will not be main top ten reason for it thats what i want to tell. i m not saying that others reasons are useless..other reasons are also imporatant but yes detection is important reason along with cost. . if you do not respect bitdfender detection then its wrong becz you are using bitdefender engine thats what i want to tell you. ( i know story of emsisoft who used ikarus and removed becz ikarus had many false positive) if you still feel that bitdefender detection is lower than emsisosft let us know. 2nd is that why you failed to porvide evidence that emsisoft detected pup/adware more than btidefender. i did not say tht you provide you tube video or others.i gave example of youtube or others. i said you post any link here even your personal link video in which emsisoft detected pup/adware more than bitdefender. becz your article claims that emsisoft detected more pup/adware than bitdefender. so it meant emsisoft/you might have some detection result document or anyting basis which you posted that article. you can post any thing comparision detection of pup/adware between bitdefender and emsisoft. meanwhile i would be posting here adware result of emsisoft and bitdefender so all can be on same understanding. i am still waiting post from your side on this. 3rd is "thanks for your comments for detection of screen shot posted by me" alexstrasza, i agree with your personal experience that bitdefender has false postivie also i know same is shown in av-c too..but becz of bitdefender signature false detection, i did not have any run time error or application error this is my personal experience. but yes becz emsisoft detected dark komet (A) for id detector. it gave me run time error during OS start every time it gave me irritation and i lost some trust on emeisoft signature. this is critical point. such things shold not happen.
  10. alexstraszza, i wanted to tell that bitdefender detected adware/pup which is clearly visible in that virustotal example link which i posted. it meant that bitdefender was first to detect it. i know one thing that if threat detected by emsisoft first then emsisoft signature will be visible if bitdefender detect that threat after emsisoft, then emsisoft will keep their signature only for this threat which they detected firstly. recently i saw this in malwaretips. you can check also. i want to tell that that pup/adware detected by bitdefender first, and not by emsisoft. i am waiting for evidence of video test comparison of pup/adware detection by bitdefender and emsisoft in which emsisoft detected more pup/adware more than bitdefender as per emsisoft article.
  11. Veteran, i attached pdf copy for emsisoft scan result version in window 7 OS. one more thing, zone alarm also purhcased kaspersky licence. even emsisoft may try this. but you opted bitdefender becz you also know that bitdefender is best. (you see AV-C results of bitdefneder detection test and check youtube videos, it will give same sense) but i dont want to go in this direction becz this is off topic. i saw your article which you shared. can you give some evidence of it? becz its article only. you can share any videos link here in which emsisoft detected pup or adware more than bitdefender. i would appreciate if you post here video link of any result of pup or adware detection comparision of bitdefender and emsisoft. i am posted below link of virustotal of adware detection today's date scanning result. this is taken from malwaretips. you can see that this is adware/pup detected by bitdefender and not by emsisoft. https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/36ca68fa4edcb781b9991697897c46ab335b960d35e138cdd5ba13867bb07a29/analysis/1432306342/
  12. see the attached post. i have attached legible pdf copy for your reference of emsisoft signature detection. this is emsisoft 10 version for window 7 OS. i will revert back by today evening. Doc1.pdf
  13. See pasted above my word file showing detection of emsisoft singature of my OS installed drive scan result now..if you see mobogene its famous application which you will find in google. its shown in detection result by emsisoft only if you check mobogeniue android market app scan detection of virustotal its not detected by bitdefender, this all detections are found in my system drives where application along with OS are installed. i think this mobogenie detection of emsisoft is surely seems to be false positive, i am just giving you example with this. this are not detected by bitdefender. kindly give me your PUP malware detection some files or post of virustotal which shows that emsisoft detected that pup but not detected by bitdefender. becz i have heard first time aboout your said pup detection advantage of emsisoft. your evidence of pup detection by emsisoft and not by bitdefender i would liike to see hence please post it. if you see above regestry also detected by emsisoft signature. i am afraid to quarantine as its seems to be system OS file for which i m not sure. i know emsisoft has host blocker as said in my above post. one more thing which you said about bitdefender that they are not best, i would like to ask you that if they are not best then why emsisoft has bitdefender engine? you do detection test by emsisoft signature of one large sample file and do detection on demand test by bitdefender then you will surely find that malware signature detection of bitdefender is better than emsisoft.
  14. everyone knows that bitdefender is best in signature detection, you can check youtube videos and av-comparatives test for same. even emsisoft realized this thing which could be reason that emsisoft has bitdefender engine version 11 in emsisoft antimalware 10 version. going foward in future no one will have time to submit false positive of emsisoft signature specially for new released window like 7,8, 10. this will add flexibility to user & users time will be saved on submission of false positive of emsisoft signature. User who want negligible false positive with high detection (99.7% approximately taking example for comparision) will opt bitdefender, user who want more than negligible false positive (some false positive) with little high detection rate (99.9% approximately taking example for comparision only) will opt both bitdefender and emsisoft.
  • Create New...