> This gets down to marketing hype.  If TBAV detects 512 Jerusalem
 > variants with "inexact identification" and McAfee detects 450 with
 > "exact identification", which is the better scanner ?
Marketroids push the "exact identification is better because you're sure
of exact disinfection" barrow all the time, but it's basically just one
of many flavors of snake oil aimed at professional IT technowankers.
Granted, mis-identification can cause problems in _some_ circumstances
(McAfee Scan tagging No Frills as Feist and trashing the files beyond
repair on disinfection is a classic example) but if a scanner handles a
virus properly with "family" identification then "exact" identification
might be nice but it's NOT essential.
 > Take a look at the versions of the programs being tested.  Last time I
 > looked, both Hamburg and Tampere were way behind.
Minor panic a couple of days ago when we learned that Professor Klaus
Brunnstein of the University of Hamburg Virus Test Centre was using AVP
v3.0 Build 115 in his latest test comparison ... Build 117 has been out
for WEEKS!
 > To be "fair", testers should point out that if the opposition want to
 > get a better score they should update their programs more frequently.
 > Why the fuck should program A be penalized for being faster off the mark
 > with new viruses then program B ?  That SUCKS severely!
Agreed.
---
---------------