I have not heard of that tool in particular. Nor is it completely representative of all that is out there. There is a lot of new potential in such 'behavior' based tools now turning up. That is both good news and bad. There is a much increased potential to flag previously unknown malware on a timely basis. But as for this tool, there is a lot of potential for 'false positives' - as was reportedl:
Quote:
|
Some innocent programs were identified as threats. Removal process temporarily damaged system files in one test.
|
Similarly, I have been test-using several such highly regarded tools with mixed results:
One tool has detected absolutely nothing to date (since I expect to be and have been mostly clean, anyway).
Another highly rated tool has taken issue with non-threatening behavioral non-issues detected in tools provided by McAfee and DELL.
Users who blindly trust any such determinations can get into serious trouble. By way of additional examples, I have had three (3) serious initial 'false positive' sessions detected by the highly regarded 'Spyware Doctor' over the last four (4) months. Accordingly, I continue to trust nothing unless I first research the issues because of specific confidence in my generally over-analysed and protected environment, and my safe surfing habits.
Our best recommendations to users come from our very use of such tools that we ourselves experience and have confidence in. At present, my confidence level is not particularly high on behavior based determinations because I have seen how downright dangerous such tools might be without a high dose of user skepticism. But, that is expecting too much of the very users these tools intend to help.
