I have found most default settings to provide minimal protection and don’t do a fair job of protection. Increasing protection is not easy for the average user and increased protection usually affects performance and usability. Intruders are betting on the average user not to adjust their “expert” settings.

Most software defaults don’t include rootkits, high detection heurisitics, “all” packers, “all files”, “all” archives, offline files, etc. Defaults are set for quick or fast scans, not full scans. Many of them don’t allow for easy “boot time” scans meaning that some might require the user to create a boot disc. Most users don’t take the time or know how to do this. You might say these are not important, but most of my customers are hit by virii that exploit these settings. As a pc tech, it is my business to deal with virii everyday and educate the users. Too bad the software is too complicate for the average user. They think that off-the-shelf is ready to use and will protect them against any and all malware.

Are these factors considered during the tests? Who cares if Norton is fast under minimal protection, can it still be the fastest when protection levels are increased? What impact does increased protection play on performance?

This message is not just intended for the author and others reading this but more important that the publishers get this message when programming the software.