piezo wrote:When you say "the User did not work within the limitations of their protective programs" what exactly does that imply.
As I've said in previous discussions on this type of subject, most Users have an unrealistic expectation of what level of protection to expect from an AV or AS program.
Pretty much all AV and AS protection is based on comparing incoming data streams to a set of pre-defined definitions and then blocking or removing any that correspond to known infections.
Obviously a system like this depends on an up to date set of definitions to be effective, but unfortunately the number of new infections (or new variations of old infections) being released onto the Internet every day, means that the AV and AS companies are playing catch up all the time, and there will always be a time slot where some infections remain unidentified by your AV and AS until a definition is produced for it.
To try and get round this situation, most AV and AS programs now contain a set of heuristic algorithms that "detect" infections by means of their behaviour rather than by any positive recognition of specific coding. Sadly this method is still prone to false positives, even though the heuristic algorithms are improving.
Most people think that the software itself is responsible for protecting them from malware.
Which is sadly where most people are wrong. AV and AS programs should be regarded more as a way to limit
their risks of contracting malware rather than as a complete protection against malware.
This does not mean that you should not use an AV and AS program, as surfing without one is a whole lot riskier than surfing with them installed, but they do not now, and probably never will give 100% protection.
It would be helpful if the AV and AS producers pointed this out, but as they have a product to sell it's probably asking too much from them to expect them to make an admission that would affect sales.
One acquaintance was so reassured by Symantic's "guaranteed protection" whereby they (Symantic) would somehow pay to have his PC repaired, that he installed the software and then assumed (in my opinion, correctly) that he had nothing else to worry about.
Obviously I can't comment on any claims made by Symantec about their products, other than to say that personally I always treat any claims or promises made by a salesman with the deepest of scepticism.
He was subsequently infected by what seemed to be a very common malware issue that IMHO should have been caught and neutralized by the AVS. (and subsequently was by MalwareBytes excellent software)
I have to admit that I've never been a great fan of Symantec's products. Malwarebytes is very effective at what it does, and is a program that I use and recommend, but it is limited in scope, and should be used in conjunction with an AV program, not instead of one.