October 15, 2010
Choosing an AV software is a VERY important decision for every computer owner and I can see the appeal of having an included online backup option.
However, this software has NOT been tested by ANY of the reputable organizations that test AntiVirus programs! Those who have done unofficial testing have noted very poor detection!
This company has no prior reputation in the anti-virus industry
No testing by reputable organization
Unofficial testing shows poor detection rates
Unofficial testing shows poor scan speed
Parts of the user interface are in Chinese (exe properties)
Uses an outdated Bit-Defender AV engine
Their domain is registered through Joker.com - what reputable business would register their domain at joker.com?
Nice looking user interface
I would highly recommend that you choose a reputable AV program such as [url=http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/:1cbzrwbz]Microsoft Security Essentials[/url:1cbzrwbz] or a paid alternative like [url=http://www.tkqlhce.com/ls72uoxuowBECLIEJKBDCJHJIEG:1cbzrwbz]Eset Smart Security[/url:1cbzrwbz]!
September 2, 2010
Hey FD - The link was removed for the safety of our members and to protect DCT's reputation. The site is brand new so has not been rated by any of the leading site advisory services as yet. However, there are enough dubious aspects to suggest the site should be approached with caution and, given time, may well be rated poorly by WOT, MSA and the like.
The site can still be located via a bit of creative Googling but we do not wish to (potentially) lead members/visitors in the wrong direction by including a direct link. Furthermore, sites can be (and are) found guilty by association if they link to other sites which are rated poorly. We double (and triple) check every link that is posted on the DCT site and if there is any doubt whatsoever the links are removed, that is part and parcel of providing a safe environment for our members/visitors. Plus, of course, maintaining DCT's good reputation is paramount.
Hope that explains it clearly mate,
Jim pretty much hit it on the head.
I'm not against good software, especially security related software, and I know that every new program has to start somewhere. I also know they need to create a "buzz" to get people to look at the software. This is often done through posts on web forums (hmmmm).
Anyway, since the post was by a new user for a new security software it appears suspicious right off the bat. I don't want to send someone to a site that contains software that doesn't work as expected, has dubious intentions, or is down right bad, but I have to assume the original poster has good intentions. I spent some time checking on the software through reputable sources and to the best of my ability can't find anything really positive about it.
Anyone with any experience in the security software industry would know that having your software tested by the known testing organizations is paramount to reputation and adoption. The facts I stated above led me to one decision - edit the original post to disable the link while respecting the original posters good intention, and include my own post to forewarn users of the pros/cons of pursuing the matter further should they choose.
That said, I support free speech and do not take editing posts lightly, but as Jim stated, trustworthiness of Daves Computer Tips, and our reputation as a whole, are extremely important. We can't afford to have a visitor with limited knowledge click on a link and install software that may do more harm than good.
[i:1xjwlo69]If[/i:1xjwlo69] Zenok turns out to be safe and provide a quality product (and I hope it does) I have no objections to including the original link. I know that the original poster has been notified of the followup posts, but they haven't responded either.
September 2, 2010
Thanks both Jim and Dave for your replies.
I seem to have caused a small missunderstanding here, as my original question was about [i:1y62jcbv][color=#000080:1y62jcbv]Dave's note[/color:1y62jcbv][/i:1y62jcbv] [u:1y62jcbv]next[/u:1y62jcbv] to the url.
It was in bright red and saying something in the lines of "Daves Computer Tips strongly disadvises from going to that site" (don't recall the exact wording).
I wondered if it meant that the site served any drive-by malware or some other kind of ... goodies .
The next day or the day after that, the warning was removed. And this move made me think that maybe I was right with my initial thoughts.
Reading your replies tells me that none of the above is the case, which now makes me feel that I made a too big deal out of it, sorry guys.
Anyway, it gives me the opportunity to say that I totally agree with your aspect on this kind of matters and fully support the removal of the link.
I am human
[quote="Flying Dutchman":3rlje8vp]I seem to have caused a small missunderstanding here, as my original question was about [i:3rlje8vp][color=#000080:3rlje8vp]Dave's note[/color:3rlje8vp][/i:3rlje8vp] [u:3rlje8vp]next[/u:3rlje8vp] to the url.[/quote:3rlje8vp]
No problem, Dutch. I was glad to address the concern. I had originally made that note, but it appears the OP removed it several hours later. I think my followup and the rest of the posts get that point across!
[quote:3rlje8vp]It was in bright red and saying something in the lines of "Daves Computer Tips strongly disadvises from going to that site" (don't recall the exact wording).
I wondered if it meant that the site served any drive-by malware or some other kind of ... goodies .[/quote:3rlje8vp]
No malware that I'm aware of, but because security software needs to be trusted, we don't know what their intention is, and the software has no real "reputation" or history it necessitated the warning. We really don't know what it is, what it does, or what it doesn't do. Having a user download it and trust it to protect their computer would be unthinkable for me, and I'm sure Carol, Ken, Jim, Ron, and Chad would agree!
[quote:3rlje8vp]Reading your replies tells me that none of the above is the case, which now makes me feel that I made a too big deal out of it, sorry guys.[/quote:3rlje8vp]
No need to be sorry. This is important stuff.
No problem what-so-ever!
December 7, 2008
I decided to cruise around the website and associated links to get a better picture of this outfit. The author and CEO is a young man born in the Netherlands and currently living is Colombia. They [i:350pkx6c]are[/i:350pkx6c] very new, maybe since mid-summer. Their free product seems to be a suite, includes the ability to share files similar to DropBox I think, and the forums are unnavigable if you haven't registered a product and have a login. They're prone to a little hyperbole, too.
"What is ZENOK FREE ANTIVIRUS 2010?
ZENOK FREE ANTIVIRUS 2010 is a professional antivirus suite. This efficient tool is five years ahead of any other security suite. Without slowing down your PC, ZenOK finds many malwares that others leave behind. This resource-friendly system is completely FREE."
Maybe yes on this one, but I'd like to see Someone like AV-Comparatives give it a going over before deciding.
December 7, 2008
Yeah, I think it was the line about being "five years ahead of any other security suite" that made me start laughing as i looked around. Also, I notice the OP hasn't been back to discuss any of these concerns, even though he was [b:26ohcvw1]so[/b:26ohcvw1] enthusiastic about it.
[quote="OldElmerFudd":h5s8d4h6]The author and CEO is a young man born in the Netherlands and currently living is Colombia. [/quote:h5s8d4h6]
Just to add fuel to the fire and confirm Ron's findings...
Jim PM'ed me about this post so I did the research on the site, which appeared to be in the Netherlands. Hmmmm. The original poster's IP address? You guessed it! Columbia!
September 2, 2010
[quote:16k150ac]Just to add fuel to the fire and confirm Ron's findings...[/quote:16k150ac]
May I add some [b:16k150ac]real[/b:16k150ac] fuel to the fire?
About the company's transparency and "ethics" (I don't know how else to call it)
Interesting that their "About Us" page reveals absolutely no info about them.
Their Link Manager is Diego Gutierrez who was allowed to post a guest article over at Bill Mullin's blog earlier this month (a bit surprised about that, but Bill keeps his distance).
This app is also hosted on Softpedia.
Now, on My Digital Life's forum as well as in Softpedia's comments, even in the comments of that article on Bill's blog, there's a "d.gutierrez", praising this AV and prompting people to try it out - I if that's the same Diego Gutierrez.
About its efficiency
A couple of threads over at Wilders Security Forums [url=http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=283411:16k150ac]here[/url:16k150ac] and [url=http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=61459:16k150ac]here[/url:16k150ac] and one over at Malwarebytes Forum [url=http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=61459:16k150ac]here[/url:16k150ac] point to the fact that it uses the older engine of BitDefender 2009 - impressive that it's "five years ahead of any other security suite" with that engine.
Now, on the older Wilder's thread, Ron Hessing jumped in without concealing his indentity, but that was back in August. Judging by what happened here, things must have changed in October regarding their "promotion methods" - maybe because the AV wasn't received so well?
I'm all for new - and free - software, but I hate misleading tactics. When a software company/ developer make their first steps introducing their product (free or not) to the community with the goal to establish themselves and get their product adopted by the many, a very important aspect in that procedure is building trust with the potential users. That goes double in the case of a new security application.
ZenOK is on the wrong track.
P.S. I hope it's ok with the links I included.
I am human
Here, here FD!!!
In most cases, if a product is solid and does a good job, it will speak for itself and others will speak up on its behalf.
As for the links....all good mate. Including active links is fine just so long as none are rated badly by the leading site advisory services.
Most Users Ever Online: 271
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 10
Administrators: Jim Hillier, Richard Pedersen, David Hartsock, Marc Thomas
Moderators: Carol Bratt, dandl, Jason Shuffield, Jim Canfield, Terry Hollett, Dick Evans, Sergey Grankin