~~ mikeymikec I was trying to spur a discussion and a reason to dump Panda Cloud since I could not find much in the way of comparison testing. It was interesting when I when to install Crystal Disk info on 1 of my systems, open candy was detected by AVG during the install but on another system Panda found nothing.
Several years ago (maybe, at least), there used to be regular amounts of AV effectiveness research done by many different organisations/researchers, and generally speaking my conclusion remained the same for a long time - one researcher picks say 1000 threats and pits them against 10 security products, finds that x does the best and y does the worst, then another researcher comes along and picks 1000 other threats and finds the opposite results.
For some reason all of that stopped and we only seem to have two researching organisations doing the work with some very flawed testing methodologies (e.g. av-test.org (IIRC), attaches a scoring system which makes some products look infinitely better than others despite the results not really jiving with those scores, as well as using terms like 'zero day' in incorrect ways), and the apparent agenda for both of them seems to be "we need to make MSE look bad" (perhaps because MSE is in the unique position of being the only free product in the market which doesn't attempt to coerce its users to upgrade).
I've seen plenty of situations where I've replaced product x with y, then y immediately finds a tonne of crap, and sometimes replacing y with z or x does the same thing on other systems. I personally find it laughable that av-comparatives or av-test.org come out with figures like "100% detection!" consistently for say a product like Kaspersky, partly because my own experiences (removing malware from a lot of customers' computers) aren't compatible with that idea, but also, if security software was anything like 95% accurate/secure, then I wouldn't be going out and removing malware anywhere near as often as I do.
IMO, pretty much any semi-respectable anti-virus product is probably 60-75% accurate in malware detection (assuming that everything is ideal, ie. it's downloading updates normally and automatically, the system it is on is working properly, Windows is downloading its updates, etc). Computer security is mostly the end user's job, AV should be treated as a net to save stupid users, but don't expect it to be under you if you take a foolhardy leap.
Btw, you don't have to install CrystalDiskInfo on a computer, if you've got the folder that it's been installed to before, you can copy that folder to another computer without having to run the crapware-laden install program.
@ KillerBee
If the attachment is questionable, why are you opening it?