If you refer to the theory that AV actually wrote viruses (it's not clear), that's as realistic as saying that police commits crimes so that they can get extra reward from the new tasks.
I've followed the VX scene for years (it died long ago) and there has never been shortage of new malware.
Even if we wanted to give some credit to the theory, which type of virus would the AV companies develop? Something trivial, that requires a variation of a signature to detect? Or something extremely complex, that requires month of work, and that slows down the AV engine because it's algorithmically complex to detect?
None of this makes any sense. The truth is very simple - malware has always been an interesting subject, and writing viruses always had a subversive appeal to young rebels.
As a victim of such a falsified crime, testified by half a dozen police officers who couldn't get their stories straight but whom "somehow" were believed, you're only adding credence to the claim with that analogy.
Not really. I'm not doubting that you have been wronged by the judicial system, as I've seen this first hand with a close friend. However, a bold claim like this requires solid evidence that such practices are the norm.
> If you refer to the theory that AV actually wrote viruses (it's not clear), that's as realistic as saying that police commits crimes so that they can get extra reward from the new tasks.
This analogy is not helping your case at all. It's not unheard of for police to plant evidence for such purposes. It's also been proven that law enforcement has been willfully using technology having high rates of false positives for things like drug testing to bring real charges against otherwise innocent people.
> that's as realistic as saying that police commits crimes so that they can get extra reward from the new tasks.
So very realistic then?
Or have you not encountered the numerous incidents where cops plant and manufacture evidence to frame people for various reasons such as increasing their numbers for a promotion or bad culture leading to quotas for arrests/tickets/etc.?
This is how mafia operates. They come to you and offer protection in exchange for a recurring "protection fee". If you refuse, they are the ones who commit crimes against you until you fork out a "protection fee".
This only really goes to the "don't entirely trust their statements regarding their product being the only effective barrier" part of the story. Reputable anti-virus companies do have a huge conflict of interest reporting on viruses they find and can tackle, but they also remain an important source of information about viruses. Disreputable anti-virus companies sell product which could be as simple as a "hollywood OS" green stripe animated GIF which says "virus cleaned" for all they really do: they probably install more malware rather than removing any.
Also, an anti virus company saying they can't understand how a virus remains infected after removal is interesting.
I've followed the VX scene for years (it died long ago) and there has never been shortage of new malware.
Even if we wanted to give some credit to the theory, which type of virus would the AV companies develop? Something trivial, that requires a variation of a signature to detect? Or something extremely complex, that requires month of work, and that slows down the AV engine because it's algorithmically complex to detect?
None of this makes any sense. The truth is very simple - malware has always been an interesting subject, and writing viruses always had a subversive appeal to young rebels.