Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Kaspersky vs Windows Defender
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1018775" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Usually, the tests only look like in real life, but they do not. One can find more info when reading the AMTSO methodology.</p><p></p><p>The test that can follow the idea of Eugene Kaspersky, requires visiting thousands of websites each day, which can be probably visited by users all around the world. When the suspicious file is found, it is immediately sent to the sandbox and analyzed. If malicious, then it is tested in a short time against the AVs. The test must be done quickly, to avoid "dead samples". In this way, a group of professionals can test about 10-20 samples in one day. Even then, the result of one test (2 months of testing) cannot differentiate between most of the tested AVs, so the tests must be repeated constantly. The statistically significant differences can be seen only after doing several tests.</p><p></p><p>So, if there were a few hundred YouTube tests in one month made by different guys all around the world, then you could put the results together and say that these tests could show something. Can anybody do it? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, even with these hundreds of tests, the result would be questionable, because many YouTube testers use samples from known sources, that are also known to AV vendors. So, the samples are not representative of the unknown samples that usually infect users in real life.</p><p></p><p>Post edited/corrected.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1018775, member: 32260"] Usually, the tests only look like in real life, but they do not. One can find more info when reading the AMTSO methodology. The test that can follow the idea of Eugene Kaspersky, requires visiting thousands of websites each day, which can be probably visited by users all around the world. When the suspicious file is found, it is immediately sent to the sandbox and analyzed. If malicious, then it is tested in a short time against the AVs. The test must be done quickly, to avoid "dead samples". In this way, a group of professionals can test about 10-20 samples in one day. Even then, the result of one test (2 months of testing) cannot differentiate between most of the tested AVs, so the tests must be repeated constantly. The statistically significant differences can be seen only after doing several tests. So, if there were a few hundred YouTube tests in one month made by different guys all around the world, then you could put the results together and say that these tests could show something. Can anybody do it? :) Unfortunately, even with these hundreds of tests, the result would be questionable, because many YouTube testers use samples from known sources, that are also known to AV vendors. So, the samples are not representative of the unknown samples that usually infect users in real life. Post edited/corrected. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top