Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DJ Panda" data-source="post: 518674" data-attributes="member: 40802">[USER=52613]@DardiM[/USER] More messages from Voodoosheild&quot;Can you please explain to DardiM that 954 of the files were quarantined by Zemana.&nbsp; The rest were analyzed by Cuckoo, and all but a handful (2-5) were definitely malware.&nbsp; Sure, there was some adware, but adware IS malware… even AV testing labs agree and include adware in their samples, and often times it is more malicious then other types of malware.&nbsp; BTW, the 2-5 samples are probably malware as well… he has to remember that malware analysis is not perfect.&nbsp;And actually, adware is more difficult to detect then most super bad malware, so it is best to use random samples with all different types of malware…&nbsp; ESPECIALLY since adware is more difficult to detect.&nbsp; That is, if you really want to know the true efficacy of a given product.&nbsp;Sure, I could have cherry picked certain types of malware, but that would have skewed the results in favor of whatever engines detected the malware while pre-filtering the samples.&nbsp; Random is ALWAYS better… even if it does include a handful of questionable samples… but that is why you test with a larger sample size, like 1,000 or 3,000.&nbsp;As far as the unknowns go… just because his test was unable to detect these files as malware, does not mean that they were not malware.&nbsp; In fact, most likely it is quite the opposite.&nbsp;Thank you!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DJ Panda, post: 518674, member: 40802"] [USER=52613]@DardiM[/USER] More messages from Voodoosheild [I]"Can you please explain to DardiM that 954 of the files were quarantined by Zemana. The rest were analyzed by Cuckoo, and all but a handful (2-5) were definitely malware. Sure, there was some adware, but adware IS malware… even AV testing labs agree and include adware in their samples, and often times it is more malicious then other types of malware. BTW, the 2-5 samples are probably malware as well… he has to remember that malware analysis is not perfect. And actually, adware is more difficult to detect then most super bad malware, so it is best to use random samples with all different types of malware… ESPECIALLY since adware is more difficult to detect. That is, if you really want to know the true efficacy of a given product. Sure, I could have cherry picked certain types of malware, but that would have skewed the results in favor of whatever engines detected the malware while pre-filtering the samples. Random is ALWAYS better… even if it does include a handful of questionable samples… but that is why you test with a larger sample size, like 1,000 or 3,000. As far as the unknowns go… just because his test was unable to detect these files as malware, does not mean that they were not malware. In fact, most likely it is quite the opposite. Thank you!"[/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification