Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 97327" data-source="post: 1037904">The big ticket in security is earned in the corporate market. In the corporate market the bottom line counts, not the test results, not the numbers of malware samples blocked, but keeping mission critical systems running. That is why we will see more security vendors offering an insurance (paying a penalty to the client when they get infected). Those security companies have to assess their risk of having to pay money to their customers also. This is the ratio behind security vendors paying professional labs for testing their products.A number one rank with bad protection level will generate a lot of &quot;infection claims&quot; with matching damage to the financial position of that security company, their reputation and ultimately the trust investors/people have in the stock value of that company. See what happened to First Republican and Credit Suisse. So all those conspiracy theories of professional tests being manipulated are more an urban legend (&quot;broodje Aap&quot; or a monkey sandwich in Dutch), fed by the fuzzy/untransparant way those professional labs gather their&nbsp; test data.So not agreeing with [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER], but I am with [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER]. She addresses a valid point. The professional labs should be more transparant in the way they validate and select their samples. AVLab.pl is a positive exception and provides insights in their test set build-up.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 97327, post: 1037904"] The big ticket in security is earned in the corporate market. In the corporate market the bottom line counts, not the test results, not the numbers of malware samples blocked, but keeping mission critical systems running. That is why we will see more security vendors offering an insurance (paying a penalty to the client when they get infected). Those security companies have to assess their risk of having to pay money to their customers also. This is the ratio behind security vendors paying professional labs for testing their products. A number one rank with bad protection level will generate a lot of "infection claims" with matching damage to the financial position of that security company, their reputation and ultimately the trust investors/people have in the stock value of that company. See what happened to First Republican and Credit Suisse. So all those conspiracy theories of professional tests being manipulated are more an urban legend ("broodje Aap" or a monkey sandwich in Dutch), fed by the fuzzy/untransparant way those professional labs gather their test data. So not agreeing with [USER=92939]@Shadowra[/USER], but I am with [USER=7463]@cruelsister[/USER]. She addresses a valid point. The professional labs should be more transparant in the way they validate and select their samples. AVLab.pl is a positive exception and provides insights in their test set build-up. [/QUOTE]

Verification