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
Inactive Support Threads
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
General Security Discussions
A Brief Critique of Professional AV Tests
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1037922" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>It is worth mentioning that a valid critique that follows from the video is related to AV-Comparatives <strong>Malware Protection</strong> tests and to the part of the AV-Test tests performed on the "reference set". Those tests use the prevalent malware samples discovered in the last few weeks. <strong><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">Such testing cannot say much about real protection because most malware in the wild is short living. </span></strong>Good scorings do not show good protection in the real world. Furthermore, some AVs with poor scorings can provide good protection in the real world.</p><p></p><p>One cannot use similar arguments in relation to the <strong>Real-World</strong> tests made by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test. The methodology of current AVLab tests is similar to these tests. The Real-World tests are more reliable, but they contain a big random factor due to a small number of samples. So, one such test cannot say much about AV protection. The randomness of scorings decreases when one will take into account many tests.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1037922, member: 32260"] It is worth mentioning that a valid critique that follows from the video is related to AV-Comparatives [B]Malware Protection[/B] tests and to the part of the AV-Test tests performed on the "reference set". Those tests use the prevalent malware samples discovered in the last few weeks. [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]Such testing cannot say much about real protection because most malware in the wild is short living. [/COLOR][/B]Good scorings do not show good protection in the real world. Furthermore, some AVs with poor scorings can provide good protection in the real world. One cannot use similar arguments in relation to the [B]Real-World[/B] tests made by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test. The methodology of current AVLab tests is similar to these tests. The Real-World tests are more reliable, but they contain a big random factor due to a small number of samples. So, one such test cannot say much about AV protection. The randomness of scorings decreases when one will take into account many tests. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top