Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 827155">I don&#039;t think it&#039;s too hard to believe. MS has/is working on improving their FPs and it does show. To be fair AV comparatives is the only test where WD has a lot of FPs, most other professional tests don&#039;t show WD having as many FP from what I can see. [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] explained earlier in this thread that WD scores high in FP in AV comparatives because it tends to flag very low to low prevalence files, meaning files/programs that are very new and/or no one uses, or has heard of. Files with medium to high prevalence WD does very well with very little to no FPs. The problem with the AV comparatives test IMO is that people don&#039;t really take the time to properly interpret the test results. They just look for the total number without any understanding of what that number means, or how they got it. To be very honest, I would rather have a program flag a file/program as malicious that has a very low prevalence, rather than flagging a high prevalence file (ie: a critical system file), which could basically break Windows. To me, FP tests should be restricted to medium to high prevalence files/programs only, as it could be more catastrophic if a high prevalence Windows file is flagged, rather than some program that is not used by many IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 827155"] I don't think it's too hard to believe. MS has/is working on improving their FPs and it does show. To be fair AV comparatives is the only test where WD has a lot of FPs, most other professional tests don't show WD having as many FP from what I can see. [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] explained earlier in this thread that WD scores high in FP in AV comparatives because it tends to flag very low to low prevalence files, meaning files/programs that are very new and/or no one uses, or has heard of. Files with medium to high prevalence WD does very well with very little to no FPs. The problem with the AV comparatives test IMO is that people don't really take the time to properly interpret the test results. They just look for the total number without any understanding of what that number means, or how they got it. To be very honest, I would rather have a program flag a file/program as malicious that has a very low prevalence, rather than flagging a high prevalence file (ie: a critical system file), which could basically break Windows. To me, FP tests should be restricted to medium to high prevalence files/programs only, as it could be more catastrophic if a high prevalence Windows file is flagged, rather than some program that is not used by many IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification