Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1114183" data-attributes="member: 32260">[USER=114717]@bazang[/USER],We should not rely on data that cannot be verified. I do not say that 40% to 60% is a false range, but we do not know the methodology used to gather the data and how faithful are the results. Furthermore, we do not even know what was researched. You used the term new malware which must be used within a concrete period of time. So we can have new malware samples in the year 2024, or new malware less than 1 day old, etc. Did the data include FUDs (Fully Undetected malware)? FUD is an older well-known malware that is packed/encrypted/protected to avoid detection. Without knowing those (and some other factors) 40% to 60% are only pure numbers.</blockquote>

Top