Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bazang" data-source="post: 1114192" data-attributes="member: 114717">I can understand your view, but the numbers are real.New malware means newly created malware. The time of introduction of the malware and the test systems is less than 24 hours. The samples are harvested globally so as not to give the AV geo bias. With the geo bias alone removed, signatures begin to show their weaknesses.Beyond signature detection, Microsoft Defender provides weak protection.I&#039;ve seen the documents. I&#039;ve seen numbers. I can quote them. But I have no means of obtaining documents and then posting those documents. Even if that were possible I cannot as I have always had to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to gain access from commercial entities that perform such research. For access to government generated data one needs a security clearance. To post that information is a crime.I&#039;ll tell you what, I will help people out here because I know the truth hurts and they get extremely upset emotionally and mentally when the truth is posted. I&#039;ve been in this row before where the real numbers of 40% to 60% have caused people to smash the report button because they were outraged.There is all kinds of infos out there that reinforce the notion that all AV is highly effective. People can believe this guy and his team of researchers. LOL.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&amp;context=ebcs_tools[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://aysps.gsu.edu/profile/david-maimon-2/[/URL]His researchers collect samples from abuse.ch and similar sources. The AV industry loves these people because they say the things that the AV wants to hear. They also satisfy people who want to believe that their AV of choice is a 98% effective security solution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bazang, post: 1114192, member: 114717"] I can understand your view, but the numbers are real. New malware means newly created malware. The time of introduction of the malware and the test systems is less than 24 hours. The samples are harvested globally so as not to give the AV geo bias. With the geo bias alone removed, signatures begin to show their weaknesses. Beyond signature detection, Microsoft Defender provides weak protection. I've seen the documents. I've seen numbers. I can quote them. But I have no means of obtaining documents and then posting those documents. Even if that were possible I cannot as I have always had to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) to gain access from commercial entities that perform such research. For access to government generated data one needs a security clearance. To post that information is a crime. I'll tell you what, I will help people out here because I know the truth hurts and they get extremely upset emotionally and mentally when the truth is posted. I've been in this row before where the real numbers of 40% to 60% have caused people to smash the report button because they were outraged. There is all kinds of infos out there that reinforce the notion that all AV is highly effective. People can believe this guy and his team of researchers. LOL. [URL unfurl="true"]https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ebcs_tools[/URL] [URL unfurl="true"]https://aysps.gsu.edu/profile/david-maimon-2/[/URL] His researchers collect samples from abuse.ch and similar sources. The AV industry loves these people because they say the things that the AV wants to hear. They also satisfy people who want to believe that their AV of choice is a 98% effective security solution. [/QUOTE]

Verification