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
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
Security Statistics and Reports
Business Security Test March-April 2021 – Factsheet
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 72227" data-source="post: 943260"><p>I won't lie, I had a good chuckle<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite126" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL :ROFLMAO:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" /></p><p></p><p>However it is indeed true. Any test in general should be taken with a grain of salt. They aren't the end all be all. Like you said, what happens in the real world vs what happens in tests are separate things, with the real world scenario being more realistic. </p><p></p><p>That's not to say tests don't offer some value, but let's not forget they are a snapshot in time. Even then the testing methodology differs from on testing organization to another, so its really hard to compare them accurately. The Hub while great isn't perfect either and shouldn't be considered "better", or more "accurate" than other tests. This isn't to say those doing tests in the hub are doing it wrong, it's again a test and like the others should be taken with a grain of salt. One shouldn't be making AV decisions on tests alone, there are many more factors to consider than a malware test (ie: performance in your system, not what the performance was on a testing computer).</p><p><img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 72227, post: 943260"] I won't lie, I had a good chuckle:ROFLMAO: However it is indeed true. Any test in general should be taken with a grain of salt. They aren't the end all be all. Like you said, what happens in the real world vs what happens in tests are separate things, with the real world scenario being more realistic. That's not to say tests don't offer some value, but let's not forget they are a snapshot in time. Even then the testing methodology differs from on testing organization to another, so its really hard to compare them accurately. The Hub while great isn't perfect either and shouldn't be considered "better", or more "accurate" than other tests. This isn't to say those doing tests in the hub are doing it wrong, it's again a test and like the others should be taken with a grain of salt. One shouldn't be making AV decisions on tests alone, there are many more factors to consider than a malware test (ie: performance in your system, not what the performance was on a testing computer). ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top