Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="electroplate" data-source="post: 1018433" data-attributes="member: 94804"><p>Yes panda did badly . it also detected many .the problem always seems to be that cloud based av has a limit to&nbsp; how many infections it&nbsp; can soak up at once&nbsp; without stalling . a real user would not be hit with&nbsp; as many at once . some have never been hit at all. so we have the theoretical&nbsp; test usage of samples known/unknown but how many should be used to prove efficacy. AV-C&nbsp; uses many over time . AVLabs Poland seems to use less but newer or file-less examples . if it is a matter of quantity of knowns&nbsp; versus&nbsp; hostile unknowns&nbsp; how can we prove anything ?&nbsp; i&#039;m having trouble understanding how Panda gets high score with AV-C if it is so proveably poor in other tests. webroot finds few friends here but is proven by AVLabs Poland . if all the vendors are paying for their results and the methodology is clearly published by AV-C etc&nbsp; who am i&nbsp;&nbsp; to trust with my money. If&nbsp; wisevector stop x is&nbsp; so effective ( i use it ) and&nbsp; &nbsp; webroot techniques&nbsp; are&nbsp; so trusted by business and proven by AVLabs Poland how can traditional AV survive ?&nbsp; apologies if i&#039;m being naive or obvious&nbsp; but it comes down to this for me .&nbsp; my risk factor&nbsp; is very low . maybe panda or webroot would be fine to catch the odd nasty&nbsp; on websites . But smartscreen seems to get the Amtso test files first any way. to say that panda or webroot or any other&nbsp; cannot protect users&nbsp; i think is harsh . we could look at protection/detection percentages in risk bands as well as&nbsp; bare numbers . it&#039;s&nbsp; all very contradictory to have any test&nbsp; pass when another will fail and thus to a certain extent&nbsp; testing&nbsp; has become an academic exercise . i trust all testers who are seeking the truth. maybe there is no empirical proveable truth in the malware game . just food for thought that MT and Wilders gives me daily!! have health and happiness in 2023 everyone . cheers!</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="electroplate, post: 1018433, member: 94804"] Yes panda did badly . it also detected many .the problem always seems to be that cloud based av has a limit to how many infections it can soak up at once without stalling . a real user would not be hit with as many at once . some have never been hit at all. so we have the theoretical test usage of samples known/unknown but how many should be used to prove efficacy. AV-C uses many over time . AVLabs Poland seems to use less but newer or file-less examples . if it is a matter of quantity of knowns versus hostile unknowns how can we prove anything ? i'm having trouble understanding how Panda gets high score with AV-C if it is so proveably poor in other tests. webroot finds few friends here but is proven by AVLabs Poland . if all the vendors are paying for their results and the methodology is clearly published by AV-C etc who am i to trust with my money. If wisevector stop x is so effective ( i use it ) and webroot techniques are so trusted by business and proven by AVLabs Poland how can traditional AV survive ? apologies if i'm being naive or obvious but it comes down to this for me . my risk factor is very low . maybe panda or webroot would be fine to catch the odd nasty on websites . But smartscreen seems to get the Amtso test files first any way. to say that panda or webroot or any other cannot protect users i think is harsh . we could look at protection/detection percentages in risk bands as well as bare numbers . it's all very contradictory to have any test pass when another will fail and thus to a certain extent testing has become an academic exercise . i trust all testers who are seeking the truth. maybe there is no empirical proveable truth in the malware game . just food for thought that MT and Wilders gives me daily!! have health and happiness in 2023 everyone . cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification