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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Learn more about Remediation Time – response time to security incidents (the results from protection test in January 2023)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1025983" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Testing some AVs in the automated scenario is very difficult, so we should give credit to the efforts of AVLab.</p><p>The testing methodology has been significantly changed and some time is required to solve all possible issues.</p><p>The AVLab tests are not included on the AMSTO webpage:</p><p>[URL unfurl="false"]https://www.amtso.org/tests/[/URL]</p><p>But the current testing methodology seems OK for most AVs.</p><p></p><p>I could not find the info about which samples were tested. In previous tests, almost all samples were *.exe files which are only about 1/3 of malware in the wild. This can be a problem for Real-World protection tests.</p><p>There is also an open question related to morphed samples. If morphed samples are allowed, then the statistical variations are bigger, and much more samples are required to make the results statistically significant.</p><p>Even when morphed samples are not allowed, over 10000 samples are required to see a real difference between Microsoft Defender free and Kaspersky (KIS), with a confidence level of 95%.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1025983, member: 32260"] Testing some AVs in the automated scenario is very difficult, so we should give credit to the efforts of AVLab. The testing methodology has been significantly changed and some time is required to solve all possible issues. The AVLab tests are not included on the AMSTO webpage: [URL unfurl="false"]https://www.amtso.org/tests/[/URL] But the current testing methodology seems OK for most AVs. I could not find the info about which samples were tested. In previous tests, almost all samples were *.exe files which are only about 1/3 of malware in the wild. This can be a problem for Real-World protection tests. There is also an open question related to morphed samples. If morphed samples are allowed, then the statistical variations are bigger, and much more samples are required to make the results statistically significant. Even when morphed samples are not allowed, over 10000 samples are required to see a real difference between Microsoft Defender free and Kaspersky (KIS), with a confidence level of 95%. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top