Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 98186" data-source="post: 1026454">A 99+% detection rate is exceptionally good.It does not matter how other AV perform. 99+% is an absolute measure. If they all consistently produce 99+% detection\protection over time at various AV labs, then they all provide &quot;exceptionally good&quot; protection - assuming - that the tests are well-designed and executed.This is not factual.[USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER]Testing and reporting &quot;remediation time&quot; is a bit problematic. First and foremost, the results generate incorrect interpretations amongst those that do not know any better and subsequent false statements about the products. For example, mischaracterizations and inaccurate statements about &quot;post-launch&quot; and also that &quot;a product that permits post-launch and a longer remediation time results in a compromised system.&quot;I know you explained it here, but you know, this is a forum where people are apt to mis-interpret and draw incorrect conclusions because they think they know (definitely not the first time you have experienced this phenomena):[ATTACH=full]273176[/ATTACH]A security product can have a very long remediation time due to networking or routing issues, while at the same time keep the system 100% clean after the remediation. Some products hold a suspicious process(es) in a suspended state and permit them to make no system modifications during the &quot;remediation&quot; process, others reverse any changes that were made, etc. This is a crude analysis, but comparing remediation times is like comparing an apple, a banana, and a tomato. They are all fruits, but completely different.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 98186, post: 1026454"] A 99+% detection rate is exceptionally good. It does not matter how other AV perform. 99+% is an absolute measure. If they all consistently produce 99+% detection\protection over time at various AV labs, then they all provide "exceptionally good" protection - [I]assuming[/I] - that the tests are well-designed and executed. This is not factual. [USER=71496]@Adrian Ścibor[/USER] Testing and reporting "remediation time" is a bit problematic. First and foremost, the results generate incorrect interpretations amongst those that do not know any better and subsequent false statements about the products. For example, mischaracterizations and inaccurate statements about "post-launch" and also that "a product that permits post-launch and a longer remediation time results in a compromised system." I know you explained it here, but you know, this is a forum where people are apt to mis-interpret and draw incorrect conclusions because they think they know (definitely not the first time you have experienced this phenomena): [ATTACH type="full" alt="1677433990660.png"]273176[/ATTACH] A security product can have a very long remediation time due to networking or routing issues, while at the same time keep the system 100% clean after the remediation. Some products hold a suspicious process(es) in a suspended state and permit them to make no system modifications during the "remediation" process, others reverse any changes that were made, etc. This is a crude analysis, but comparing remediation times is like comparing an apple, a banana, and a tomato. They are all fruits, but completely different. [/QUOTE]

Verification