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
MRG Effitas Assessment & Certification – Q2 2020
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 906206" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>What is wrong with this chart?</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]246562[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The chart suggests that in Q2 2020 the in-the-wild detection of Bitdefender could be better as compared to for example Avast and can make the Avast users unhappy. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite111" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p>In fact, this suggestion could be valid only when <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>all in-the-wild malware that might be missed by Bittedender had to be also missed by Avast</strong></span>.</p><p>But, the sets of all missed in-the-wild malware for Avast and for Bitdefender are usually very different. So, by choosing 360 samples from tenths of thousands of different malware variants, we can easily miss more undetected samples of Avast than Bitdefender (and vice versa). In this way, the result would depend not on the real AV detection, but simply on the choice of the tested samples. One has to apply a statistical model to see if the data shows any advantage for Bitdefender. Unfortunately by doing this, it is easy to show that any of the first 6 AVs has no advantage. They have to be treated as they had the same detection in-the-wild. This model shows also that the first 6 AVs have a statistical advantage (in malware detection) over the last fourth. See also:</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/[/URL]</p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905991[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 906206, member: 32260"] What is wrong with this chart? [ATTACH type="full" alt="AVC2020.png"]246562[/ATTACH] The chart suggests that in Q2 2020 the in-the-wild detection of Bitdefender could be better as compared to for example Avast and can make the Avast users unhappy. :( In fact, this suggestion could be valid only when [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]all in-the-wild malware that might be missed by Bittedender had to be also missed by Avast[/B][/COLOR]. But, the sets of all missed in-the-wild malware for Avast and for Bitdefender are usually very different. So, by choosing 360 samples from tenths of thousands of different malware variants, we can easily miss more undetected samples of Avast than Bitdefender (and vice versa). In this way, the result would depend not on the real AV detection, but simply on the choice of the tested samples. One has to apply a statistical model to see if the data shows any advantage for Bitdefender. Unfortunately by doing this, it is easy to show that any of the first 6 AVs has no advantage. They have to be treated as they had the same detection in-the-wild. This model shows also that the first 6 AVs have a statistical advantage (in malware detection) over the last fourth. See also: [URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/[/URL] [URL unfurl="true"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905991[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top