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
Software
Browsers
Web Extensions
Norton, Avira, Avast browser extensions
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 92963" data-source="post: 969880"><p>View this binary search explanation (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3YID7liBug" target="_blank">link to video</a>) to understand that 3x volume increase is not an issue for the performance impact. Because an URL contains so little data and data can be organized in separate indexed baskets (e.g. on domain name and on file name) the storage/memory resource impact of a cloud based URL blacklist is minimal. Since all AV-s have some sort of FP filtering build-in, I assume they would only share clean data which still will be checked by the receiving AV on FP's (like any other malware input source). Using three (slightly) different FP detection methods, probably reduces the total amount of FP's in stead of increasing them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 92963, post: 969880"] View this binary search explanation ([URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3YID7liBug']link to video[/URL]) to understand that 3x volume increase is not an issue for the performance impact. Because an URL contains so little data and data can be organized in separate indexed baskets (e.g. on domain name and on file name) the storage/memory resource impact of a cloud based URL blacklist is minimal. Since all AV-s have some sort of FP filtering build-in, I assume they would only share clean data which still will be checked by the receiving AV on FP's (like any other malware input source). Using three (slightly) different FP detection methods, probably reduces the total amount of FP's in stead of increasing them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
