Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marko :)" data-source="post: 1123238" data-attributes="member: 39702">Actually, you don&#039;t need any data for false positives, just rank security vendors by popularity as the most popular ones tend to get very few FPs. But if you want data, take a look at already made tests by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives to determine &quot;FP-free&quot; security vendors. Both companies regularly test antivirus software and their web protection for false positives.If you ask me, the three-level protection would function like this.[SPOILER]Easy: (almost no FPs)<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Microsoft SmartScreen</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bitdefender Traffic Light</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Emsisoft Web Protection</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Quad9 Security DNS</li>
</ol>Medium (security providers from easy +): (few FPs)<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Symantec Browser Protection</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Norton SafeWeb</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">GDATA WebProtection</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Cloudflare Security DNS</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">CleanBrowsing Security DNS</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">AdGuard Security DNS</li>
</ol>Hard: all security vendors (large number FPs)[/SPOILER]False positives shouldn&#039;t be your job anyway. It&#039;s not like you&#039;re providing the protection service, you&#039;re just forwarding URLs to security vendors for analysis and showing the user result—that&#039;s it. This is the reason why I proposed those three levels of protection. Your job is only to warn users some security providers might wrongly detect safe websites and that&#039;s it. No need to scale down on security vendors; moreover, I&#039;d add more of them.Beside, protection levels make your extension extremely easy to use for all kinds of users. Because, currently, those security vendors mentioned in the extension don&#039;t mean anything to huge amount of people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marko :), post: 1123238, member: 39702"] Actually, you don't need any data for false positives, just rank security vendors by popularity as the most popular ones tend to get very few FPs. But if you want data, take a look at already made tests by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives to determine "FP-free" security vendors. Both companies regularly test antivirus software and their web protection for false positives. If you ask me, the three-level protection would function like this. [SPOILER] [COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)]Easy[/COLOR]: (almost no FPs) [LIST=1] [*]Microsoft SmartScreen [*]Bitdefender Traffic Light [*]Emsisoft Web Protection [*]Quad9 Security DNS [/LIST] [COLOR=rgb(250, 197, 28)]Medium[/COLOR] (security providers from easy +): (few FPs) [LIST=1] [*]Symantec Browser Protection [*]Norton SafeWeb [*]GDATA WebProtection [*]Cloudflare Security DNS [*]CleanBrowsing Security DNS [*]AdGuard Security DNS [/LIST] [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]Hard[/COLOR]: all security vendors (large number FPs) [/SPOILER] False positives shouldn't be your job anyway. It's not like you're providing the protection service, you're just forwarding URLs to security vendors for analysis and showing the user result—that's it. This is the reason why I proposed those three levels of protection. Your job is only to warn users some security providers might wrongly detect safe websites and that's it. No need to scale down on security vendors; moreover, I'd add more of them. Beside, protection levels make your extension extremely easy to use for all kinds of users. Because, currently, those security vendors mentioned in the extension don't mean anything to huge amount of people. [/QUOTE]

Verification