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
Randomness in the AV Labs testing.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 905706" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I was curious if the result will change if I extend the number of samples (214 samples are very little), so I included next 335 samples (total 214+335=549). The total pule was gathered in the period 15.07.2019-13.05.2020. Kaspersky was compromised 7 times and 14 samples were missed (but not counted as infection). The comparison with AV-Comparatives (1837 samples 7 infections):</p><p><strong>(7/549)/ (8/1837) = 3</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>When comparing it to the previous result we can see how unreliable can be taking a few hundreds of malware samples.</strong> The first 214 samples gave 1 infection and the next 335 gave 6. Anyway, the extended analysis suggests that Malware Hub samples are fresher as compared to those used by AV-Comparatives.</p><p></p><p>Edit.</p><p>From previous tests on MH, made for Kaspersky (Endpoint, Cloud, and free) it looks like Kaspersky in Malware Hub tests can be compromised approximately 1 time per 100 fresh samples which is similar to the above results 7/549 ~ 1.3 .</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 905706, member: 32260"] I was curious if the result will change if I extend the number of samples (214 samples are very little), so I included next 335 samples (total 214+335=549). The total pule was gathered in the period 15.07.2019-13.05.2020. Kaspersky was compromised 7 times and 14 samples were missed (but not counted as infection). The comparison with AV-Comparatives (1837 samples 7 infections): [B](7/549)/ (8/1837) = 3 When comparing it to the previous result we can see how unreliable can be taking a few hundreds of malware samples.[/B] The first 214 samples gave 1 infection and the next 335 gave 6. Anyway, the extended analysis suggests that Malware Hub samples are fresher as compared to those used by AV-Comparatives. Edit. From previous tests on MH, made for Kaspersky (Endpoint, Cloud, and free) it looks like Kaspersky in Malware Hub tests can be compromised approximately 1 time per 100 fresh samples which is similar to the above results 7/549 ~ 1.3 . [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top