Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 905910" data-attributes="member: 32260">I found the updated number of&nbsp; ‘never-before-seen’ malware variants in Q1 and Q2 for the year 2020:[ATTACH=full]246519[/ATTACH][URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://www.sonicwall.com/resources/2020-cyber-threat-report-mid-year-update-pdf/[/URL]It is probable that in July-August 2020 the number of never-before-seen variants could be greater than 30000 like in my example. But, as we can see, the statistics still work when we proportionally increase the number of undetected samples. For example:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">k = 250 (number of never-before-seen malware that compromised the hypothetical AV in July-August when tested on all 75000 samples seen in-the-wild);</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">m = 75000&nbsp; (approximate number of never-before-seen malware variants in July-August 2020);</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">n =&nbsp; 380&nbsp; (number of samples tested by the AV-Comparatives in July-August 2020);</li>
</ul>p(0) = 0.28&nbsp; (probability to be not compromised by malware)p(1) = 0.36&nbsp; (probability of 1 infection event)p(2) = 0.23&nbsp; (probability of 2 infection events)p(3) = 0.1&nbsp; (probability of 3 infection events)By the way, I made a mistake by writing in OP the value of p(3) = 0.01.The correct value should be 0.1 .The differences with values calculated in the OP are on the third decimal place, so the values rounded to the second decimal place are the same and the statistics work well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 905910, member: 32260"] I found the updated number of ‘never-before-seen’ malware variants in Q1 and Q2 for the year 2020: [ATTACH type="full" alt="Never seen 2020.png"]246519[/ATTACH] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.sonicwall.com/resources/2020-cyber-threat-report-mid-year-update-pdf/[/URL] It is probable that in July-August 2020 the number of never-before-seen variants could be greater than 30000 like in my example. But, as we can see, the statistics still work when we proportionally increase the number of undetected samples. For example: [LIST] [*]k = 250 (number of never-before-seen malware that compromised the hypothetical AV in July-August when tested on all 75000 samples seen in-the-wild); [*]m = 75000 (approximate number of never-before-seen malware variants in July-August 2020); [*]n = 380 (number of samples tested by the AV-Comparatives in July-August 2020); [/LIST] p(0) = 0.28 (probability to be not compromised by malware) p(1) = 0.36 (probability of 1 infection event) p(2) = 0.23 (probability of 2 infection events) p(3) = 0.1 (probability of 3 infection events) By the way, I made a mistake by writing in OP the value of p(3) = 0.01. The correct value should be 0.1 . The differences with values calculated in the OP are on the third decimal place, so the values rounded to the second decimal place are the same and the statistics work well. [/QUOTE]

Verification