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: 905991" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Now the example of the test scorings that can be interpreted without calculations.</p><p>0 missed - 1 AV</p><p>1 missed - 1 AV</p><p>2 missed - 2 AVs</p><p>3 missed - 2 AVs</p><p>4 missed - 0</p><p>...</p><p>11 missed - 0</p><p>12 missed - 2AVs</p><p>13 missed - 0</p><p>...</p><p>17 missed - 0</p><p>18 missed - 1 AV</p><p>19 missed - 0</p><p>...</p><p>42 missed - 0</p><p>43 missed - 1 AV</p><p></p><p>For the 6 first AVs, it is possible to find the statistic model similar to random trials of 1 hypothetical AV.</p><p>But any such model cannot explain the big gaps between the rest of AVs. So, the first 6 AVs should be treated as equally good and awarded. The last 4 AVs should not be awarded.</p><p></p><p>The above example was in fact taken from the real test made recently by MRG Effitas:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]246525[/ATTACH]</p><p>"<em>Out of ten tested security products, the following six managed to meet the specification to attain our Q2 2020 360 Degree Certification. </em></p><p><em>• Avast Business Antivirus </em></p><p><em>• Bitdefender Endpoint Security </em></p><p><em>• CrowdStrike Falcon Protect </em></p><p><em>• ESET Endpoint Security </em></p><p><em>• Microsoft Windows Defender </em></p><p><em>• Symantec Endpoint Protection</em> "</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 905991, member: 32260"] Now the example of the test scorings that can be interpreted without calculations. 0 missed - 1 AV 1 missed - 1 AV 2 missed - 2 AVs 3 missed - 2 AVs 4 missed - 0 ... 11 missed - 0 12 missed - 2AVs 13 missed - 0 ... 17 missed - 0 18 missed - 1 AV 19 missed - 0 ... 42 missed - 0 43 missed - 1 AV For the 6 first AVs, it is possible to find the statistic model similar to random trials of 1 hypothetical AV. But any such model cannot explain the big gaps between the rest of AVs. So, the first 6 AVs should be treated as equally good and awarded. The last 4 AVs should not be awarded. The above example was in fact taken from the real test made recently by MRG Effitas: [ATTACH type="full" alt="AVCQ22020.png"]246525[/ATTACH] "[I]Out of ten tested security products, the following six managed to meet the specification to attain our Q2 2020 360 Degree Certification. • Avast Business Antivirus • Bitdefender Endpoint Security • CrowdStrike Falcon Protect • ESET Endpoint Security • Microsoft Windows Defender • Symantec Endpoint Protection[/I] " [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
