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: 909548" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p><h4>@[USER=89360]McMcbrad[/USER],</h4><p></p><p>Although I agree with most things you mentioned in your post, a few things have to be clarified:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In this thread, I tried to show that most scorings in the AV tests can be easily explained by simple statistical random models.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I also confirmed that there are many such models. In many cases, another useful model can be constructed by changing proportionally the values of m and k. So, these models are independent of SonicWall statistics (although it was a good starting point).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I do not insist that any of these models reflect the reality, but I claim that such models cannot be rejected on the basis of information about testing procedures (available publicly).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">From the fact that random models can explain the results of most AVs in one particular test, it follows that such a particular test alone cannot give us (the readers) sufficient information to compare the AVs protection in the wild.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Some useful information can be derived only by comparing several similar tests. For example by looking for the consistently high scorings (or consistently low scorings).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol"><strong>The conclusions taken from the models presented in this thread are consistent with awards proposed by AV testing labs. They are also consistent with cluster analysis (first cluster) made by AV-Comparatives in Malware Protection tests.</strong></li> </ol><p>There are some things we probably not fully agree with, but they are not relevant to this thread.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></p><p></p><p>Edit: The post was slightly edited to be clearer.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 909548, member: 32260"] [HEADING=3]@[USER=89360]McMcbrad[/USER],[/HEADING] Although I agree with most things you mentioned in your post, a few things have to be clarified: [LIST=1] [*]In this thread, I tried to show that most scorings in the AV tests can be easily explained by simple statistical random models. [*]I also confirmed that there are many such models. In many cases, another useful model can be constructed by changing proportionally the values of m and k. So, these models are independent of SonicWall statistics (although it was a good starting point). [*]I do not insist that any of these models reflect the reality, but I claim that such models cannot be rejected on the basis of information about testing procedures (available publicly). [*]From the fact that random models can explain the results of most AVs in one particular test, it follows that such a particular test alone cannot give us (the readers) sufficient information to compare the AVs protection in the wild. [*]Some useful information can be derived only by comparing several similar tests. For example by looking for the consistently high scorings (or consistently low scorings). [*][B]The conclusions taken from the models presented in this thread are consistent with awards proposed by AV testing labs. They are also consistent with cluster analysis (first cluster) made by AV-Comparatives in Malware Protection tests.[/B] [/LIST] There are some things we probably not fully agree with, but they are not relevant to this thread.(y) Edit: The post was slightly edited to be clearer. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
