Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 922347" data-attributes="member: 32260">I am afraid that the results of several AVs are pretty much random and one cannot really say anything interesting about their protection in the wild in the period of October-December 2020. For example, the missed samples for McAfee (8 last SE Labs Consumer tests) are as follows: 0,1,1,4,3,0,2,0.So, the results change randomly around the average value close to 1. The most probable values are 0 and 1, but the chances for other values are also far from 0.This randomness inevitably follows from choosing 100 malware samples from the pule of samples in the wild which is several thousands times greater. So, there is no real basis for thinking that McAfee had worse protection in Q1 2020 (3 missed samples) than in Q4 2020 (0 missed samples).<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite132" alt=":unsure:" title="Unsure&nbsp; &nbsp; :unsure:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":unsure:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 922347, member: 32260"] I am afraid that the results of several AVs are pretty much random and one cannot really say anything interesting about their protection in the wild in the period of October-December 2020. For example, the missed samples for McAfee (8 last SE Labs Consumer tests) are as follows: 0,1,1,4,3,0,2,0. So, the results change randomly around the average value close to 1. The most probable values are 0 and 1, but the chances for other values are also far from 0. This randomness [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]inevitably follows[/COLOR] from choosing 100 malware samples from the pule of samples in the wild which is several thousands times greater. So, there is no real basis for thinking that McAfee had worse protection in Q1 2020 (3 missed samples) than in Q4 2020 (0 missed samples).:unsure: [/QUOTE]

Verification