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
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
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Second opinion scanners - Detection test (TestMyAV's samples) - Part 2
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dmitry_rus" data-source="post: 598118" data-attributes="member: 59363"><p>If all of your scanners were just "scanner-on-demand" (i.e. no permanent resident protection) and you've created separate folders for each AVs - it sounds good. In this case, the probability of interference is practically absent. BTW, SAP looks interesting. If it has 12 engines, probability of FPs should increase. Assume that we have 1% of FP for each engine. So, in 99% the engine works OK. What is the reliability of the whole 12-engines system? 0.99^12=0.886=88.6%. 100-88=12% theoretically might be FP.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitry_rus, post: 598118, member: 59363"] If all of your scanners were just "scanner-on-demand" (i.e. no permanent resident protection) and you've created separate folders for each AVs - it sounds good. In this case, the probability of interference is practically absent. BTW, SAP looks interesting. If it has 12 engines, probability of FPs should increase. Assume that we have 1% of FP for each engine. So, in 99% the engine works OK. What is the reliability of the whole 12-engines system? 0.99^12=0.886=88.6%. 100-88=12% theoretically might be FP. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top