Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1022618" data-attributes="member: 32260">Yes, that is right. But we know that if the statistical fluctuations are big, then the number of tests is insufficient.So, I do not use here any statistical model, but try to find empirically the minimum sensible set of tests that allows keeping the statistical fluctuations relatively small.I do not think that the methods noted in your video (based on the known statistical models) can help much because there are too many hidden factors, like:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">We do not know how many samples were in the wild.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">We do not know how many never-before-seen samples were in the wild.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">We do not know how many never-before-seen samples were tested.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">We do not know how the AV Labs manage the morphed samples.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">etc.</li>
</ol>It is possible that the AV labs could be able to find the right statistical model on the basis of all the data gathered in the tests. If you want more information, you can look here:[URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905376[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905910[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905991[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-909548[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-909620[/URL][URL unfurl=&quot;false&quot;]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-917496[/URL]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1022618, member: 32260"] Yes, that is right. But we know that if the statistical fluctuations are big, then the number of tests is insufficient. So, I do not use here any statistical model, but try to find empirically the minimum sensible set of tests that allows keeping the statistical fluctuations relatively small. I do not think that the methods noted in your video (based on the known statistical models) can help much because there are too many hidden factors, like: [LIST=1] [*]We do not know how many samples were in the wild. [*]We do not know how many never-before-seen samples were in the wild. [*]We do not know how many never-before-seen samples were tested. [*]We do not know how the AV Labs manage the morphed samples. [*]etc. [/LIST] It is possible that the AV labs could be able to find the right statistical model on the basis of all the data gathered in the tests. If you want more information, you can look here: [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905376[/URL] [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905910[/URL] [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-905991[/URL] [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-909548[/URL] [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-909620[/URL] [URL unfurl="false"]https://malwaretips.com/threads/randomness-in-the-av-labs-testing.104104/post-917496[/URL] [/QUOTE]

Verification