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
The best Home AV protection 2021-2022
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 97327" data-source="post: 1022695"><p>(1) Again that is not valid when the population itself changes a lot (new malwares every day). It is true for relatively stable populations (like demographic research)</p><p></p><p>(2) Not insensitive, it changes a little. That is how sampling of large data sets works (finding the smallest statistical relevant sample set). The Cochran formula (<a href="https://youtu.be/ggA-tEFM2bc" target="_blank">link</a>) <strong>allows you to calculate an ideal sample size given a desired level of precision, desired confidence level, and the estimated proportion of the attribute present in the population</strong>. Cochran's formula is considered especially appropriate in situations with large populations. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Have a look at the youtube video I posted earlier in which the formula is explained <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite110" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Another reason why I think the sample set used by AV-Comparatives could be statistically relevant is that they are associated with the University of Innsbruck and three other universities (<a href="https://www.av-comparatives.org/about-us/partners/" target="_blank">link</a>). In the academic research world the holy trinity is (a) using explicit references to earlier research, (b) using statiscally relevant sample sizes for both research and reference populations and (c) being transparant in the result validation. The partners page of AV- comparatives also states that they developed their testing method in co-operation with the university of Innsbruck. This makes it very unlikely that the sample size of the test sets of AV-Comparatives are not statistical relevant IMO.</p><p></p><p>[SPOILER="Sample size taking malware families into account (generic fingerprints impacting population proportion)"]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]272587[/ATTACH]</p><p>[/SPOILER]</p><p></p><p>As [USER=61091]@simmerskool[/USER] noticed this is becoming an apples versus oranges discussion (the third-party links I provided don't seem to convince you), so I rest my case.</p><p></p><p>Normally I would also say that is very, very unlikely that one individual (Andy Ful) could outsmart a bunch of Universities (on deciding what is and what is not a statistical relevant sample set), but since you have proven to outsmart one of the largest leading tech firms (with your security tools Configure Defender, Simple Windows Hardening, Hard_Configurator and the upcoming HomeApplocker), I am not betting my right hand against that claim and settle for let us agree to disagree <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 97327, post: 1022695"] (1) Again that is not valid when the population itself changes a lot (new malwares every day). It is true for relatively stable populations (like demographic research) (2) Not insensitive, it changes a little. That is how sampling of large data sets works (finding the smallest statistical relevant sample set). The Cochran formula ([URL='https://youtu.be/ggA-tEFM2bc']link[/URL]) [B]allows you to calculate an ideal sample size given a desired level of precision, desired confidence level, and the estimated proportion of the attribute present in the population[/B]. Cochran's formula is considered especially appropriate in situations with large populations. :) Have a look at the youtube video I posted earlier in which the formula is explained ;) Another reason why I think the sample set used by AV-Comparatives could be statistically relevant is that they are associated with the University of Innsbruck and three other universities ([URL='https://www.av-comparatives.org/about-us/partners/']link[/URL]). In the academic research world the holy trinity is (a) using explicit references to earlier research, (b) using statiscally relevant sample sizes for both research and reference populations and (c) being transparant in the result validation. The partners page of AV- comparatives also states that they developed their testing method in co-operation with the university of Innsbruck. This makes it very unlikely that the sample size of the test sets of AV-Comparatives are not statistical relevant IMO. [SPOILER="Sample size taking malware families into account (generic fingerprints impacting population proportion)"] [ATTACH type="full" alt="1675239343102.png"]272587[/ATTACH] [/SPOILER] As [USER=61091]@simmerskool[/USER] noticed this is becoming an apples versus oranges discussion (the third-party links I provided don't seem to convince you), so I rest my case. Normally I would also say that is very, very unlikely that one individual (Andy Ful) could outsmart a bunch of Universities (on deciding what is and what is not a statistical relevant sample set), but since you have proven to outsmart one of the largest leading tech firms (with your security tools Configure Defender, Simple Windows Hardening, Hard_Configurator and the upcoming HomeApplocker), I am not betting my right hand against that claim and settle for let us agree to disagree :) (y) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
