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
The Fallacy of Professional AV Tests
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Windows_Security" data-source="post: 750855" data-attributes="member: 50782"><p>When a typical blacklist antivirus provides protection against a new sample of malware (99% an adopted version of existing malware), somewhere in the world some poor PC user was the first victim in 40% of the cases (assuming static analysis, machine learning, code emulation, behavioral analysis, HIPS et cetera provide protection for other 60%).</p><p></p><p>Better to fall back to whitelisting, Would that sample have passed Windows Defender Smart screen or Avast in hardened aggressive mode, I wonder.</p><p></p><p>To survive an attack of a LION, you don't have to outrun the lion. You only have to be faster than one other person. AV companies share new detection samples. Even with blacklisting a high first victim risk (chance of surviving a lion attack) does not automatically translate to a high infection risk (chance of encountering a lion in real life). Why bother to pay for an AV at all? </p><p></p><p>At the moment the tour de France is running. The power (in kilowatt) what a cyclist can deliver is kept secret (otherwise a cyclist would know at what level of effort/strain he could break a competitor). TimeToDetection performance is the kilowatt secret of the AV-industry. Asking for TTD (although valid) is like fighting Windmill's . It is not going to happen Dona Cruel Sister</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Windows_Security, post: 750855, member: 50782"] When a typical blacklist antivirus provides protection against a new sample of malware (99% an adopted version of existing malware), somewhere in the world some poor PC user was the first victim in 40% of the cases (assuming static analysis, machine learning, code emulation, behavioral analysis, HIPS et cetera provide protection for other 60%). Better to fall back to whitelisting, Would that sample have passed Windows Defender Smart screen or Avast in hardened aggressive mode, I wonder. To survive an attack of a LION, you don't have to outrun the lion. You only have to be faster than one other person. AV companies share new detection samples. Even with blacklisting a high first victim risk (chance of surviving a lion attack) does not automatically translate to a high infection risk (chance of encountering a lion in real life). Why bother to pay for an AV at all? At the moment the tour de France is running. The power (in kilowatt) what a cyclist can deliver is kept secret (otherwise a cyclist would know at what level of effort/strain he could break a competitor). TimeToDetection performance is the kilowatt secret of the AV-industry. Asking for TTD (although valid) is like fighting Windmill's . It is not going to happen Dona Cruel Sister [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top