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="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 750912" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p><strong>All known popular malware tests are more faith than science</strong>. There are many random error sources in malware test procedures, so the testers cannot even calculate the statistical errors. So, when you see <span style="color: rgb(65, 168, 95)"><strong>100% detection score for AV1</strong></span> and<span style="color: rgb(41, 105, 176)"> 98% for AV2</span>, then it is possible that after extending the tests to all malware samples available for the tested time period, the real result would be<span style="color: rgb(65, 168, 95)"> <strong>99% for AV1</strong></span> and<span style="color: rgb(41, 105, 176)"><strong> 99.5% for AV2</strong></span>.</p><p>.</p><p>Furthermore, you do not have any information about how significant is the 2% difference between 100% and 98% detection scores. It can be like the difference in the probability of having a headache or blahs once a year (both quite probable). But, it can also be like the difference in the probability to be hit by a thunderbolt or meteorite (both quite improbable).</p><p>.</p><p>Another problem is that most AV tests do not measure how quickly the concrete AV can protect customers after the first customer was infected (post infection protection). The first infected is like a guinea pig - this is also the well known and effective protection used by the animal herds.</p><p>.</p><p>For me, all real-world tests hardly can indicate that there is a significant difference in the protection of home users when using popular AVs. I am not saying that on Windows Home ed., Windows Defender is a better AV than Kaspersky IS. I am only saying that KIS can better protect the home users against "thunderbolts and meteorites". So, if someone likes the trips "beyond Earth", then KIS would be probably the better choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 750912, member: 32260"] [B]All known popular malware tests are more faith than science[/B]. There are many random error sources in malware test procedures, so the testers cannot even calculate the statistical errors. So, when you see [COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)][B]100% detection score for AV1[/B][/COLOR] and[COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)] 98% for AV2[/COLOR], then it is possible that after extending the tests to all malware samples available for the tested time period, the real result would be[COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)] [B]99% for AV1[/B][/COLOR] and[COLOR=rgb(41, 105, 176)][B] 99.5% for AV2[/B][/COLOR]. . Furthermore, you do not have any information about how significant is the 2% difference between 100% and 98% detection scores. It can be like the difference in the probability of having a headache or blahs once a year (both quite probable). But, it can also be like the difference in the probability to be hit by a thunderbolt or meteorite (both quite improbable). . Another problem is that most AV tests do not measure how quickly the concrete AV can protect customers after the first customer was infected (post infection protection). The first infected is like a guinea pig - this is also the well known and effective protection used by the animal herds. . For me, all real-world tests hardly can indicate that there is a significant difference in the protection of home users when using popular AVs. I am not saying that on Windows Home ed., Windows Defender is a better AV than Kaspersky IS. I am only saying that KIS can better protect the home users against "thunderbolts and meteorites". So, if someone likes the trips "beyond Earth", then KIS would be probably the better choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top