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: 751330" data-attributes="member: 50782"><p>Well my analogy of the lion got lost in translation. You start to disagree while we (at least that is how I read it) both argue that the chance of an average user being the first victim of a brand new malware first victim risk, is much lower than the fail rate of an AV against such a zero day (chance of encounter x risk of infection).</p><p></p><p>I will blame myself and not argue about TTD and kilowatt analogy. I consider them both a secret of profession. No AV will tell its protection rate in TTD context in public, like no professional cyclist will tell is kilowatt in public. Forget about that analogy, fact is that Cruel Sister makes a valid point. But I think it won't going to happen. A 99% protection rate without TTD context looks way better than a 40% protection of zero day, 60% protection of 1 day old and 80% of two day old and 99,99% of three day old samples.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Windows_Security, post: 751330, member: 50782"] Well my analogy of the lion got lost in translation. You start to disagree while we (at least that is how I read it) both argue that the chance of an average user being the first victim of a brand new malware first victim risk, is much lower than the fail rate of an AV against such a zero day (chance of encounter x risk of infection). I will blame myself and not argue about TTD and kilowatt analogy. I consider them both a secret of profession. No AV will tell its protection rate in TTD context in public, like no professional cyclist will tell is kilowatt in public. Forget about that analogy, fact is that Cruel Sister makes a valid point. But I think it won't going to happen. A 99% protection rate without TTD context looks way better than a 40% protection of zero day, 60% protection of 1 day old and 80% of two day old and 99,99% of three day old samples. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top