Menu
Forums
New posts
News feed
Latest activity
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Hardware News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
MalwareTips Giveaways
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blogs
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
Security Discussions
General Security Questions
Why I think testing "labs" are useless
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
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EndangeredPootis" data-source="post: 883247" data-attributes="member: 82260"><p>Agreed, I also think they are shady due to the fact they simply never show their tests taking place and the inconsistencies in their tests aswell.</p><p></p><p>A product can become last place because of a having 1% less detection ratio, how would the average user respond to that? without actually looking at the detection rates they would think that product must be absolute garbage, its probably how the rumor of windows defender being garbage started.</p><p></p><p>I also tested Kaspersky Security Cloud Free in my spare time and it scored a detection rate of 73% of samples that were over 2 days old (this was on demand, I opened the folder containing malware and let kaspersky do its, albeit slow, job), yet in tests such as by Leo he got a 100% detection ratio with over 1500 samples, and he did it on execution so kaspersky had to take care of 3-4 sample launches every second without any prior analysis, it just does not make any sense.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EndangeredPootis, post: 883247, member: 82260"] Agreed, I also think they are shady due to the fact they simply never show their tests taking place and the inconsistencies in their tests aswell. A product can become last place because of a having 1% less detection ratio, how would the average user respond to that? without actually looking at the detection rates they would think that product must be absolute garbage, its probably how the rumor of windows defender being garbage started. I also tested Kaspersky Security Cloud Free in my spare time and it scored a detection rate of 73% of samples that were over 2 days old (this was on demand, I opened the folder containing malware and let kaspersky do its, albeit slow, job), yet in tests such as by Leo he got a 100% detection ratio with over 1500 samples, and he did it on execution so kaspersky had to take care of 3-4 sample launches every second without any prior analysis, it just does not make any sense. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
