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
General Security Discussions
Why I think testing "labs" are useless
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Atlas147" data-source="post: 883275" data-attributes="member: 25728"><p>Definitely a fair point about testing labs throwing AVs in a scenario that they would otherwise never face ever. However such a test also provides certain insights as to how behavioural blockers are adding to the mix. Given that many of the AVs like to use bitdefender or avira signatures, it would be safe to assume that most if not all of them can cover at least 95% of all malware. What separates the good from the best in AV tests are those last few percentages that most AVs don't have signatures for. And it's not to say that a higher percentage would mean better BBs. There is just not enough information released on how the threats were blocked based on the the different AVs. </p><p></p><p>However there are a few things to note about windows defender scoring low. Yes it makes sense that WD scores much lower than other AVs and is perceived as the weaker product. And honestly that is 100% true, WD is a weaker product in general, the numbers show it. While the average user wouldn't face thousands of malware threats everyday, a higher protection score gives users a slightly greater sense of security. If I were to protect my family computer with something, I would 100% choose a more robust product because even though I know that I won't be clicking on phishing or malicious links, my family members might not be able to identify such links. </p><p></p><p>Another side of throwing unrealistically huge amounts of malware at an AV is that an average Joe won't be able to replicate such an attack to evaluate AV products. AV test and AV comparatives are providing data from such tests to the general public. However, the choice on which AV is better for your own use cases are still dependent on a ton of other things, and everyone should try a few different AVs until they find one that suits them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Atlas147, post: 883275, member: 25728"] Definitely a fair point about testing labs throwing AVs in a scenario that they would otherwise never face ever. However such a test also provides certain insights as to how behavioural blockers are adding to the mix. Given that many of the AVs like to use bitdefender or avira signatures, it would be safe to assume that most if not all of them can cover at least 95% of all malware. What separates the good from the best in AV tests are those last few percentages that most AVs don't have signatures for. And it's not to say that a higher percentage would mean better BBs. There is just not enough information released on how the threats were blocked based on the the different AVs. However there are a few things to note about windows defender scoring low. Yes it makes sense that WD scores much lower than other AVs and is perceived as the weaker product. And honestly that is 100% true, WD is a weaker product in general, the numbers show it. While the average user wouldn't face thousands of malware threats everyday, a higher protection score gives users a slightly greater sense of security. If I were to protect my family computer with something, I would 100% choose a more robust product because even though I know that I won't be clicking on phishing or malicious links, my family members might not be able to identify such links. Another side of throwing unrealistically huge amounts of malware at an AV is that an average Joe won't be able to replicate such an attack to evaluate AV products. AV test and AV comparatives are providing data from such tests to the general public. However, the choice on which AV is better for your own use cases are still dependent on a ton of other things, and everyone should try a few different AVs until they find one that suits them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top