Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MacDefender" data-source="post: 924495" data-attributes="member: 83059">I like it when the tests reveal enough information about their samples that we can draw meaningful real world conclusions.For example, years ago this community was one of the first to start noting how BitDefender’s signatures lagged for zero day protection. That drove the intuition that if you choose a BD product it needs to be combined with something else that protects against emerging threats — whether that’s a second engine or a dynamic behavior blocker.Even recently, @harlan4096’s tests showed that F-Secure had repeated blind spots to both scriptors as well as broad whitelisting of legitimate processes that could be abused (Python, Node.JS, etc).When a test just says that product A detected 490 out of 500 threats and product B detected 480 out of 500, I think it’s crazy that people switch AV software based off those kinds of results. In a lot of the lab tests there simply is not enough spread between the products and the tests exaggerate slight differences, less than a few percent detection differences. Worse, other labs conflate non-protection scores in with the overall score (ease of use, false positive on a largely irrelevant battery of software, etc)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MacDefender, post: 924495, member: 83059"] I like it when the tests reveal enough information about their samples that we can draw meaningful real world conclusions. For example, years ago this community was one of the first to start noting how BitDefender’s signatures lagged for zero day protection. That drove the intuition that if you choose a BD product it needs to be combined with something else that protects against emerging threats — whether that’s a second engine or a dynamic behavior blocker. Even recently, @harlan4096’s tests showed that F-Secure had repeated blind spots to both scriptors as well as broad whitelisting of legitimate processes that could be abused (Python, Node.JS, etc). When a test just says that product A detected 490 out of 500 threats and product B detected 480 out of 500, I think it’s crazy that people switch AV software based off those kinds of results. In a lot of the lab tests there simply is not enough spread between the products and the tests exaggerate slight differences, less than a few percent detection differences. Worse, other labs conflate non-protection scores in with the overall score (ease of use, false positive on a largely irrelevant battery of software, etc) [/QUOTE]

Verification