Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1102212" data-attributes="member: 32260">It is not so simple. The samples should be representative too. So, the tester must avoid morphed samples, POCs, etc. This is probably the most challenging part of real-world testing. It can also be controversial because most AV testing labs do not share details of how the samples are chosen. One has to believe that the AV vendors and leading AV testing labs can cooperate to make those tests reliable. I noticed that the real-world scorings of AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, and SE Labs can differ significantly over a year. So, their testing methodologies are not perfect.Edit.It is possible that reliable AV testing methodology does not exist and the test scorings are so reliable as predicting the weather for a month. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite109" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1102212, member: 32260"] It is not so simple. The samples should be representative too. So, the tester must avoid morphed samples, POCs, etc. This is probably the most challenging part of real-world testing. It can also be controversial because most AV testing labs do not share details of how the samples are chosen. One has to believe that the AV vendors and leading AV testing labs can cooperate to make those tests reliable. I noticed that the real-world scorings of AV-Test, AV-Comparatives, and SE Labs can differ significantly over a year. So, their testing methodologies are not perfect. Edit. It is possible that reliable AV testing methodology does not exist and the test scorings are so reliable as predicting the weather for a month. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification