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
Inactive Support Threads
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
Windows Defender vs Top 100 Infostealers
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1111379" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Leo tested the detection of AV1 against 100 samples and 22 samples were undetected. Next, he used AV2, AV3, ... on <span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>undetected </strong></span>samples and we could see that those AVs detected a few samples from those undetected samples. He forgot that <strong><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)">AV2, AV3, ... could also miss a few samples</span></strong> that were already detected by AV1. But, we did not have a chance to see if it could be true or not, due to an invalid procedure applied in the Leo test. The only useful information from the video is that the Norton Power Eraser tool (not an AV) is very efficient.</p><p></p><p><strong>This is a good example of when the initial assumption about AV1 makes the test results irrelevant.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1111379, member: 32260"] Leo tested the detection of AV1 against 100 samples and 22 samples were undetected. Next, he used AV2, AV3, ... on [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]undetected [/B][/COLOR]samples and we could see that those AVs detected a few samples from those undetected samples. He forgot that [B][COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)]AV2, AV3, ... could also miss a few samples[/COLOR][/B] that were already detected by AV1. But, we did not have a chance to see if it could be true or not, due to an invalid procedure applied in the Leo test. The only useful information from the video is that the Norton Power Eraser tool (not an AV) is very efficient. [B]This is a good example of when the initial assumption about AV1 makes the test results irrelevant.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
