What good is 80, 90, 95 percent.

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by trjam, Mar 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kasperking

    kasperking Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Posts:
    406
    irrelevant...if you have an image backed up on an external hdd...and make sure it works :p
     
  2. Patrician

    Patrician Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Posts:
    132
    So, unusable then?
     
  3. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    Are you referring to static on-demand test results? If so, I personally don’t place much merit in any of these findings, because they fail to test all of the capabilities of the anti-malware product in an environment that mimics a user’s actual experience. For this reason, they are basically immaterial to the question of the quality of the protection provided by an anti-malware product.

    In my opinion, the anti-malware testing organizations should cease and desist from this folly and seek to enhance methodologies such as the whole-product dynamic testing conducted recently by AV-Comparatives and AV-Test.
     
  4. ameyap

    ameyap Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Posts:
    87
    a good antivirus generally has 98% detection which is sufficient in most cases. i don't use multi layered security as it drastically slows a system down. i follow the multi os scanning formula. have installed bitdefender on linux with which i scan my windows every forthnight. also a offline backup every 3-4 months helps.
     
  5. Martijn2

    Martijn2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Posts:
    321
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    It's all about chance, how higher the detection percentage, how higher the chance you have a malware will be detected... very simple :) but remember, it only takes 1 malware to infect a pc, that's why proactive protection is much more reliable (a sandbox for example)
     
  6. Pleonasm

    Pleonasm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    1,201
    If you’re a user that isn’t connected to the Internet (duplicating the conditions under which such on-demand tests are usually done) and is only interested in detecting uninstalled resident malware samples, then your interpretation is correct.

    But, don’t you think that most users are more interested in malware prevention than detection? If “Product A” detects 95% of the tested malware and “Product B” detects 90%, you can’t infer that Product A would do a better job of preventing malware than Product B. Why? Because the on-demand detection assessment doesn’t reflect in-the-cloud reputation-based analyses that might have prevented downloading the malware, nor does it reflect on-execution prevention technologies. For such reasons, comparisons of products based on detection rates seem very dubious, in my opinion.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.