The topic of conversation is this:  I use Windows Defender on Windows 10, w=
hich AV Comparibles (sic) says has 'only' an 80% detection rate (I say that=
's good enough).  Another program, like say Norton or whatever, will have a=
 98% detection rate.  What badware (virus, malware, etc) lies in the gap be=
tween Defender's detection rate and the better commercial software?  In the=
 18% range? (98-80 
 18%)?

I am speculating not much badware.  It's something obscure like a "Open Can=
dy" cookie or something that might hijack your browser or something like th=
at, nothing "serious". I'm speculating the 'serious stuff' is in the 80% an=
d below range that every AV program (including the 'hapless' Defender) will=
 catch.

Is this a reasonable assumption?  Please, resist the temptation for a "para=
de of horribles" example.  I'm sure you can come up with one, but I could c=
ounter that the Stuxnet virus could infect even the machine that has 98% de=
tection.  We're talking about 'center mass' or stuff that falls 1 or 2 stan=
dard deviations from the mean, not stuff China, North Korea or the CIA woul=
d write.

RL


"Diesel" wrote in another thread:

While it's a true statement, it's mostly marketing FUD and PR
nonsense. Honestly. SAS catches things MBAM missed, BugHunter caught
things MBAM missed (yes, it did), MBAM caught things both of the
previously mentioned ones missed. None of this remained consistent.
Sometimes, within hours, one or more would trade places on who
scanned what first and detected it. It's no different than various
antivirus programs. It's been ongoing since more than one antivirus
was presented to the world. :)
--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2