Hello, At the risk of injecting a note of seriousness into the discussion, has anyone ever done a systematic review of analysts' reports on anti-virus/malware/threat or "endpoint" protection software to see how accurate the predictions are? I wonder if there is a measurable way to quantify that analysts are X% accurate over N years, or some other type of proof?
Regards, Aryeh Goretsky At 08:05 AM 11/23/2009, [email protected] wrote: >From: "Hubbard, Dan" <[email protected]> >Precedence: list >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: "'Alex Eckelberry'" <[email protected]>, Larry Seltzer > <[email protected]>, Michael Graham <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >References: ><4b051eb3.20866.2ce...@localhost><001301ca6951$e5264b40$af72e1...@org><[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> >In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> >Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:29:27 -0800 >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > >boundary="_000_E13E460CC320354F9E37084CA2F845A75F58BA3B54SSDEXCH2webse_" >Subject: Re: [funsec] Rethinking FUNSEC >Message: 3 > >Funsec has hit its peak of inflated expectations and certainly hit >its plateau of productivity, due to that we have decided to relegate >Funsec to the newly created "Jesters Quadrant". > [...snip...] _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
