The prevalence is given in five categories and labeled with the following colors: Level Extinct files which according to several telemetry sources had zero prevalence have been provided to the vendors in order to fix them, but have also been removed from the set and were not counted as false alarms. Due to that, a file with the lowest prevalence level (Level 1) and a valid digital signature is upgraded to the next level (e.g. Files which were digitally signed are considered more important. In order to give more information to the user about the false alarms, we try to rate the prevalence of the false alarms. It doesnвЂ™t mean the product with 2 FPs doesnвЂ™t have more than 2 FPs globally, but it is the relative number that is important. 15 FPs and another only 2, it is likely that the first product is more prone to FPs than the other. If, when using such a set, one product has e.g. What can be done, and is reasonable, is to create and use a set of clean files which is independently collected. There is no complete collection of all legitimate files that exist, and so no вЂњultimateвЂќ test of FPs can be done. distinguish clean files from malicious files, despite their context. False Positives Tests measure which programs do best in this respect, i.e. No product is immune from false positives (FPs), but some produce more than others. One aspect of reliability is the ability to recognize clean files as such, and not to produce false alarms (false positives). In AV testing, it is important to measure not only detection capabilities but also reliability. This report is an appendix to the Malware Protection Test March 2021В listing details about the discovered False Alarms.

Avast win32 malware gen false positive