Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Computer Learning -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Esteban who wrote (33809)	4/16/2003 12:21:26 PM
From: mr.mark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110582

that's a good question and i don't have the answer

To: Esteban who wrote (33809)	4/17/2003 12:25:32 AM
From: mr.mark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110582

"With such a discrepancy on number of files scanned, I would question the counting methodology" i am inclined to agree. the responses i am beginning to get on this topic mention archives, for instance, that may or may not be compressed, but are counted as single files by some AVs and not by others. i think that this counting methodology, coupled with an AV's ability to "see" or scan within a packed file, both contribute to the large difference in total files scanned, but in different ways. what gets left undetermined, for example, is the archive that NAV might count as 1 file but KAV counts as 26 files... in this example KAV has been inside and "seen" each file. but we don't know if NAV has or not, because it simply counts the archive as 1. what if NAV "sees" 14 files inside. that's a difference of 12 more files scanned by KAV, but the numbers are all skewed by the counting methodology.