We all love the idea of 'zero-day' protection, but let’s talk about the cost of accuracy.
  

George Fady Lv1Posted 2026-Jun-02 23:23

Sangfor Engine Zero uses some serious math—Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Random Forest algorithms—to catch viruses that don't even have a signature yet. It’s a self-evolving AI at our gateway. However, the documentation notes that false positives can happen if Neural-X misidentifies a domain, potentially blocking legitimate traffic.
Discussion Points:
  • In your production environment, do you prefer a 'Strict' AI-based policy that might block a few safe files, or a 'Conservative' signature-based approach?
  • How often have you encountered a false positive with Engine Zero, and what was your process for whitelisting?
  • Is AI-based detection ready to replace traditional AV entirely, or should it only be a 'second opinion'?"
Humayun Ahmed Lv4Posted 2026-Jun-03 12:42
  
I typically lean toward a stricter AI posture. A few false positives are usually easier to manage than a successful ransomware outbreak.

I prefer:

AI enabled, Engine Zero enabled, Reputation services enabled, Traditional AV enabled.

Today: No

AI is excellent at:

Pattern recognition
Behavioral analysis
Detecting unknown threats

But traditional AV still provides:

Fast signature matching
Low-cost detection
Known malware identification
Compliance support

Removing signatures entirely would create unnecessary risk.

But with a balanced policy that minimizes business disruption.