Final answer:
In firewall detection, false negatives are usually considered worse than false positives as they allow actual threats to go undetected, which can cause significant harm or data loss. False positives, while disruptive, do not lead to direct security breaches.
Step-by-step explanation:
Firewall Detection: False Positives vs. False Negatives
In the context of firewall detection, a false positive occurs when legitimate activities or data are incorrectly flagged as threats, leading to unnecessary alerts and potentially blocking benign traffic. False positives can happen due to overly aggressive security settings, outdated rules, or misidentification of normal behavior as malicious. On the other hand, a false negative happens when actual threats are missed by the firewall, allowing malicious activities to go undetected, which can lead to data breaches or other cyberattacks.
When assessing what is worse between a false positive and a false negative, it generally depends on the context and the consequences of each. However, a false negative is typically considered more dangerous as it permits actual threats to bypass the firewall, potentially resulting in significant harm or data loss. False positives, although disruptive and potentially costly due to wasted resources on investigations, do not directly lead to a security breach.