I'm ignoring the 990 sites it didn't have to check because it wasn't relevant to the quote I was discussing:
>Bloom filter allows Chrome to use precise verification service practically only when the user actually goes to a malicious web site.
This is saying that most of the time the Bloom filter returns a positive (and therefore Chrome needs to use precise verification), it's a true positive. That's clearly not true.
But you've missed the entire point, which is that normally the browser would have to run the slow check on the 1000 sites, now it only has to run the slow check on 10 of them. That's a huge improvement, even if 9 of them turn out to be false positives.
I didn't emphasize that part of it, no; I was attempting to respond to only the part I quoted. I guess I should've tempered my original comment by saying that although the quote was incorrect, the Bloom filter overall is still a great help.
You're both right, and I'm pretty sure zck understands and appreciate the time savings that you're talking about. He's just pointing that the author's statement that "only malicious sites needed to be tested" is blatantly wrong.
That's 10 sites to check out of 1000 - 1% of the load of checking (remotely) all 1000 sites (or 0.9% if you only count the false positives) wasted.