Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition and Client Firewall
in [Anti-Virus]
|
From: Dustin Cook on 13 Jan 2010 02:38 Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:14opk55m8q7d1kenul7g7n163a82a7hkr0(a)4ax.com: > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:04:50 GMT, Dustin Cook > <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com wrote in >>news:6shdk55p2c2nk7tljj76bojs53l0v4fk2d@ 4ax.com: >> >>>>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO >>>>Do I have details for you to inspect - NO >>>>Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO >>> >>> Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!! >> >>Speaking of credibility.. I have that as a current Malware Researcher >>for malwarebytes (almost 2.5 years now); a certified tech, as well as >>a former virus writer; well known, well published... >> >>What are your creditials in this field, sir? > > None. Absolutely none. I never claimed to be an AV expert myself nor > did I claim to have private forum / closed test data that refuted the > leading AV testing sources. Like David Lipman has ..but refuses to > post his 'data.' Evidently it's secret ...ya think sweet thang? I can attest to Davids claims as being true. Secret is relative. Much of the information isn't intended for public distribution but the fact the groups exist isn't a secret. Atleast, not one I knew of. One of the reasons for the strict non public access is simple in nature; We don't want users accidently getting themselves into trouble simply because they might be curious. > My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection > scores and respective rankings sites. > > SUCH AS: AV Comparatives AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me, but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago that they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the first place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will allow you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time. :) > That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert > (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!") Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend to burn something up when they think they know more than they actually do. *grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't know it, and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss something we wouldn't. For example, one of the sources you site is.. a very bad source; pcmagazine weighs a little higher; and thats just above 0 :) > All that ANYONE needs to be able to do is READ the test results, > verify the sources and draw the logical conclusions. There are many AV Reading and comprehending it aren't the same thing. I wish that was the case, life would certainly be easier and arguments probably would be much less frequent. > products that are ICSA certified that give adequate security. > Sometimes it is just a matter of installing the trial versions and > making a selection among certified vendors that suits your personal > needs and tastes. ICSA allows a vendor to resubmit (and provides copies of the missed samples) until they do get it right. Do you understand sir? You can be a really lousy product and still score an ICSA award. > So to summarize - NO...I AM NOT an AV expert. Never claimed to be! Several of us are tho. You do like facts, right? :) > No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from > certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be > adequately secure. One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available. > It just happens that for 2009 Norton products were selected TOP of > 2009. I like and use Norton so I posted the relevant links. Your issue > needs to be taken up with AV-Comparatives, ICSA, Virus Bulletin and > the like who all score the 2009/2010 line from Norton to be certified > and exceptional. If I'm pissing in your Cheerios - tuff. By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales boost in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for. Some, program they got huh? :) -- "Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?" - Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
From: Charlie on 13 Jan 2010 17:44 On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:38:00 GMT, Dustin Cook <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >news:14opk55m8q7d1kenul7g7n163a82a7hkr0(a)4ax.com: > >> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:04:50 GMT, Dustin Cook >> <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com wrote in >>>news:6shdk55p2c2nk7tljj76bojs53l0v4fk2d@ 4ax.com: >>> >>>>>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO >>>>>Do I have details for you to inspect - NO >>>>>Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO >>>> >>>> Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!! >>> >>>Speaking of credibility.. I have that as a current Malware Researcher >>>for malwarebytes (almost 2.5 years now); a certified tech, as well as >>>a former virus writer; well known, well published... >>> >>>What are your creditials in this field, sir? >> >> None. Absolutely none. I never claimed to be an AV expert myself nor >> did I claim to have private forum / closed test data that refuted the >> leading AV testing sources. Like David Lipman has ..but refuses to >> post his 'data.' Evidently it's secret ...ya think sweet thang? > >I can attest to Davids claims as being true. Secret is relative. Much of >the information isn't intended for public distribution but the fact the >groups exist isn't a secret. Atleast, not one I knew of. One of the >reasons for the strict non public access is simple in nature; We don't >want users accidently getting themselves into trouble simply because they >might be curious. Wow!! Thanks a million for such a humanitarian gesture. The world is a safer place because of your knowledge that just happens to have no public access! How could it be? This is rich... I now 100% reverse myself on David's credibility since yet another single, lone individual, who also cannot prove his credibility, endorses him. Are you guys Masons or what? Have you got a secret handshake too? > >> My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection >> scores and respective rankings sites. >> >> SUCH AS: AV Comparatives > >AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me, >but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond >repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals >responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago that >they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the first >place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will allow >you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time. :) No free time to substantiate your claims? How convenient. Ok class..what's wrong with THIS picture? > >> That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert >> (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!") > >Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I >know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend to >burn something up when they think they know more than they actually do. >*grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't know it, >and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss something we >wouldn't. Gee whiz. It is just a real dam shame that all this data that could prevent people from 'going amiss' cannot be made public in an AV newsgroup. 99% of internet users have no idea where to start to get a newsfeed. Your SECRETS are safe here! Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an AV authority based on what YOU tell us? Well I know that sure convinces me! Anyone else feel convinced too? > >For example, one of the sources you site is.. a very bad source; >pcmagazine weighs a little higher; and thats just above 0 :) Again more unsubstantiated claims we are supposed to accept on YOUR say-so? Well, that's good enough for me! > >> All that ANYONE needs to be able to do is READ the test results, >> verify the sources and draw the logical conclusions. There are many AV > >Reading and comprehending it aren't the same thing. I wish that was the >case, life would certainly be easier and arguments probably would be much >less frequent. > >> products that are ICSA certified that give adequate security. >> Sometimes it is just a matter of installing the trial versions and >> making a selection among certified vendors that suits your personal >> needs and tastes. > >ICSA allows a vendor to resubmit (and provides copies of the missed >samples) until they do get it right. Do you understand sir? You can be a >really lousy product and still score an ICSA award. Yes sir I have known that for a good many years. But your conclusion that the ICSA resubmission allows a lousy product to pass is patently false. What it does is promote development of better AV products THUS precluding a 'lousy' product from passing. Do you understand sir? Moreover sir, many AV products do not pass ever during a testing cycle. If it was so easy to pass how can that be? Yeah I'm gonna pay attention to a self-annointed AV expert that uses that kind of logic. > >> So to summarize - NO...I AM NOT an AV expert. Never claimed to be! > >Several of us are tho. You do like facts, right? :) Facts that can be PROVEN and VERIFIED. Your words of self exaltation are 100% meaningless without some way to validate and substantiate them. Do you understand sir? > >> No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from >> certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be >> adequately secure. > >One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken >lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available. > >By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales boost >in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for. Some, >program they got huh? :) As an AV expert (without credentials) I am sure you already know that ICSA uses the VB in the wild test scores as part of ICSA certification. So since you claim AV comparatives is crooked and VB uses poor methodolgy it follows suit that ICSA certification is also worthless. That is it follows based on your assertions alone (without proof) Gee... the world be shocked to learn this once you and your friends release all the secret data. I can't wait. Thank god I bumped into you!!!
From: FromTheRafters on 13 Jan 2010 18:26 "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ejhsk51j7umt467vpb43fi1do4jll71duv(a)4ax.com... > Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an > AV > authority based on what YOU tell us? He is who he says he is, you can take my word for it. :o)
From: Dustin Cook on 14 Jan 2010 02:09 Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:ejhsk51j7umt467vpb43fi1do4jll71duv(a)4ax.com: > On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 07:38:00 GMT, Dustin Cook > <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Charlie <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>news:14opk55m8q7d1kenul7g7n163a82a7hkr0(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:04:50 GMT, Dustin Cook >>> <bughunter.dustin(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com wrote in >>>>news:6shdk55p2c2nk7tljj76bojs53l0v4fk2d@ 4ax.com: >>>> >>>>>>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO >>>>>>Do I have details for you to inspect - NO >>>>>>Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!! >>>> >>>>Speaking of credibility.. I have that as a current Malware >>>>Researcher for malwarebytes (almost 2.5 years now); a certified >>>>tech, as well as a former virus writer; well known, well >>>>published... >>>> >>>>What are your creditials in this field, sir? >>> >>> None. Absolutely none. I never claimed to be an AV expert myself nor >>> did I claim to have private forum / closed test data that refuted >>> the leading AV testing sources. Like David Lipman has ..but refuses >>> to post his 'data.' Evidently it's secret ...ya think sweet thang? >> >>I can attest to Davids claims as being true. Secret is relative. Much >>of the information isn't intended for public distribution but the fact >>the groups exist isn't a secret. Atleast, not one I knew of. One of >>the reasons for the strict non public access is simple in nature; We >>don't want users accidently getting themselves into trouble simply >>because they might be curious. > > Wow!! Thanks a million for such a humanitarian gesture. The world is > a safer place because of your knowledge that just happens to have no > public access! How could it be? This is rich... My knowledge? You make me laugh. Hysterically even. :) You have real.. odd issues man.. I just dunno about you. > I now 100% reverse myself on David's credibility since yet another > single, lone individual, who also cannot prove his credibility, > endorses him. Are you guys Masons or what? Have you got a secret > handshake too? >> >>> My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection >>> scores and respective rankings sites. >>> >>> SUCH AS: AV Comparatives >> >>AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me, >>but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond >>repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals >>responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago >>that they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the >>first place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will >>allow you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time. >>:) > > No free time to substantiate your claims? How convenient. Ok > class..what's wrong with THIS picture? Umm, I just said *you* can find the posts via the archives; I am not going to waste the time. I was here when he posted them. Alot of people were, actually. So, sadly for you, it's not a claim. :) >> >>> That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert >>> (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!") >> >>Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I >>know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend >>to burn something up when they think they know more than they actually >>do. *grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't >>know it, and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss >>something we wouldn't. > > Gee whiz. It is just a real dam shame that all this data that could > prevent people from 'going amiss' cannot be made public in an AV > newsgroup. 99% of internet users have no idea where to start to get a > newsfeed. Your SECRETS are safe here! Huh? > Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an > AV authority based on what YOU tell us? > Well I know that sure convinces me! Anyone else feel convinced too? Oh, no.. I wouldn't expect you to take me at face value. That would be pretty assinine on my part, wouldn't it? I was actually expecting you to check me out for yourself. You probably should...*shrug*. This isn't even remotely close to fair, so I won't fire this turn. <G> > Yeah I'm gonna pay attention to a self-annointed AV expert that uses > that kind of logic. See above... > Facts that can be PROVEN and VERIFIED. Your words of self exaltation > are 100% meaningless without some way to validate and substantiate > them. Do you understand sir? See above. Re-read the entire post please. I only stated facts, not any opinions to you, Sir. :) >> >>> No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from >>> certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be >>> adequately secure. >> >>One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken >>lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available. >> > >>By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales >>boost in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for. >>Some, program they got huh? :) > > As an AV expert (without credentials) I am sure you already know that > ICSA uses the VB in the wild test scores as part of ICSA > certification. without? hehehe, sorry; no.. I'm afraid not. I have credentials, as a former Vxer; and a current malware researcher for Malware Bytes. Aside from developing my own program known as BugHunter, that is.. :) I have more... examples, if you need em. But seriously; this is all public knowledge. really. I wouldn't try to troll you. -- "Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?" - Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
From: Dustin Cook on 14 Jan 2010 02:09
"FromTheRafters" <erratic(a)nomail.afraid.org> wrote in news:hilkr8$2hg$1 @news.eternal-september.org: > "Charlie" <fat.charlie(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:ejhsk51j7umt467vpb43fi1do4jll71duv(a)4ax.com... > >> Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an >> AV >> authority based on what YOU tell us? > > He is who he says he is, you can take my word for it. :o) He doesn't know that. Didn't do his fact checking before posting, I suppose. -- "Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?" - Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword. |