Prev: Habberdabber! Warnerbee is our forlorn hope!
Next: Aquarium screen saver?
From: Mark Warner on 18 Apr 2010 12:43
Bear Bottoms wrote:
> Mark Warner wrote:
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> Mark Warner wrote:
>>>> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml
>>>
>>> I'd say it's about time they opened their eyes to the flawed testing
>>> they have been doing. Ya gotta register with them to see it
>>> though...why was this kept a secret?
>> No need to register to see and interpret the graph.
>>
>> High and to the right is good, low and to the left ain't.
>>
>> A better version of the graph (from the Sunbelt site, hence the arrow)
>> is available here:
>>
>> http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/alex/gblog/rap_detections_2.jpg
>
> To the right is proactive detection (signature based).

Just the opposite. Proactive is detection of malwares that came after
the product submission.

"This test set is used to gauge products' ability to detect new and
unknown samples proactively, using heuristic and generic techniques."

> I did not see
> AVAST in the mix. Nor did I see Panda Cloud AV or Immunet Protect. I also
> see Rising listed very low with Kingsoft, but the test before this one
> put Kingsoft as passing...very strange conflict. They obviously do not
> know how to test RISING...I've told them to test what infects...they
> apparently aren't interested in a complete test.

LOL.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
....lose .inhibitions when replying
From: za kAT on 18 Apr 2010 13:25
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:17 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:

> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in news:hqfcbm$kcg$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:09:04 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>> why was this kept a secret?
>>
>> More important is why is Rising low and to the left?
>>
>
> While they have improved their testing to include some reactives, they
> still have a long way to go. I'm tickled to see this post however, as it
> sustains my argument of past about their flawed/incomplete testing.

Only in your head. From what I remember just about everyone else was/and
still is aware that /no/ testing can be definitive, but it's the best we've
got, and what's more it's still flawed because it doesn't test for stray
banana custard on my t shirt.

--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: za kAT on 18 Apr 2010 13:48
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:45:30 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:

> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in
> news:hqffa2$akp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:17 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:hqfcbm$kcg$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:09:04 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> why was this kept a secret?
>>>>
>>>> More important is why is Rising low and to the left?
>>>>
>>>
>>> While they have improved their testing to include some reactives,
>>> they still have a long way to go. I'm tickled to see this post
>>> however, as it sustains my argument of past about their
>>> flawed/incomplete testing.
>>
>> Only in your head. From what I remember just about everyone else
>> was/and still is aware that /no/ testing can be definitive, but it's
>> the best we've got, and what's more it's still flawed because it
>> doesn't test for stray banana custard on my t shirt.
>>
>
> Your rememberance is flawed though the statement is a given, yet doesn't
> approach the actual events of discussion accurately.

You're right...as usual.

Must be the catshit getting into my head.
--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: za kAT on 18 Apr 2010 13:53
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:45:30 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:

> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in
> news:hqffa2$akp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 17:16:17 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>>> za kAT <zakAT(a)super-secret-IPaddress.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:hqfcbm$kcg$1 @news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 14:09:04 GMT, Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> why was this kept a secret?
>>>>
>>>> More important is why is Rising low and to the left?
>>>>
>>>
>>> While they have improved their testing to include some reactives,
>>> they still have a long way to go. I'm tickled to see this post
>>> however, as it sustains my argument of past about their
>>> flawed/incomplete testing.
>>
>> Only in your head. From what I remember just about everyone else
>> was/and still is aware that /no/ testing can be definitive, but it's
>> the best we've got, and what's more it's still flawed because it
>> doesn't test for stray banana custard on my t shirt.
>>
>
> Your rememberance is flawed though the statement is a given, yet doesn't
> approach the actual events of discussion accurately.

Don't troll me Bottom. There wasn't an open and honest discussion. You
couldn't provide /any/ credible evidence of the proactive defence you
claimed Rising provided, and were roasted for it. You could have just ended
it there but you trolled on and on, and you are still doing it. Again you
have openly criticised this testing and supplied nothing to backup your
statement.

--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: Mark Warner on 18 Apr 2010 13:55
Bear Bottoms wrote:
> za kAT wrote:
>>
>> More important is why is Rising low and to the left?
>
> While they have improved their testing to include some reactives, they
> still have a long way to go. I'm tickled to see this post however, as it
> sustains my argument of past about their flawed/incomplete testing.

In Bearworld, up is down and right is wrong.

Go ask Alice. I think she'll know.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
....lose .inhibitions when replying
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Habberdabber! Warnerbee is our forlorn hope!
Next: Aquarium screen saver?