Prev: Habberdabber! Warnerbee is our forlorn hope!
Next: Aquarium screen saver?
From: Hito Shirezu on 18 Apr 2010 15:02
Bear Bottoms wrote:

>> If you want a productive discussion here, try providing some credible
>> criticism of what you think is wrong with their present testing
>> procedures.
>>
> Why, I provided a lot in the past that is over the head of most in this
> group...you think it is different now?

Well, I'm a 25+ year veteran, college educated, computer geek with a
strong emphasis on security, malware countermeasures, and forensics. I've
been officially involved in several major, well publicized AV testing
orginazations, installed, secured, and administered systems in places
like hospitals and prisons, and done my own research that went far beyond
simple testing into the realm of disassembly and actually understanding
what this type of software does at machine level. Put bluntly, there's
absolutely no way you'd ever be in peril of speaking over my head.

....and I don't see where you ever actually explained what you mean by
"flawed", at least not in any sort of coherent detail at all.
Permutations of "virus testing flawed group:alt.comp.freeware author:Bear
Bottoms" turn up pretty much nothing but you just repeating the word in
hopes that people will start believing you know what you're talking
about. Indeed, the only "detail" you released was an agreement to someone
else's stating that stagnant "zoo" tests were unreliable where heuristics
were involved. Not even your idea, and Virusbtn is one of the
organizations which does not lean heavily on that sort of test anyway, so
they'd fall inside your apparent guideline(s) for good testing.

So if you wouldn't mind, I'd be happy to be directed to one of these
alleged in depth explanations by message ID if they exist (I've already
Googled so don't bother), or if you'd be so kind as to repeat said
alleged in depth explanations, I'd be more than elated to critique them
for you. :)

From: Serak on 18 Apr 2010 15:26

"Hito Shirezu" <none(a)server.invalid> wrote in message
news:hqfl0o$464$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>>> If you want a productive discussion here, try providing some credible
>>> criticism of what you think is wrong with their present testing
>>> procedures.
>>>
>> Why, I provided a lot in the past that is over the head of most in this
>> group...you think it is different now?
>
> Well, I'm a 25+ year veteran, college educated, computer geek with a
> strong emphasis on security, malware countermeasures, and forensics. I've
> been officially involved in several major, well publicized AV testing
> orginazations, installed, secured, and administered systems in places
> like hospitals and prisons, and done my own research that went far beyond
> simple testing into the realm of disassembly and actually understanding
> what this type of software does at machine level. Put bluntly, there's
> absolutely no way you'd ever be in peril of speaking over my head.
>
> ...and I don't see where you ever actually explained what you mean by
> "flawed", at least not in any sort of coherent detail at all.
> Permutations of "virus testing flawed group:alt.comp.freeware author:Bear
> Bottoms" turn up pretty much nothing but you just repeating the word in
> hopes that people will start believing you know what you're talking
> about. Indeed, the only "detail" you released was an agreement to someone
> else's stating that stagnant "zoo" tests were unreliable where heuristics
> were involved. Not even your idea, and Virusbtn is one of the
> organizations which does not lean heavily on that sort of test anyway, so
> they'd fall inside your apparent guideline(s) for good testing.
>
> So if you wouldn't mind, I'd be happy to be directed to one of these
> alleged in depth explanations by message ID if they exist (I've already
> Googled so don't bother), or if you'd be so kind as to repeat said
> alleged in depth explanations, I'd be more than elated to critique them
> for you. :)
>


Oh snap.....
Prof Bear B Doll's head is imploding.

Lew

From: Hito Shirezu on 18 Apr 2010 15:43
Bear Bottoms wrote:

> Hito Shirezu <none(a)server.invalid> wrote in
> news:hqfl0o$464$1(a)news.eternal- september.org:
>
>> Well, I'm a 25+ year veteran, college educated, computer geek
>
> Never saw you here before, troll.

So then you're unable to offer anything at all to back up your claim that
you've given details regarding what you mean by AV testing being
"flawed"? Not a single message where you've expanded the thought beyond
agreeing with someone else, on one single general point? Not even one new
idea? Nothing at all specific?

You honestly believe that your best response is to try and tap dance out
of the situation by calling me a troll?

Not very impressive. :(
From: za kAT on 18 Apr 2010 16:51
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 19:43:44 +0000 (UTC), Hito Shirezu wrote:

> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
>> Hito Shirezu <none(a)server.invalid> wrote in
>> news:hqfl0o$464$1(a)news.eternal- september.org:
>>
>>> Well, I'm a 25+ year veteran, college educated, computer geek
>>
>> Never saw you here before, troll.
>
> So then you're unable to offer anything at all to back up your claim that
> you've given details regarding what you mean by AV testing being
> "flawed"? Not a single message where you've expanded the thought beyond
> agreeing with someone else, on one single general point? Not even one new
> idea? Nothing at all specific?
>
> You honestly believe that your best response is to try and tap dance out
> of the situation by calling me a troll?
>
> Not very impressive. :(

*TROLL ALERT*
--
zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat - www.zakATsKopterChat.com
From: »Q« on 18 Apr 2010 17:50
In <news:830r67Fmo0U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
Mark Warner <mhwarner.inhibitions(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Bear Bottoms wrote:
> > Mark Warner wrote:

> >> 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 don't have anything to add to that. I just thought it might help him
to read it twice.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Habberdabber! Warnerbee is our forlorn hope!
Next: Aquarium screen saver?