BUT guys common… so you want to share the stupid flames of users over
your security product with the AV vendors as they have classified it
as a BAD-TOOL. Will that make you feel better? It's more of your
headache & responsibility to let the users know before download that
your security product might be classified by AV as potential threats
as, YOU KNOW they may be used for either good or bad purpose. I don't
suppose Fyodor will take any responsibility for the action of a
malicious user if nmap is used for some malicious purpose??? How AV
software would know whether software's like netcat, metasploit or nmap
found in a machine is put there by a legitimate user or by a malicious
person willing to some further evil deeds. So as a proactive measure
they rate the software's as a threat. DEFAULT DENY. Makes sense to me…
( but I agree AV vendors lack proper classification ) hey... User
always has the option to ask their AV to ignore the particular
file/directory if they own the privilege in the machine anyways.
The issue isn't that it is a default deny approach; it is the case that when a user requests additional information from the tool that would delete the software, they receive a very skewed perspective.
Anyone who uses McAffee want to download the load of FoundStone tools and determine if any of those (including SuperScan!) qualify as 'hacking tools'?
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
