On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:18:49AM +0100, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
> I believe it would be nice to have a list (in the nessus.org) of
> comparison charts (even if Nessus is not found out as the best VA in
> it). Sample comparison analysis is done at:
>
> -NetworkWorldFusion:
> http://www.nwfusion.com/reviews/2002/0204bgtoc.html. Which probably used
> an old version of Nessus (funny thing, they don't say which)
Oh yeah. I that comparison, every scanner was running on a biprocessor host,
with 512mb of ram, except Nessus which was installed on a single
processor host with 256mb. Now that's a fair comparison, given the fact
that they hilighted the SPEED of the scan, which really really is the
important factor here.
[...]
> Renaud, do you think it would be interesting to contact them and submit
> Nessus for review there too?
No. I don't know who these guys are and what their testing procedure is.
I don't want some guy to "click around", complain during two pages how
difficult installing Nessus is, because it runs on that Linux thingy
that was not available at work, and finally gives two stars out of five
to Nessus because the HTML reports have no javascript, the CLI is
terrible and the GUI was not tested because they could not figure how to
install X11.
And frankly, the above is a slight deformation of what happens most of
the time.
Apart from that, I'm about to finish Nessus 1.4, and I'd prefer that one
to be evaluated, rather than 1.2.
-- Renaud
