I'd also hope that as a result of Tenable's marketing efforts, we could be point in future VA product evaluations. It's definitely in our interests to make sure Nessus remains popular, open and more importantly, relevant -- especially if managers end up reading the article and get the wrong impression of Nessus.
If folks on the list hear of future VA product evaluations, please contact Renaud or myself. Ron Gula, CTO Tenable Network Security http://www.tenablesecurity.com At 11:37 AM 1/31/2003 +0100, Renaud Deraison wrote:
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
