-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 'Lo Allie,
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:43:07 -0500 your time, you authored this: ACM> Which begs the question on this test. Are virus scanners supposed to ACM> quarantine files that aren't really viruses? I don't think it is a question of, 'are they supposed to?', but rather, 'can they?'. And of course Kapersky can, so to me it simply means Kapersky is providing more prophylactic power than AVG. If the software safeguards against viruses and known exploits then I'm pretty happy about that. ACM> It could just mean that your virus scanner doesn't simply consider any ACM> file with a .vbs extension a virus. :-/ Sorry, but I think you kind of miss the point really Allie. Being as we are considering email file attachments; how do most infections occur? Unprotected email users! I think it is a prudent safeguard to treat any file with a vbs extension, or a double extension ending in .vbs, being delivered by email, as suspicious, and the fact that an AV scanner like Kapersky does is all the better for the end user IMO. Put it this way, I'd rather be notified than not! ACM> The statement above just seems ridiculous to me Well of course, they are trying to sell you their product after all, so what do you expect? <g> S> Kapersky on its own catches only 5 of the possible 11 (which is S> expected really I suppose). So there is no advantage having both S> plugins installed for one ACM> I fail to see your reasoning behind why this is so and after doing this ACM> single test The reasoning being that both seem to do job. Hands up, I've been busted! I understand what you are saying, and of course why you logically question this, but I personally don't really want to go through a library of virii testing each scanner with each virus just to see how they compare. I can change the wording if you like.. here goes: If, under fair testing, Kapersky and AVG were found to compare equally when detecting virii, then there would of course be no real advantage having both plugins installed under TB!. However, as I have not tested either scanner with a significant number of virii I cannot state with authority that this is the case. *Although*, from my own experience in virus detection, Kapersky has always detected virii that AVG, AntVir, Norton, and McAfee have not, so my own confidence in the product is high, and therefore I personally see no reason to have the two plugins running successively. Hope this is OK ;) ACM> Perhaps a vulnerability for Outlook users but not for you. ;) True enough. But: ACM> ...if you store your attachments with the message. If you don't then ACM> the file is already stored on the disk) ... That means it's a vulnerability of course. And I agree that TB! users should have protection in place to scan attachment folders, but not everyone will have. This means that the virus has for all intents and purposes passed through any defenses without detection. - -- Sl�n, Simon @ theycallmesimon.co.uk _______________________________________ Faffing about with TB! v1.61 on W2K SP3 PGP Key: http://pgp.netbanger.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Privacy is freedom. Protect your privacy with PGP! Comment: KeyID: 0x5C7E8966 Comment: Fingerprint: 851C F927 0296 FF1C 70A2 474F CB6E 6FFE 5C7E 8966 iQA/AwUBPbx4Ystub/5cfolmEQK/1wCgkhkZPBivP9B8va5Wb9aDrGr6wAEAn09T xXRdanZgGxYT72C2pdEgY1TI =eDxv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ________________________________________________ Current version is 1.61 | "Using TBUDL" information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
