On 10 Oct 2006 at 9:58, Marc Sims wrote:
> That article is heavily biased against other anti-virus vendors not to
> mention
> the freeware anti-virus products as well such as AVG and the like. It favors
> McAfee
> and it sounds like a hard sell of McAfee advertising its products.
Say WHAT?!??! Did you read the same article I did? What I think of the
article is pretty much on par with Bernie's comments, however, you seem to be
reading WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more into that article than what was actually
said.
Nowhere in that article did they specifically mention anything specific to
Mcafee products per se, he mentioned general antivirus techniques that have
been around for over 10 years which McAfee also happens to use.
> Its conslusions I find are bogus especially the analysis of Windows
> CrashGuard it states that it crashes but does not mention which
> products or under what circumstances or programs besides malicious
> code which causes the crash.
That could be a purpose full oversite, but considering the comments by other
AV vendors on this same issue, I highly doubt that.
> Sure it says that it's thankfull that users have a choice between
> Symantec, check Point but never goes far beyond the others and doesn't
> even bother to look at all at the many freeware alternatives. Instead
> what we get is a Microsoft-bashing contest that McAfee is saying "My
> antivirus software is better than Microsoft's" mentality.
"But again, the security products from the likes of McAfee, Symantec,
Check
Point Software Technologies, et al,"
Note the sentence above, it pauses with et al, that means, "and others", he
didn't need to name any others, because the techniques discussed in this
article are the same across ALL vendors with minor exceptions. They all do
the same thing and have their proprietary trademarked name for it. So why
does he need to mention any other ones? The fact is, from a market
standpoint, those 3 mentioned are among the tops in North American deployment
and probably the world, much to my personal dismay.
> To add insult to injury it didn't even bother look to at Windows
> Defender Microsoft's own anti-virus software which is free to download
> and is a very good antivirus program at that. It even detects malware
Does it work under Vista? I have tried Vista yet, nor done any research on
this specifically.
> and other eTrojans that even McAfee and Symantec couldn't detect. I
> could not believe this especially when the article was written by a
> chief scientist at McAfee.
No offense, I am pretty much as anti Symantec and McAfee as they get, but you
are doing just the thing you accuse the author of, providing statements
without any verification. I've experienced the same thing, but see below.
Also I don't understand your point about Defender detecting stuff that the
others miss, I guarantee you there's stuff that Defender misses that the
other's catch. The same is true with ANY security product. That's the whole
point about multiple layers of security, what one layer lets through will
(hopefully) be stopped by the next layer, or the layer after that and so on.
Bob Toxen in "Real World Linux Security" talks about security as an onion,
you have to peel off layer after layer after layer to get to the centre.
--
Harondel J. Sibble
Sibble Computer Consulting
Creating solutions for the small business and home computer user.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (use pgp keyid 0x3AD5C11D) http://www.pdscc.com
(604) 739-3709 (voice/fax) (604) 686-2253 (pager)
--
----------------------------------------
To Change your email Address for this list, send the following message:
CHANGE WIN-HOME your_old_address your_new_address
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note carefully that both old and new addresses are required.
