Comments on: Shall we all write viruses to find the best antivirus? http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/shall-we-all-write-viruses-to-find-the-best-antivirus Tue, 15 May 2012 19:24:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Foobar http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/shall-we-all-write-viruses-to-find-the-best-antivirus/comment-page-1#comment-5584 Foobar Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:42:26 +0000 http://blogs.mcafee.com/?p=71#comment-5584 So perhaps the methodology wasn't as professional as you would like. So what. The simple fact is that Consumer Reports created a variety of viruses and anti-virus protection software such as McAfee didn't do a very good job in protecting against those viruses. Listen, as you well know there are thousands of new viruses for Windows created every month. How is Consumer Reports creating viruses for the purpose of testing different then the real-world reality of hackers creating viruses every day? Good article: http://securityabsurdity.com/failure.php So perhaps the methodology wasn’t as professional as you would like. So what. The simple fact is that Consumer Reports created a variety of viruses and anti-virus protection software such as McAfee didn’t do a very good job in protecting against those viruses.

Listen, as you well know there are thousands of new viruses for Windows created every month. How is Consumer Reports creating viruses for the purpose of testing different then the real-world reality of hackers creating viruses every day?

Good article: http://securityabsurdity.com/failure.php

]]> By: Fumba http://blogs.mcafee.com/mcafee-labs/shall-we-all-write-viruses-to-find-the-best-antivirus/comment-page-1#comment-5583 Fumba Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:22:02 +0000 http://blogs.mcafee.com/?p=71#comment-5583 Dear Sir, isn't the tragic truth rather that you are upset because your "security software" was widely unable to detect simple modifications of existing malware, although it obviously should? You are trying to rule out something that your software did not detect because your software did not detect it. This is the same approach that the many "secure by obscurity" security systems take. It also strongly reminds me of the propaganda and ideology that were common in the USSR and East Germany, and which is still encountered in China today ("we have no gays", "there are no HIV infections in our country", "there is nothing to criticise"). Denying an obvious condition does not make it disappear, and reacting to criticism by declaring criticism invalid or illegal is simply evidence of incapacity. You make your living by selling a solution that presumably makes your customers' computers safe for a lot of money. What does it tell us if a few people who aren't even professional virus writers can easily bypass your security, and instead of assessing the problem, you leash out propaganda? Dear Sir,
isn’t the tragic truth rather that you are upset because your “security software” was widely unable to detect simple modifications of existing malware, although it obviously should?

You are trying to rule out something that your software did not detect because your software did not detect it. This is the same approach that the many “secure by obscurity” security systems take. It also strongly reminds me of the propaganda and ideology that were common in the USSR and East Germany, and which is still encountered in China today (“we have no gays”, “there are no HIV infections in our country”, “there is nothing to criticise”).
Denying an obvious condition does not make it disappear, and reacting to criticism by declaring criticism invalid or illegal is simply evidence of incapacity.

You make your living by selling a solution that presumably makes your customers’ computers safe for a lot of money. What does it tell us if a few people who aren’t even professional virus writers can easily bypass your security, and instead of assessing the problem, you leash out propaganda?

]]>