A
Anonymous
"Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free."
"AVG ****s up again!"
"Muuuuaaaaahhhaaaaaaahhhhuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaa!"
"AVG ****s up again!"
"Muuuuaaaaahhhaaaaaaahhhhuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaa!"
-=-
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
Guest
Its a new worm! a massmailer!
Stephen
Stephen
Anonymous said:"Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free."
"AVG ****s up again!"
"Muuuuaaaaahhhaaaaaaahhhhuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaa!"
-=-
M
Maxx Pollare
The voice of "Anonymous" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
Give them time to update... It's only been what, three days since it
was first found in the wild, and todays virus update catches it. Hell
the media just started talking about it today as well!
We've had this talk before. AVG 6.x still uses old-school methods of
virus detection. This is not only less processor intensive, but less
prone to false hits. True, it's not as afective at detecting new
threats, but it's bang-on acurate once a virus is defined.
You have to "run" the attachement in I-Worm/Bagle in order for it to
infect a system, even under OE. So it's not just a matter of detection
issue, but one of user stupity.
from the sea of virtual chaos...
"Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free."
"AVG ****s up again!"
"Muuuuaaaaahhhaaaaaaahhhhuuuuuhhhhhaaaaaaa!"
Give them time to update... It's only been what, three days since it
was first found in the wild, and todays virus update catches it. Hell
the media just started talking about it today as well!
We've had this talk before. AVG 6.x still uses old-school methods of
virus detection. This is not only less processor intensive, but less
prone to false hits. True, it's not as afective at detecting new
threats, but it's bang-on acurate once a virus is defined.
You have to "run" the attachement in I-Worm/Bagle in order for it to
infect a system, even under OE. So it's not just a matter of detection
issue, but one of user stupity.
K
kurt wismer
Maxx said:The voice of "Anonymous" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
Give them time to update...
you mean give them time to make the certification appear true again...
it's not that avg missed a virus, it's that it issued a false
certification...
F
FromTheRafters
kurt wismer said:you mean give them time to make the certification appear true again...
it's not that avg missed a virus, it's that it issued a false
certification...
Does AVG indeed apply the certification to the worm ridden e-mail?
If so, can they be liable for damages when someone takes them at
their word and executes the attachment?
M
Maxx Pollare
The voice of "FromTheRafters" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
It missed the "certification" because it missed the virus. Not that it
matters, it's ultimately just advertising. The point is some idiot had
to open that virus attachment to get infected, someone who put too much
trust in his AV software.
That idiot could've been using any other AV software and last weeks
defs and got away with it Scott-free. But since he's using AVG with a
default install, and some other shit disturber got an email from him,
we're now scamming it up on just how bad AVG is compared to the
competition.
The score:
The Infected... B- At least he's trying...
The Anon poster... D Lame attack and blatant AV advert.
Myself... C I should know better
from the sea of virtual chaos...
Does AVG indeed apply the certification to the worm ridden e-mail?
If so, can they be liable for damages when someone takes them at
their word and executes the attachment?
It missed the "certification" because it missed the virus. Not that it
matters, it's ultimately just advertising. The point is some idiot had
to open that virus attachment to get infected, someone who put too much
trust in his AV software.
That idiot could've been using any other AV software and last weeks
defs and got away with it Scott-free. But since he's using AVG with a
default install, and some other shit disturber got an email from him,
we're now scamming it up on just how bad AVG is compared to the
competition.
The score:
The Infected... B- At least he's trying...
The Anon poster... D Lame attack and blatant AV advert.
Myself... C I should know better
K
keith
Maxx Pollare said:The voice of "FromTheRafters" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
It missed the "certification" because it missed the virus. Not that it
matters, it's ultimately just advertising. The point is some idiot had
to open that virus attachment to get infected, someone who put too much
trust in his AV software.
That idiot could've been using any other AV software and last weeks
defs and got away with it Scott-free. But since he's using AVG with a
default install, and some other shit disturber got an email from him,
we're now scamming it up on just how bad AVG is compared to the
competition.
The score:
The Infected... B- At least he's trying...
The Anon poster... D Lame attack and blatant AV advert.
Myself... C I should know better
Yeah, I agree here, and maybe AVG should re-think their auto-certification.
However the bottom line is that every net-user is going to have to face up
to the fact that they are ultimately responsible for their own security. But
considering AVG is free for personal use (and I've used it with no
complaints for the past 2 years since defecting from Norton), you need to
cut them some slack. The certification is a recipe for "egg-in-one's-face"
and maybe after the latest embarrassment they'll re-consider...
KS
K
kurt wismer
keith wrote:
[snip]
maybe if more people recognized it as the intellectual dishonesty that
it is and held them accountable for their snake-oil salesmanship they'd
reconsider...
[snip]
Yeah, I agree here, and maybe AVG should re-think their auto-certification.
However the bottom line is that every net-user is going to have to face up
to the fact that they are ultimately responsible for their own security. But
considering AVG is free for personal use (and I've used it with no
complaints for the past 2 years since defecting from Norton), you need to
cut them some slack. The certification is a recipe for "egg-in-one's-face"
and maybe after the latest embarrassment they'll re-consider...
maybe if more people recognized it as the intellectual dishonesty that
it is and held them accountable for their snake-oil salesmanship they'd
reconsider...
L
LT Higdon
It missed the "certification" because it missed the virus. Not that it
matters, it's ultimately just advertising.
I'd say it's more than just advertising. See example below:
Outgoing mail is
certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.562 /
Virus Database: 354 - Release Date: 16/01/20
The point is some idiot had
to open that virus attachment to get infected, someone who put too much
trust in his AV software.
Right. And that's just what the vendor expects folks to do. To get back to
Rafters' point, this sort of comes off like a commitment by Grisoft to virus
free messaging, using their product. Maybe over in Eastern Europe or China
that sort of thing is looked at as "just advertising". You know, where
access to resources is stunningly competitive, ethics are in short supply.
AVG is an easy target, that's all. They make themselves such.That idiot could've been using any other AV software and last weeks
defs and got away with it Scott-free. But since he's using AVG with a
default install, and some other shit disturber got an email from him,
we're now scamming it up on just how bad AVG is compared to the
competition.
F
FromTheRafters
Maxx Pollare said:The voice of "FromTheRafters" drifted in on the cyber-winds,
from the sea of virtual chaos...
It missed the "certification" because it missed the virus. Not that it
matters, it's ultimately just advertising. The point is some idiot had
to open that virus attachment to get infected, someone who put too much
trust in his AV software.
Some people might trust the "certification" more than it deserves. It
should just say that it looked and didn't find anything instead of this
"certified virus free" bullshit. Most of us know better than to expect
even the best anti-virus program to be able to tell us a file is benign.
That idiot could've been using any other AV software and last weeks
defs and got away with it Scott-free.
They all pretty much suck at magic tricks.
But since he's using AVG with a
default install, and some other shit disturber got an email from him,
we're now scamming it up on just how bad AVG is compared to the
competition.
I kind of like AVG and am glad that there are free AV tools available.
Many people don't want to spend any money on AV, and that hurts
everyone else when they get infested with mass-mailers.
I don't like the advertisement at the end of outgoing messages,
although I can see why they would want to do this.
....but they can stuff their "certification" where the sun don't shine.
F
Frederic Bonroy
FromTheRafters a écrit :
Consider that to most people "I looked at it and found nothing" and
"it's virus free" means exactly the same. They are not necessarily aware
that AV programs sometimes happen to miss a virus...
Who is "us"? If it's the masses, then make that "some of us".
Some people might trust the "certification" more than it deserves. It
should just say that it looked and didn't find anything instead of this
"certified virus free" bullshit.
Consider that to most people "I looked at it and found nothing" and
"it's virus free" means exactly the same. They are not necessarily aware
that AV programs sometimes happen to miss a virus...
Most of us know better than to expect even the best anti-virus program
to be able to tell us a file is benign.
Who is "us"? If it's the masses, then make that "some of us".
K
kurt wismer
Frederic said:FromTheRafters a écrit :
Consider that to most people "I looked at it and found nothing" and
"it's virus free" means exactly the same. They are not necessarily aware
that AV programs sometimes happen to miss a virus...
consider that that doesn't make it any less an instance of bullshit...
consider further that a professional organization should be held to a
higher standard of accuracy than the unwashed masses...
F
Frederic Bonroy
kurt wismer a écrit :
I think you misunderstood me. Obviously the certification or ad or
however one refers to it is bullshit. Though simply rephrasing it the
way FromTheRafters suggested it won't work.
consider that that doesn't make it any less an instance of bullshit...
consider further that a professional organization should be held to a
higher standard of accuracy than the unwashed masses...
I think you misunderstood me. Obviously the certification or ad or
however one refers to it is bullshit. Though simply rephrasing it the
way FromTheRafters suggested it won't work.
F
FromTheRafters
Frederic Bonroy said:kurt wismer a écrit :
I think you misunderstood me. Obviously the certification or ad or
however one refers to it is bullshit. Though simply rephrasing it the
way FromTheRafters suggested it won't work.
True enough. The first way it was phrased implied the wrong thing.
The second way only left the chance that it could be inferred wrongly.
I wouldn't fault Grisoft for the fact that most would infer wrongly.
F
FromTheRafters
Frederic Bonroy said:FromTheRafters a écrit :
Consider that to most people "I looked at it and found nothing" and
"it's virus free" means exactly the same.
....and *any* computer problem at all is called a "virus".
A professional anti-virus company should know better than to
imply that a file is "virus free".
They are not necessarily aware
that AV programs sometimes happen to miss a virus...
But they are not the ones who wrote the signature message,
Grisoft did - and they should know better.
My old NAV 5.0 at least has the sense to say "no viruses were
found in the scan" rather than "this file is certified virus free".
Who is "us"? If it's the masses, then make that "some of us".
I was thinking of regulars to these groups, lurkers and posters alike.
Maybe "some of us" is still the more accurate phrase. :O)
F
Frederic Bonroy
FromTheRafters a écrit :
Of course.
It's better, but not much, because people tend to misinterpret "no
viruses were found" as "there are no viruses". Of course an anti-virus
program eventually needs to tell the user about the result of the scan.
But note: I am talking *specifically* about the signature attached to
emails, NOT about a normal routine scan. Maybe that's why we seem to
disagree; I believe we don't.
I can't think of any foolproof signature right now. Perhaps something
like this:
"This message was scanned by XYZ. Its virus definitions may have been
out of date and even if they weren't, it's still not impossible that
a virus slipped through. Do not fully trust the result of this scan and
take precautions to avoid a virus infection."
Not only is this signature totally meaningless and unhelpful, it's also
ugly. But at least it's not misleading as AVG's standard certification.
A professional anti-virus company should know better than to
imply that a file is "virus free".
Of course.
But they are not the ones who wrote the signature message,
Grisoft did - and they should know better.
My old NAV 5.0 at least has the sense to say "no viruses were
found in the scan" rather than "this file is certified virus free".
It's better, but not much, because people tend to misinterpret "no
viruses were found" as "there are no viruses". Of course an anti-virus
program eventually needs to tell the user about the result of the scan.
But note: I am talking *specifically* about the signature attached to
emails, NOT about a normal routine scan. Maybe that's why we seem to
disagree; I believe we don't.
I can't think of any foolproof signature right now. Perhaps something
like this:
"This message was scanned by XYZ. Its virus definitions may have been
out of date and even if they weren't, it's still not impossible that
a virus slipped through. Do not fully trust the result of this scan and
take precautions to avoid a virus infection."
Not only is this signature totally meaningless and unhelpful, it's also
ugly. But at least it's not misleading as AVG's standard certification.
K
kurt wismer
Frederic said:kurt wismer a écrit :
I think you misunderstood me. Obviously the certification or ad or
however one refers to it is bullshit. Though simply rephrasing it the
way FromTheRafters suggested it won't work.
rephrasing it the way FromTheRafters suggested will do something very
important, however... it will remove the intellectual dishonesty from
the statement... that users do not understand scanners or the
limitations thereof is something that cannot be addressed in an
email/usenet signature (automatically added by the scanner or otherwise)...
C
Clay
FromTheRafters a écrit :
[snip]A professional anti-virus company should know better than to
imply that a file is "virus free".
I can't think of any foolproof signature right now. Perhaps something
like this:
"This message was scanned by XYZ. Its virus definitions may have been
out of date and even if they weren't, it's still not impossible that
a virus slipped through. Do not fully trust the result of this scan and
take precautions to avoid a virus infection."
How about...
"This message was scanned by XYZ.
XYZ encourages safe computing education as the best defense against
malware. See XZY web site for further information."
It's still advertising, but perhaps not so arrogant and misleading.
F
Frederic Bonroy
kurt wismer a écrit :
And that's why it should be removed.
rephrasing it the way FromTheRafters suggested will do something very
important, however... it will remove the intellectual dishonesty from
the statement... that users do not understand scanners or the
limitations thereof is something that cannot be addressed in an
email/usenet signature (automatically added by the scanner or otherwise)...
And that's why it should be removed.
F
Frederic Bonroy
Clay a écrit :
It's not arrogant but it's misleading. Perhaps not intentionally, but
users WILL misinterpret the first sentence. It's best not to add any
signature at all.
How about...
"This message was scanned by XYZ.
XYZ encourages safe computing education as the best defense against
malware. See XZY web site for further information."
It's still advertising, but perhaps not so arrogant and misleading.
It's not arrogant but it's misleading. Perhaps not intentionally, but
users WILL misinterpret the first sentence. It's best not to add any
signature at all.