duncan Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I have been a member of PCWorld for awhile and I was responding to some problems users were having. This was in the Forum: Antivirus & Security Software. I suggested Immunet Protect and Comodo antivirus along with MSE as being a stable effective security solution. I received a `new topics digest' in my email today re/ one of the users asking a couple of questions about these programs. I then logged into PCWorld to find that my responses had been deleted and that I was basically barred from the forums. Well that doesnt phase me, and I dont care because I am very very busy in Opera forums amongst others. But doesn't that suck....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfred Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I have been a member of PCWorld for awhile and I was responding to some problems users were having. This was in the Forum: Antivirus & Security Software. I suggested Immunet Protect and Comodo antivirus along with MSE as being a stable effective security solution. I received a `new topics digest' in my email today re/ one of the users asking a couple of questions about these programs. I then logged into PCWorld to find that my responses had been deleted and that I was basically barred from the forums. Well that doesnt phase me, and I dont care because I am very very busy in Opera forums amongst others. But doesn't that suck....... Wow, well, that is not great. Frankly, PCWorld gave our 2.0 version a very ugly review. After we asked to have it reviewed in 'Companion' mode they still went ahead and reviewed it in full on AV mode which of course had some issues. The language used in the review was mean spirited and even glossed over the fact that we did quite well from a detection perspective for a new AV product. Now that out our 3.0 product is getting close to shipment, and it's now a *full AV replacement* (as well as being able to run in Companion mode) we will still not be sending it into PCWorld for a review. It's my belief that vendors who spend a great deal of time personally managing these reviewers tend to do better. I can tell you this is also also the attitudes of the vendors as well. Each vendor actually assigns PCWorld their top technical talent to both brief them and manage the review. The sort of access they get it not even enjoyed by large, multi-million dollar, accounts with those same vendors. It's crazy. al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted January 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Wow, well, that is not great. Frankly, PCWorld gave our 2.0 version a very ugly review. After we asked to have it reviewed in 'Companion' mode they still went ahead and reviewed it in full on AV mode which of course had some issues. The language used in the review was mean spirited and even glossed over the fact that we did quite well from a detection perspective for a new AV product. Now that out our 3.0 product is getting close to shipment, and it's now a *full AV replacement* (as well as being able to run in Companion mode) we will still not be sending it into PCWorld for a review. It's my belief that vendors who spend a great deal of time personally managing these reviewers tend to do better. I can tell you this is also also the attitudes of the vendors as well. Each vendor actually assigns PCWorld their top technical talent to both brief them and manage the review. The sort of access they get it not even enjoyed by large, multi-million dollar, accounts with those same vendors. It's crazy. al They are obviously only really interested in their advertising account and consequently they are biased in their reviews. Its a pity that their readership is not aware of this. As I stated I was in the forums trying to assist someone and the moderator in reality had no right to delete my comment, never mind bar me. Anyway, F%^^* them. A good Australian magazine with big circulation is PC Authority: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Magazine/Default.aspx It may be worth your while to ask them to do a review for Immunet. Pretty sure you wont get any bias there. Check out there circulation and you might think its worthwhile, strong presence in New Zealand and Asia as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncan Posted January 29, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Al, note the article in this months issue: http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/245426,trojan-built-to-disable-cloud-antivirus.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfred Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Al, note the article in this months issue: http://www.securecomputing.net.au/News/245426,trojan-built-to-disable-cloud-antivirus.aspx Yes, I saw that. It makes sense, our sw was not affected by this one (although in theory the same could be done to any cloud or traditional vendor). The approach they use is the same used to stop common AV products from updating. Cheers, al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchie58 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 That is disconcerting. I was not that surprised that malware code was written to affect cloud based AV solutions. It was only a matter of time before some scumbag(s) would come up with the idea and implement it . Also I was not that surprised that this threat originated in China. A lot of new, emerging threats come from that part of the world. Since Microsoft is aware of the problem do you think they are working on a security patch for this issue? Or is Microsoft relying on the security vendors to add definition protection for their clients from this new threat? As is usually the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfred Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 That is disconcerting. I was not that surprised that malware code was written to affect cloud based AV solutions. It was only a matter of time before some scumbag(s) would come up with the idea and implement it . Also I was not that surprised that this threat originated in China. A lot of new, emerging threats come from that part of the world. Since Microsoft is aware of the problem do you think they are working on a security patch for this issue? Or is Microsoft relying on the security vendors to add definition protection for their clients from this new threat? As is usually the case. I am not sure as I have not followed this one too closely. It sounds like the threat is simply interfering with network communications versus taking advantage of a flaw in MS's OS. I suspect this one needs to rely on the vendor in the same way as Symantec or Mcafee have to fix issues where malware stops people from being able to download definition updates. al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchie58 Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I was curious about that since Microsoft issued a security release for the Stuxnet Worm. That does make sense though Al. Since the threat is not associated with a Microsoft OS flaw it's up to the vendors. I would assume you guys are taking steps to thwart this virus for the benefit of the Clam and Immunet communities, right? Or has that definition already been added to the cloud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.