Queries about Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition and Client Firewall
emil_lam
My computer have Symantec Norton Antivirus Corporate Version
10.1.4.400 & Symantec Client Firewall Version 8.7.4.79 installed. My
system administrator told me that Symantec's antivirus software were
among the worst commercial product in the market. Was my friend's
comment true(His company used F-Secure product)? How F-Secure
antivirus & internet security products compared to Symantec?
How Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition differs from other non-
Corporate Edition (e.g. Norton AntiVirus 2007,2008)?
Tks!
David H. Lipman
| Hi,
| Tks!
He's right!
F-Secure is OK and hedges out Symantec.
Norton and Symantec are the same and it doesn't matter if it is corporate or retail, they
usethe same signatues.
However the GUI of non corporate versions tend to have the "bloat" problem.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
David H. Lipman
| Hi,
| Tks!
BTW:
Why are you asking about Symantec AV in a Sophos news group ?
Little Charlie
> From: "emil_lam"<emil...@lycos.com>
>
> | Hi,
>
> | My computer have Symantec Norton Antivirus Corporate Version
> | system administrator told me that Symantec's antivirus software were
> | among the worst commercial product in the market. Was my friend's
> | comment true(His company used F-Secure product)? How F-Secure
>
> | How Norton Antivirus Corporate Edition differs from other non-
> | Corporate Edition (e.g. Norton AntiVirus 2007,2008)?
>
> | Tks!
>
> He's right!
>
> F-Secure is OK and hedges out Symantec.
>
> Norton and Symantec are the same and it doesn't matter if it is corporate or retail, they
> usethe same signatues.
>
> However the GUI of non corporate versions tend to have the "bloat" problem.
>
David have you personally installed any NAV 2009 /2010 or NIS 2009 /
2010 products yourself? Every reviewer I have read -and- my own
experiences show the old tired "Norton is bloatware" (which is never
supported with data but just a shoot-from-the-hip 'parroting' much like
a Macaw) argument to be baseless since Symantec's 2009 product line
offering. So..have you tried them for yourself and haven't you read the
reviews and test data such as vbuletin and icsa? Been away for a few
years from this group David and smiled when I saw your posts and
chuckled at your same old worn-out regurgitated Norton-bashing
'promulgations'
David H. Lipman
| David have you personally installed any NAV 2009 /2010 or NIS 2009 /
| 2010 products yourself? Every reviewer I have read -and- my own
| experiences show the old tired "Norton is bloatware" (which is never
| supported with data but just a shoot-from-the-hip 'parroting' much like
| a Macaw) argument to be baseless since Symantec's 2009 product line
| offering. So..have you tried them for yourself and haven't you read the
| reviews and test data such as vbuletin and icsa? Been away for a few
| years from this group David and smiled when I saw your posts and
| chuckled at your same old worn-out regurgitated Norton-bashing
| 'promulgations'
People give me their PCs to clean. All various notebooks and desktops. Besides the
factor I got their PCs because they were infected, those with the various flavours
Norton/Symantec are noticibly hindered by the retail versions. You can see and feel the
OS sluggishness (this includs Norton 360). The sluggishness is not noted on the
enterprise versions. Albeit the versions with the Symantec FireWall can become
problematic.
Since their ability catch most malware is low, they get removed and replaced with Avira
AntiVir and MBAM.
fat.c...@yahoo.com
David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate
in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it
DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and
everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then
certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used.
MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your
tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The
Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN
have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly
show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do
your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur
endless Norton bloatware mantra.
David H. Lipman
| David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate
| in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it
| DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and
| everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then
| certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used.
| MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your
| tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The
| Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN
| have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly
| show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do
| your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur
| endless Norton bloatware mantra.
I have done my own tests and I don't change what I posted.
I suggest you ignore me.
fat.c...@yahoo.com
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>From: <fat.c...@yahoo.com>
>
>| David this is baseless 'proof'. What is DOES NOT do is test or rate
>| in any way the integrity of Norton products ( 2009/2010 line). What it
>| DOES DO is to once again affirm that if people launch anything and
>| everything they can click on and allow malweare full access, then
>| certainly they will be infected REGARDLESS of the AV used.
>
>| MOREOVER the point I took exception to in the first place was your
>| tired old chant about 'Norton bloatware' NOT Norton detection. The
>| Norton 2009 / 2010 line is very light on resources. So..I ASK AGAIN
>| have you read the test reviews and AV comparitive test that clearly
>| show this new era of Norton security products? Maybe you should do
>| your own tests and take actual hard , cold data. Instead of yoyur
>| endless Norton bloatware mantra.
>
>I have done my own tests and I don't change what I posted.
>
>I suggest you ignore me.
OK David I will ignore you as you have suggested. I find it rather
shallow and disingenuous of you sir to make misleading comments and
recommendations about security matters guised as fact to others and
then when asked to substantiate your claims and recommendations with
data, you cannot or will not do so. It is pathetically transparent.
David, I believe you're full of cow manure. My parting remark is that
in the'Real World' of accountability those that put forth advice and
claims as fact are then obligated to substantiate them when asked to
do so. It's called credibility and FYI sir, even self-respect.
Apparently in 'David's World' being forthright and accountable are
still yet to be acquired moral values.
-ps consider yourself personally ignored..but not your baseless and
unsubstantiated posts.
Leythos
884294...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, emil...@lycos.com says...
While you dismiss David's experience and knowledge, you might want to
listen to him and myself.
I've used Symantec Corporate Edition products on thousands of computers
since version 7.6 came out. In that time I've never (until last month)
had a single malware compromised computer on any network we've designed
and managed, while managing it.
I've seen thousands of compromised computers, both when we take over a
network and when we work on home computers for company owners.
In my decades of experience I had not found a product that worked better
for my own system or my clients UNTIL last month. Keep in mind, I detest
their HOME product line, and they've had a few issues where V9 borked a
lot of things, 10.(can't remember), would corrupt user profiles, etc...
I had a machine in one of my DMZ networks, no HTTP filtering, and it was
running SEPP 11.5, the latest and greatest, all the tools and up-to-
date. I was logged on as a local Admin, browsed to a website, spelled it
incorrectly, and was compromised in seconds without having to click
another thing. Symantec didn't even alert to it, a full scan in Safe
Mode didn't remove the multiple malware... To make a long story very
short, I cleaned it up, uninstalled SEPP, installed Avira, it fould
more, cleaned it, and then went back to the website that compromised the
system - Avira (FREE) blocked the attack, alerted, kept the computer
safe....
I have moved all of my computers and started moving clients computers to
Avira PAID versions and will not switch back to Symantec until I can
prove in my lab that it will stop drive-by attacks that should never
have been able to compromise a computer.
Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO
Do I have details for you to inspect - NO
Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO
You are welcome to believe what you want - the information is for you to
ignore if you want, but you have no reason to argue against the data
because you don't have enough information to base your argument on.
--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam9...@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
fat.c...@yahoo.com
>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO
>Do I have details for you to inspect - NO
>Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO
Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!!
>
Leythos
fat.c...@yahoo.com says...
You're welcome, and thanks for showing that you are unwilling to learn
from anyone's experience with the products you asked about.
fat.c...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:53:58 -0500, fat.c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:18:42 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>>
>>>I have done my own tests and I don't change what I posted.
>>>
>>>I suggest you ignore me.
>>
>>OK David I will ignore you as you have suggested. I find it rather
>>shallow and disingenuous of you sir to make misleading comments and
>>recommendations about security matters guised as fact to others and
>>then when asked to substantiate your claims and recommendations with
>>data, you cannot or will not do so. It is pathetically transparent.
>
>
>David gave his opinion.
>You gave your opinion.
>You did not provide any "proof" to substantiate your opinion.
>What is your problem?
>That he does not agree with you?
I was not challenged to provide any proof. He was. One need only
browse the net for glowing reviews of the Norton 2009/2010 product
line. In addition why not check rthe ICSA test scores and validation
status and don't forget Virus Bulletion's 100% in the wild rating. He
cited personal data that he had accumulated hinmself after working on
"thousands of PC's" so I asked to see it. He is unable to produce it.
My sources are public domain and open for all to see. His were
privately held (or so he leads us to believe) and so I requested
access. LikeI said he is full of cow manure.
However in the spirit of fairness and to set an example for Mr Lipman
to grow by here is just one of many ratings sites that rate Symantec
above ALL others.
Symantec's 2009 of security products were rated "Product of the Year
2009' at this independent AV Comparison site
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports
OK MR Lipman YOUR TURN......
The Real Truth MVP
you that.
--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
<fat.c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6shdk55p2c2nk7tlj...@4ax.com...
Leythos
fat.c...@yahoo.com says...
> One need only
> browse the net for glowing reviews of the Norton 2009/2010 product
> line.
>
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA - and in for every glowing example on a review
website, corporate website, blog, there are equal or more reviews that
say it's trashed systems, decreased performance, caused problems....
I can remember when Zeos was given the #1 rating in PC Magazine for
almost a year of issues, bought one because of the reviews and learned
that the motherboard was broken, had wirewrap sockets in some instances,
tied IRQ lines to each other....
Symantec is a good product, better then most of the others, but, after
MY EXPERIENCE, I've switched to Avira.
Leythos
says...
> Hahahahahaha!
>
I see that you had NOTHING of value to add to the discussion - shows
that you don't really have any experience.
David H. Lipman
| http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports
In CLOSED and PRIVATE Malware Research forum that very test was brought up. One person's
(who will reamin anonymous) opinion on this..
"AV-Comparatives Crowns Best Security Vendors = a really bad George Carlin Joke about Weed
Thats the largest collective group of f**ktards I have ever encountered. "
{ Quote censored for public }
And I agree !
fat.c...@yahoo.com
Thank you for sharing "one man's opinion" which hardly debunks many
glowing test results and performance reviews of Norton 2009/2010
security product line. It is quite evident Dacvid you are best left
ignored because you have NO USEFUL DATA to share other than your own
unsubstrantiated 'findings' and then this pathetic so-called testimony
from a "closed and private" malware research forum....It's OK
Davey..looks like that's the best you can do. Thanks for the chuckle,
and I'm sure i am not alone in this amusement you provide....
Mumia W.
> From: <fat.c...@yahoo.com>
> [...]
>
> | OK MR Lipman YOUR TURN......
>
> In CLOSED and PRIVATE Malware Research forum that very test was brought up. One person's
> (who will reamin anonymous) opinion on this..
>
> "AV-Comparatives Crowns Best Security Vendors = a really bad George Carlin Joke about Weed
> Thats the largest collective group of f**ktards I have ever encountered. "
> { Quote censored for public }
>
> And I agree !
>
Mr. Lipman, you are being trolled by fat.charlie.
David H. Lipman
FromTheRafters
news:3ICdnVvt6ftW49XW...@earthlink.com...
I liked him better as a shill.
Dustin Cook
4ax.com:
Speaking of credibilty.. I have that as a current Malware Researcher for
malwarebytes (almost 2.5 years now); a certified tech, as well as a former
virus writer; well known, well published...
What are your creditials in this field, sir?
--
... Those are my thoughts anyways...
Charlie
None. Absolutely none. I never claimed to be an AV expert myself nor
did I claim to have private forum / closed test data that refuted the
leading AV testing sources. Like David Lipman has ..but refuses to
post his 'data.' Evidently it's secret ...ya think sweet thang?
My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection
scores and respective rankings sites.
SUCH AS: AV Comparatives
http://www.av-comparatives.org/ <- crowns Symantec security products
BEST of 2009 (Gold Award) beating out ALL others including eSet
(NOD32) and Kaspersky. This annual Gold Award is now prominently
displayed on their homepage.
- in-depth test results and summaries here:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests/summary-reports
That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert
(like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!")
All that ANYONE needs to be able to do is READ the test results,
verify the sources and draw the logical conclusions. There are many AV
products that are ICSA certified that give adequate security.
Sometimes it is just a matter of installing the trial versions and
making a selection among certified vendors that suits your personal
needs and tastes.
So to summarize - NO...I AM NOT an AV expert. Never claimed to be!
No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from
certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be
adequately secure.
It just happens that for 2009 Norton products were selected TOP of
2009. I like and use Norton so I posted the relevant links. Your issue
needs to be taken up with AV-Comparatives, ICSA, Virus Bulletin and
the like who all score the 2009/2010 line from Norton to be certified
and exceptional. If I'm pissing in your Cheerios - tuff.
Dustin Cook
news:14opk55m8q7d1kenu...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:04:50 GMT, Dustin Cook
> <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>fat.c...@yahoo.com wrote in
>>news:6shdk55p2c2nk7tljj76bojs53l0v4fk2d@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>>>Do I have strict technical stats published somewhere - NO
>>>>Do I have details for you to inspect - NO
>>>>Do I have this information validated by a third-party - NO
>>>
>>> Thank you for validating your credibility!! LOL!!
>>
>>Speaking of credibility.. I have that as a current Malware Researcher
>>for malwarebytes (almost 2.5 years now); a certified tech, as well as
>>a former virus writer; well known, well published...
>>
>>What are your creditials in this field, sir?
>
> None. Absolutely none. I never claimed to be an AV expert myself nor
> did I claim to have private forum / closed test data that refuted the
> leading AV testing sources. Like David Lipman has ..but refuses to
> post his 'data.' Evidently it's secret ...ya think sweet thang?
I can attest to Davids claims as being true. Secret is relative. Much of
the information isn't intended for public distribution but the fact the
groups exist isn't a secret. Atleast, not one I knew of. One of the
reasons for the strict non public access is simple in nature; We don't
want users accidently getting themselves into trouble simply because they
might be curious.
> My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection
> scores and respective rankings sites.
>
> SUCH AS: AV Comparatives
AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me,
but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond
repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals
responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago that
they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the first
place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will allow
you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time. :)
> That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert
> (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!")
Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I
know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend to
burn something up when they think they know more than they actually do.
*grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't know it,
and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss something we
wouldn't.
For example, one of the sources you site is.. a very bad source;
pcmagazine weighs a little higher; and thats just above 0 :)
> All that ANYONE needs to be able to do is READ the test results,
> verify the sources and draw the logical conclusions. There are many AV
Reading and comprehending it aren't the same thing. I wish that was the
case, life would certainly be easier and arguments probably would be much
less frequent.
> products that are ICSA certified that give adequate security.
> Sometimes it is just a matter of installing the trial versions and
> making a selection among certified vendors that suits your personal
> needs and tastes.
ICSA allows a vendor to resubmit (and provides copies of the missed
samples) until they do get it right. Do you understand sir? You can be a
really lousy product and still score an ICSA award.
> So to summarize - NO...I AM NOT an AV expert. Never claimed to be!
Several of us are tho. You do like facts, right? :)
> No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from
> certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be
> adequately secure.
One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken
lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available.
> It just happens that for 2009 Norton products were selected TOP of
> 2009. I like and use Norton so I posted the relevant links. Your issue
> needs to be taken up with AV-Comparatives, ICSA, Virus Bulletin and
> the like who all score the 2009/2010 line from Norton to be certified
> and exceptional. If I'm pissing in your Cheerios - tuff.
By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales boost
in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for. Some,
program they got huh? :)
--
"Is there anything in Guul Draz that doesn't suck the life out of you?"
- Tarsa, Sea Gate sell-sword.
Charlie
<bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wow!! Thanks a million for such a humanitarian gesture. The world is a
safer place because of your knowledge that just happens to have no
public access! How could it be? This is rich...
I now 100% reverse myself on David's credibility since yet another
single, lone individual, who also cannot prove his credibility,
endorses him. Are you guys Masons or what? Have you got a secret
handshake too?
>
>> My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection
>> scores and respective rankings sites.
>>
>> SUCH AS: AV Comparatives
>
>AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me,
>but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond
>repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals
>responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago that
>they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the first
>place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will allow
>you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time. :)
No free time to substantiate your claims? How convenient. Ok
class..what's wrong with THIS picture?
>
>> That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert
>> (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!")
>
>Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I
>know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend to
>burn something up when they think they know more than they actually do.
>*grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't know it,
>and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss something we
>wouldn't.
Gee whiz. It is just a real dam shame that all this data that could
prevent people from 'going amiss' cannot be made public in an AV
newsgroup. 99% of internet users have no idea where to start to get a
newsfeed. Your SECRETS are safe here!
Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an AV
authority based on what YOU tell us?
Well I know that sure convinces me! Anyone else feel convinced too?
>
>For example, one of the sources you site is.. a very bad source;
>pcmagazine weighs a little higher; and thats just above 0 :)
Again more unsubstantiated claims we are supposed to accept on YOUR
say-so? Well, that's good enough for me!
>
>> All that ANYONE needs to be able to do is READ the test results,
>> verify the sources and draw the logical conclusions. There are many AV
>
>Reading and comprehending it aren't the same thing. I wish that was the
>case, life would certainly be easier and arguments probably would be much
>less frequent.
>
>> products that are ICSA certified that give adequate security.
>> Sometimes it is just a matter of installing the trial versions and
>> making a selection among certified vendors that suits your personal
>> needs and tastes.
>
>ICSA allows a vendor to resubmit (and provides copies of the missed
>samples) until they do get it right. Do you understand sir? You can be a
>really lousy product and still score an ICSA award.
Yes sir I have known that for a good many years. But your conclusion
that the ICSA resubmission allows a lousy product to pass is patently
false. What it does is promote development of better AV products THUS
precluding a 'lousy' product from passing. Do you understand sir?
Moreover sir, many AV products do not pass ever during a testing cycle.
If it was so easy to pass how can that be?
Yeah I'm gonna pay attention to a self-annointed AV expert that uses
that kind of logic.
>
>> So to summarize - NO...I AM NOT an AV expert. Never claimed to be!
>
>Several of us are tho. You do like facts, right? :)
Facts that can be PROVEN and VERIFIED. Your words of self exaltation are
100% meaningless without some way to validate and substantiate them.
Do you understand sir?
>
>> No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from
>> certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be
>> adequately secure.
>
>One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken
>lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available.
>
>By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales boost
>in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for. Some,
>program they got huh? :)
As an AV expert (without credentials) I am sure you already know that
ICSA uses the VB in the wild test scores as part of ICSA certification.
So since you claim AV comparatives is crooked and VB uses poor
methodolgy it follows suit that ICSA certification is also worthless.
That is it follows based on your assertions alone (without proof)
Gee... the world be shocked to learn this once you and your friends
release all the secret data. I can't wait. Thank god I bumped into
you!!!
FromTheRafters
news:ejhsk51j7umt467vp...@4ax.com...
> Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an
> AV
> authority based on what YOU tell us?
He is who he says he is, you can take my word for it. :o)
Dustin Cook
news:ejhsk51j7umt467vp...@4ax.com:
My knowledge? You make me laugh. Hysterically even. :) You have real..
odd issues man.. I just dunno about you.
> I now 100% reverse myself on David's credibility since yet another
> single, lone individual, who also cannot prove his credibility,
> endorses him. Are you guys Masons or what? Have you got a secret
> handshake too?
>>
>>> My posts cited public domain certified AV product test, detection
>>> scores and respective rankings sites.
>>>
>>> SUCH AS: AV Comparatives
>>
>>AV Comparatives (Cripes, I can't believe your forcing this out of me,
>>but.. credit is due where credit is due) has been discredited beyond
>>repair by that of Nick Fitzgerald; Another AV expert...The individuals
>>responsible for the site proved to many of us here several years ago
>>that they lack the skillset required to conduct the testing in the
>>first place. If you really wish to read the gruesome thrashing; I will
>>allow you to go digging thru usenet. I don't have that much free time.
>>:)
>
> No free time to substantiate your claims? How convenient. Ok
> class..what's wrong with THIS picture?
Umm, I just said *you* can find the posts via the archives; I am not
going to waste the time. I was here when he posted them. Alot of people
were, actually. So, sadly for you, it's not a claim. :)
>>
>>> That's the beauty you see..no one needs to be a PC security expert
>>> (like David Lipman claims to be - except it's "all secret!")
>>
>>Funny you should mention the nobody needs to be this or that aspect. I
>>know many people who know a little about electricity, but still tend
>>to burn something up when they think they know more than they actually
>>do. *grin*. Sadly this is the same case with security. If you don't
>>know it, and you aren't an expert, you are likely going to miss
>>something we wouldn't.
>
> Gee whiz. It is just a real dam shame that all this data that could
> prevent people from 'going amiss' cannot be made public in an AV
> newsgroup. 99% of internet users have no idea where to start to get a
> newsfeed. Your SECRETS are safe here!
Huh?
> Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an
> AV authority based on what YOU tell us?
> Well I know that sure convinces me! Anyone else feel convinced too?
Oh, no.. I wouldn't expect you to take me at face value. That would be
pretty assinine on my part, wouldn't it? I was actually expecting you to
check me out for yourself. You probably should...*shrug*. This isn't even
remotely close to fair, so I won't fire this turn. <G>
> Yeah I'm gonna pay attention to a self-annointed AV expert that uses
> that kind of logic.
See above...
> Facts that can be PROVEN and VERIFIED. Your words of self exaltation
> are 100% meaningless without some way to validate and substantiate
> them. Do you understand sir?
See above. Re-read the entire post please. I only stated facts, not any
opinions to you, Sir. :)
>>
>>> No one needs to be an 'Expert to make a smart decision. Select from
>>> certified vendors listed on highly respected sites and you'll be
>>> adequately secure.
>>
>>One's computer/network security isn't a decision which should be taken
>>lightly, nor one that isn't based with all available facts available.
>>
>
>>By no means are you pissing in my Cheerios. Norton gave us a sales
>>boost in 2009 when they recommended the companies product I work for.
>>Some, program they got huh? :)
>
> As an AV expert (without credentials) I am sure you already know that
> ICSA uses the VB in the wild test scores as part of ICSA
> certification.
without? hehehe, sorry; no.. I'm afraid not. I have credentials, as a
former Vxer; and a current malware researcher for Malware Bytes. Aside
from developing my own program known as BugHunter, that is.. :)
I have more... examples, if you need em. But seriously; this is all
public knowledge. really. I wouldn't try to troll you.
Dustin Cook
@news.eternal-september.org:
He doesn't know that. Didn't do his fact checking before posting, I
suppose.
Dustin Cook
> OK,
> I took your word,
> now what am I supposed to do with it?
> Trash pickup isn't for a couple more days.
I suppose if I worked for something like best buy, I'd be jealous too. :)
I tell ya what, if I need a cell phone or something, I'll ask you about the
contracts you have available.
Dustin Cook
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 07:29:31 +0000, Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>> Toxic <staring@my_hd.tv> wrote in
>> news:pan.2010.01...@cdc.gov:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:26:28 -0500, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Charlie" <fat.c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ejhsk51j7umt467vp...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are
>>>>> an AV authority based on what YOU tell us?
>>>>
>>>> He is who he says he is, you can take my word for it. :o)
>>>
>>> OK,
>>> I took your word,
>>> now what am I supposed to do with it? Trash pickup isn't for a
>>> couple more days.
>>
>> I suppose if I worked for something like best buy, I'd be jealous
>> too.
>> :)
>
> I Wouldn't know about working for best buy or anywhere else that has
> to deal with the unwashed masses of think they're so smart tech types.
unwashed masses? hahahaha...
I rest my case.
Charlie
Tantamount to an inverse syllogism. :)
FromTheRafters
I thought you would appreciate it.:o)
Charlie
<err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>
>"Charlie" <fat.c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4p6uk5hjrnpu5i8rv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:26:28 -0500, "FromTheRafters"
>> <err...@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"Charlie" <fat.c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ejhsk51j7umt467vp...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Don't break your arm. So YOU are validating YOURSELF that YOU are an
>>>> AV
>>>> authority based on what YOU tell us?
>>>
>>>He is who he says he is, you can take my word for it. :o)
>>>
>> Tantamount to an inverse syllogism. :)
>
>I thought you would appreciate it.:o)
Holy smoke. 'Random acts of kindness' on Usenet?
This surely must be a dream. :>)
Not since my earliest computing days when I anxiously fired up Flight
Simulator (by SubLogic back then) on my brand new Commodore 64
have I ever been so enamored and enthralled.
This well may evolve into a full-blown religous experience!!!