Very Well put David.
In some ways these tests results performed by Journalists are a lot like
the way they portray political agendas aren't they? It is though they
find only what they seek, and present "Facts" which are really
spuriously generated themselves, but once people hear them enough it is
nearly impossible to alter popular notions based upon those "Facts".

A brilliant example I saw the other evening was how people attack the
current President on Eco-issues, and hold up Gore as the Saint
representing the liberal viewpoint. The A&E piece stated that even
though "Al Gore has a carbon footprint equal to 10 average American
families" and "President Bush's ranch is 80% solar and wind driven, and
the vehicles run on alternative fuels..." (Peanut oil to Propane),
People generally believe Gore to be the new patron saint of the
Ecosystem.
Well I guess he DID invent the Internet, right?
Also some "Facts" people quote is that Bush gave "Tax cuts to Big Oil"
when they are referring to the tax cut which gave the most relief to
those making under $65000, and effectively eliminated taxes on those
families under 30,000.

So, either side can take the "Facts" and make it look like what they
want, without EXACTLY lying, but it is still disingenuous.
-Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: listbounce (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed] [mailto:listbounce (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]]
On Behalf Of David Harley
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2007 6:42 AM
To: focus-apple (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
Subject: RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4

> Because? What have you seen of those tests that makes you
> distrust them?
> And can someone post a link?

http://blog.untangle.com/?p=96 describes the test.
http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=131246&WT.svl=news1_5 is
Dark
Reading's take, though it seems a remarkably sloppy piece of journalism.

I'm actually working on an article around this topic at the moment, and
I'll
post a link here when it's up. So I don't want to duplicate too much
here.
But here are the danger signs:

1) Tiny test set, of which at least one (probably more) samples
was/weren't
viruses at all (EICAR test file).
2) No indication of any sample validation, particularly of those
samples
supplied by the audience. No information as to the source of the "wild"
samples. No consideration whatsoever of the possibility of false
positives.
3) Inconsistencies with other tests on same samples from competent
source
4) Gateway and desktop products tested altogether
5) (Mis)configuration issues, certainly with Sophos and probably with
Watchguard. No obvious attempt to level playing field.
6) Just the fact that the results are (1) so widely divergent within
this
test (2) so different to established, reputable tests - VB's test in
April,
for instance. Maybe everyone else has got it wrong and Untangle have it
right, but given the other indicators, I doubt it.

--
David Harley
http://www.smallblue-greenworld.co.uk

[ reply ]