Focus on Apple
ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 02:43PM
Pfost William B (William Pfost ci irs gov) (4 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:28PM
Todd Woodward (todd_woodward symantec com) (2 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 12:07PM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 02:33AM
Edward R Marczak (marczak radiotope com) (2 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 09:42AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (1 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 01:18PM
Edward R Marczak (marczak radiotope com) (1 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 08:43PM
Radoslav Dejanoviæ (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 15 2007 10:14AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 13 2007 09:51PM
Todd Woodward (todd_woodward symantec com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 10:09AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (1 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 08:32PM
Michael Dalling (mtdalling gmail com) (2 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 15 2007 09:53AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 15 2007 07:32AM
Howard Oakley (h oakley btconnect com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 07:24PM
Rob DeWitt (diggertadmin gmail com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 08:53PM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (2 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:17PM
William Holmberg (wholmberg amdpi com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 11:41AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 07:43PM
William Holmberg (wholmberg amdpi com) (1 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 09:16PM
Dave Mangot (dmangot terracottatech com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 09:41PM
William Holmberg (wholmberg amdpi com) (1 replies)
David,
Perhaps you missed my point then, and the moderators didn't.

First off, I put forth no argument, nor distorted any of those "Facts"
we are talking about. I merely gave an account of what I saw on TV.

My point was simply analogous to how "facts" are presented to us. I am
not on either party politically, I merely pointed out that a
(supposedly) independent news source was showing how, in the political
world, the same set of facts was used to prove either sides point.

I am not stating that they reached any correct conclusions, or that I
even agreed with either sides viewpoint.

Similarly, the case you mentioned reminded me of it due to the same sort
of argumentation/persuasion tactics, and not enough attention to the Who
What Why Where When of the study or tests in question.

You were the one whom mentioned that it seemed like shoddy journalism,
and after reading it, I can only concur.

Not to drag this on any longer, I was simply agreeing that a person can
present an argument that upon closer inspection, does not merit the
conclusions they present based upon the factual content they purport to
derive it from.

Sorry if you took the political portions to heart in some way- it was
just a show I saw about how people do precisely what you were
describing, just in a different venue or format. I do not espouse any
political viewpoints on these gentlemen named. I am more of a Rational
Anarchist who believes only that people drawn to politics are not to be
trusted...
;)

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Mangot [mailto:dmangot (at) terracottatech (dot) com [email concealed]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:16 PM
To: William Holmberg
Cc: david.a.harley (at) gmail (dot) com [email concealed]; focus-apple (at) securityfocus (dot) com [email concealed]
Subject: Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4

Bill,

Despite the fact that there are more holes in your argument than a
traffic sign in Alabama, than a Dick Cheney hunting companion, (I could

go on) please keep the politics off the focus-apple list. I'm not sure
how the moderator let this by.

I don't see any security related content in here. Just someone proving
that they can distort facts in the exact same paragraph as they rally
against others for doing exactly that.

-Dave

William Holmberg wrote:
> 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.
>

--
Dave Mangot
Terracotta Inc.
650 Townsend St. Suite 325
San Francisco, CA 94103 USA
+1 415 738 4059
dmangot (at) terracottatech (dot) com [email concealed]

This e-mail incorporates Terracotta's confidentiality policy, which is
online at http://www.terracottatech.com/emailconfidentiality.shtml

[ reply ]
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 10:02PM
Dave Mangot (dmangot terracottatech com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 15 2007 01:29PM
William Holmberg (wholmberg amdpi com)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:10PM
Dixon, Wayne (wcdixo aurora lib il us) (2 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 01:29PM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 10:16AM
Radoslav Dejanoviæ (radoslav dejanovic opsus hr) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 09:48AM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 06:56PM
Tom Yarrish (tom yarrish com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 06:50PM
Roland Dobbins (rdobbins cisco com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 07:35PM
Pfost William B (William Pfost ci irs gov) (1 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 08:09PM
Rob DeWitt (diggertadmin gmail com) (2 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 11:11PM
Paul Schmehl (pauls utdallas edu) (2 replies)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 12 2007 12:37PM
Casper Gasper (casper gasper gmail com)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 12:13PM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 10 2007 09:22PM
Kevin Finisterre \(lists\) (kf_lists digitalmunition com) (1 replies)
RE: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 11 2007 12:22PM
David Harley (david a harley gmail com)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus