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)
Re: ClamXav for OS X 10.4 Aug 14 2007 10:02PM
Dave Mangot (dmangot terracottatech com) (1 replies)
FACT: David Harley != Dave Mangot. I don't speak for him, and he
doesn't speak for me.

I still see no security related content in your post. If you're trying
to make a point that all people have some sort of bias, based on their
personal experience, culture, background, education, etc, then...I still
see no security related content in your post.

-Dave

William Holmberg wrote:
> 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 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