为什么质疑VB100和NOD32？

gary_zl

楼主也来扯蛋了，这个版块都要被你们淹了

7sumetai

EQ2，别理他们了……满口的“怀疑”、“打倒”，真要让他们说个三六九出来他们就顾左右而言他了。

firboy

原帖由 7sumetai 于 2007-2-14 21:00 发表
EQ2，别理他们了……满口的“怀疑”、“打倒”，真要让他们说个三六九出来他们就顾左右而言他了。

不能怀疑吗?谁说打倒了?
EQ还给解释.
要不你做个解释?

hzq277284

国内网络环境不好，很多人都有中过病毒的切身体会，所以“零遗漏率”在国人眼里显得太极端太假了。
要是测试的第一名查出率不超过80％，那反而可信度还显得更高，不管你第一名是NOD32还是别的谁，这并不重要。
通过EQ2昨天的介绍我对VB100％有了更进一步的了解，这种了解反而使我不仅对该测试，也对其他的测试都更加不以为然了

xyan

其实很简单，Nod32相当于革命初期共产国际给推荐的李德同志，可惜，不熟悉国内当时的革命环境的恶劣与力量对比，一味强调硬碰硬的正规战，结果碰得头破血流，让老毛等人一脚踢开，结果革命才走向正道，这个比喻不知道恰当不恰当。
同样的例子是Symantec，它的东西没人敢说技术性不高，世界杀软出货量第一的东东，按理说应该放心才是，问题是在中国这个环境下，你装了它，你能放心吗？

The EQs

原帖由 hzq277284 于 2007-2-14 21:13 发表
国内网络环境不好，很多人都有中过病毒的切身体会，所以“零遗漏率”在国人眼里显得太极端太假了。
要是测试的第一名查出率不超过80％，那反而可信度还显得更高，不管你第一名是NOD32还是别的谁，这并不重要。 ...

Yes。。。。现在的所有测试只是对过去病毒的测试。。。。不能反应一个杀软对新病毒的情况。。。而av-c还算比较好点。。因为不是每次都在月初测试。。但是每三月测试的时间比vb每两月测试一次的时间显得不是很及时。。。

The EQs

vb100%和av-c的测试结果是次要的。。。最主要的是里面的评测员对每款杀软的分析才是最主要的。。。

黑衣~魂

我提出我的質疑或許跟NOD32沒關係,不過我還是要抱怨一下~!!

VB100原因在於這次測試為何其他防軟皆用07年新版軟體,用mcafee 8.1i??咖啡07年版明明是8.5i~用咖啡舊版本測試vista與其他防軟新版本比較....合理嗎??!!

咖啡也早說過容vista是8.5i更新版~他們還用8.1i測試不過~明顯,過程有瑕疵~!

[ 本帖最后由 黑衣~魂 于 2007-2-15 00:35 编辑 ]

The EQs

原帖由 黑衣~魂 于 2007-2-15 00:34 发表
我提出我的質疑或許跟NOD32沒關係,不過我還是要抱怨一下~!!

VB100原因在於這次測試為何其他防軟皆用07年新版軟體,用mcafee 8.1i??咖啡07年版明明是8.5i~用咖啡舊版本測試vista與其他防軟新版本比較....合理嗎 ...

具体你可看偶发的那个帖子。。。mcafee为什么没通过vb

The EQs

'A false sense of security is a dangerous thing', says VB technical consultant.
In the wake of the recent VB100 test on the new Windows Vista platform, VB has been in communication with the makers of many of the products tested. The developers of one of those adjudged to have failed the test, McAfee, have insisted that when their VirusScan product is fully updated with the data provided for testing it is capable of detecting the samples missed during our tests.
After intensive investigation, VB has found that detection routines for the two malware samples missed were indeed included in the update package provided by McAfee. However, when McAfee's manual update procedure was run it failed to apply the update to the product, despite both on-screen messages and logs stating that the product had been updated successfully. This behaviour was reproducible throughout the review period and has continued to be the case in several subsequent retests.
The problem was found to be a result of the way in which McAfee VirusScan interacts with User Access Controls (UAC) included in Windows Vista. Despite being run by a user logged on with administrator rights, the update program designed for use in sealed environments like the VB test lab was also required to be executed with the 'Run as administrator' option to succeed, but did not report this to the user or display an error messages when the update failed.
'We feel fully justified in denying the product the VB100 in this case,' said John Hawes, Technical Consultant at Virus Bulletin. 'The product reported it had updated itself. A user who is fooled into thinking they are running up-to-date protection is in as bad a position as one who is running up-to-date but inadequate protection; a false sense of security is a dangerous thing.'
'Users with more standard update methods would apparently not have had the same issue we did,' continued Hawes. 'The problem we had can be put down not to an inability by McAfee to keep up with the latest malware, but rather to a failure to properly integrate all aspects of the product into the new Vista operating system, and most importantly the new security controls. Vista caused trouble for a lot of products and this, though seemingly a minor issue, had a major effect on the protection provided by McAfee's product.'