dave@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Horsfall) (11/13/89)
It has been pointed out to me (hello Kelly!) that I may have been less than gracious in my response to the report of "ld viruses found." Certainly no offence was meant to John McAfee, and I hope none was taken. However, actual bug details aside, the point I was making that the user of a virus-detector has to have absolute trust in it, and any errant behaviour by the program can only weaken that trust, no matter who the author is. Certainly, a failure to correctly report the number of viruses found would seem to imply a lack of testing. Virus detectors must not only be above reproach, they must be SEEN to be above reproach. Anyone here read comp.risks/RISKS-L ? - -- Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU), Alcatel STC Australia, dave@stcns3.stc.oz.AU dave%stcns3.stc.oz.AU@uunet.UU.NET, ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave
kelly@uts.amdahl.com (Kelly Goen) (11/15/89)
Now at least I hear the case being correctly stated... and I will say
it myself...in the Antiviral industry(sic) there has been a distinct
lack of quality control of most popular nostrums......while small bugs
may not shake up the experienced bugs do INDEED cause the less
computer literate to really wonder about running this or that vendors
product on their system...(what with tales of FAT and primary format
wiping running rampant over the net ....... VENDORS do you hear me???
dave is stating a very salient point... I do hope someone is indeed
listening...
cheers
kelly
p.s. Hi dave!!
Kelly Goen
CSS Inc.
DISCLAIMER: I Dont represent Amdahl Corp or Onsite consulting. Any
statements ,opinions or additional data are solely my opinion and mine
alone...
Seen in alt.sex recently "SEX is FUN, Thats why there are so many of us!!"
My Opinion: Sex between Consenting Computers leads to Social Data Diseases!