RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
We've been on Vipre (and was one CounterSpy) for several years now and have had less than a handful of issues with being infected. Not to say that we haven't been infected, but we've had a pretty good success rate compared to when we had Symantec's Endpoint Protection. In regards to the false positives... we haven't had too many issues with this as some people have (knock on wood), but have had issues and were able to resolve those fairly quick. _ Cameron Cooper Network Administrator | CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Inc Phone: 847-890-4021 | Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com | www.aurico.com From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I think it all comes down to what you feel comfortable using and feel will protect you environment the best. That could be with Vipre or SEP, McAfee, etc... as others have said... no one solution will be 100% perfect. Vipre isn't perfect, but the product itself has proven itself valuable in our environment and continues to do so (even with issues). _ Cameron Cooper Network Administrator | CompTIA A+ Certified Aurico Reports, Inc Phone: 847-890-4021 | Fax: 847-255-1896 ccoo...@aurico.com | www.aurico.com From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:39 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives My point was really that all AV vendors have experience FPs, not just Vipre. I agree that statistics can be a valuable tool, it's just that which ones you choose and how you present them can be misleading. For example, in a horse race between the US and Russia, the US horse won. In the American papers, it was reported that the US was took first place. In the Russian papers, it was reported that the US was next to last and that Russia was second place. The statistics reported in both cases were true, but the picture they gave of the race was very different. From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10
Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I've been running VIPRE Enterprise in two different environments for over two years, one with 175 nodes and one with 250 nodes. Yes, there have been issues with false positives during that time and they've been more than an annoyance. However, since the files have been quarantined and not deleted I've been able to restore them without much of a problem. No down systems as a result in my experience. And yes, the client infection rates have definitely reduced after switching from McAfee Viruscan and MS Forefront to VIPRE. I can't give you firm stats but before switching to VIPRE we used to deal with 3-5 rouge av issues per month. That dropped on 1 or 2 after installing VIPRE and I can't recall a single incident in the past couple months. In addition to a better catch rate VIPRE has also had less drain on system performance than the previous av products. Again, not directly measurable but users don't complain about the long and slow scan times like they used to do. On my personal machine, the deep scan for Forefront used to take 5 hours or more. With VIPRE that dropped to about 3½. In my mind an occasional FP is a trade-off for the enhanced protection, lower impact on system performance, ease of management, and overall product satisfaction. Die dulci fruere! Roger Wright ___ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support – heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
+100. I have very similar setups with nearly identical results. Much happier users and admins! -Original Message- From: Roger Wright [mailto:rhw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:56 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've been running VIPRE Enterprise in two different environments for over two years, one with 175 nodes and one with 250 nodes. Yes, there have been issues with false positives during that time and they've been more than an annoyance. However, since the files have been quarantined and not deleted I've been able to restore them without much of a problem. No down systems as a result in my experience. And yes, the client infection rates have definitely reduced after switching from McAfee Viruscan and MS Forefront to VIPRE. I can't give you firm stats but before switching to VIPRE we used to deal with 3-5 rouge av issues per month. That dropped on 1 or 2 after installing VIPRE and I can't recall a single incident in the past couple months. In addition to a better catch rate VIPRE has also had less drain on system performance than the previous av products. Again, not directly measurable but users don't complain about the long and slow scan times like they used to do. On my personal machine, the deep scan for Forefront used to take 5 hours or more. With VIPRE that dropped to about 3½. In my mind an occasional FP is a trade-off for the enhanced protection, lower impact on system performance, ease of management, and overall product satisfaction. Die dulci fruere! Roger Wright ___ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
We have several hundred customer sites all protected with Vipre. Yes there have been issues, but what software product doesn't have some issues. The performance, reduced management issues, and phenomenal..Did I mention phenomenal support when there are questions or issues is worth it..PERIOD God rid of Symancrap, AVG, McCrapee, CA from lots of locations and I have had zero complaints..other than the one IBM issue.. :) Greg Sweers -Original Message- From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:09 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives +100. I have very similar setups with nearly identical results. Much happier users and admins! -Original Message- From: Roger Wright [mailto:rhw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:56 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've been running VIPRE Enterprise in two different environments for over two years, one with 175 nodes and one with 250 nodes. Yes, there have been issues with false positives during that time and they've been more than an annoyance. However, since the files have been quarantined and not deleted I've been able to restore them without much of a problem. No down systems as a result in my experience. And yes, the client infection rates have definitely reduced after switching from McAfee Viruscan and MS Forefront to VIPRE. I can't give you firm stats but before switching to VIPRE we used to deal with 3-5 rouge av issues per month. That dropped on 1 or 2 after installing VIPRE and I can't recall a single incident in the past couple months. In addition to a better catch rate VIPRE has also had less drain on system performance than the previous av products. Again, not directly measurable but users don't complain about the long and slow scan times like they used to do. On my personal machine, the deep scan for Forefront used to take 5 hours or more. With VIPRE that dropped to about 3½. In my mind an occasional FP is a trade-off for the enhanced protection, lower impact on system performance, ease of management, and overall product satisfaction. Die dulci fruere! Roger Wright ___ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I concur. We've had Vipre for *about* 6 months or so, since just before the new version came out. We've had a few F/Ps, but most of them were nothing serious... a little OEM-included software, usually, specific to the OEM (HP.) This past week, we had some F/Ps of .lnk files, but since they're just shortcuts, who gives a rip?!?! I've only had one or two real infections, and now that most people are no longer local admins, I haven't had any to speak of. I've only had one system that ate itself and I was able to hook up the hard drive to another computer and copy the data files I needed off the dead computer's hard drive, and once that was done, I wiped and reinstalled Windows on the affected computer. The problem was not even Vipre's fault.. it was the rootkit that caused so many blue screen errors when Microsoft put out a fix for the vulnerability after computers were already infected. I had one machine with that problem. I believe that was with Vipre 3.x. -Original Message- From: Roger Wright [mailto:rhw...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:56 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've been running VIPRE Enterprise in two different environments for over two years, one with 175 nodes and one with 250 nodes. Yes, there have been issues with false positives during that time and they've been more than an annoyance. However, since the files have been quarantined and not deleted I've been able to restore them without much of a problem. No down systems as a result in my experience. And yes, the client infection rates have definitely reduced after switching from McAfee Viruscan and MS Forefront to VIPRE. I can't give you firm stats but before switching to VIPRE we used to deal with 3-5 rouge av issues per month. That dropped on 1 or 2 after installing VIPRE and I can't recall a single incident in the past couple months. In addition to a better catch rate VIPRE has also had less drain on system performance than the previous av products. Again, not directly measurable but users don't complain about the long and slow scan times like they used to do. On my personal machine, the deep scan for Forefront used to take 5 hours or more. With VIPRE that dropped to about 3½. In my mind an occasional FP is a trade-off for the enhanced protection, lower impact on system performance, ease of management, and overall product satisfaction. Die dulci fruere! Roger Wright ___ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives
Our parent company is using SEP now and after viewing how well VIPRE functions in our environment is considering it as the only viable alternative when the Symantec contract is up in a month or two. Die dulci fruere! Roger Wright ___ On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support – heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.comwrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant ( http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support – heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: -- This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential inf ormation and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is add ressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyon e other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not t he intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. Confidentiality Notice: -- This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential inf ormation and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is add ressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyon e other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not t he intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I track the detection statistics daily of VIPRE against 30+ competitors against hundreds of thousands of real malware in the wild. The detection stats on VirusTotal do not reflect reality. We will reach out to them to find out what exactly is going on with their zoo. I am happy to share data with anyone off-list, just ping me directly. Alex Eckelberry CEO, Sunbelt Software Part of GFI Software Family From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.commailto:c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/ ~
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
My point was really that all AV vendors have experience FPs, not just Vipre. I agree that statistics can be a valuable tool, it's just that which ones you choose and how you present them can be misleading. For example, in a horse race between the US and Russia, the US horse won. In the American papers, it was reported that the US was took first place. In the Russian papers, it was reported that the US was next to last and that Russia was second place. The statistics reported in both cases were true, but the picture they gave of the race was very different. From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort to avoid or recover from false positives, that would be great to know. Please include total number of seats in any report. Carl Confidentiality Notice: ** This communication, including any attachments, may contain confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by an yone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are no t the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email, delete a nd destroy all copies of the original message
RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives
I don't disagree, but when you are presented with information you have to evaluate the validity of the data, and hopefully get clarification from those involved when it implies that there may be a problem. Virus Bulletin actually warned in the explanation of the chart that it was just one result and that conclusions shouldn't be jumped to until there was more data. And sometimes, a horse is just a horse, of course. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:39 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives My point was really that all AV vendors have experience FPs, not just Vipre. I agree that statistics can be a valuable tool, it's just that which ones you choose and how you present them can be misleading. For example, in a horse race between the US and Russia, the US horse won. In the American papers, it was reported that the US was took first place. In the Russian papers, it was reported that the US was next to last and that Russia was second place. The statistics reported in both cases were true, but the picture they gave of the race was very different. From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I'm not knocking VIPRE at all - I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. From: Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: there's 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics From: Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I've had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I've had only a half dozen infections in that time - all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying - the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others - McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few - show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt - a little reassurance needed here. :-) From: Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result? I'm not looking for endorsements or praise for their tech support - heard that all before. But if you've had Vipre on 10 seats or more and have kept track of live infections after a year or longer, and effort
Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives
Unless, of course, the horse, of course... On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Ralph Smith m...@gatewayindustries.orgwrote: I don't disagree, but when you are presented with information you have to evaluate the validity of the data, and hopefully get clarification from those involved when it implies that there may be a problem. Virus Bulletin actually warned in the explanation of the chart that it was just one result and that conclusions shouldn't be jumped to until there was more data. And sometimes, a horse is just a horse, of course. -- *From:* Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:39 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives My point was really that all AV vendors have experience FPs, not just Vipre. I agree that statistics can be a valuable tool, it’s just that which ones you choose and how you present them can be misleading. For example, in a horse race between the US and Russia, the US horse won. In the American papers, it was reported that the US was took first place. In the Russian papers, it was reported that the US was next to last and that Russia was second place. The statistics reported in both cases were true, but the picture they gave of the race was very different. *From:* Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:08 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives True, but there were people on the VIPRE forum that were hit just as hard by a couple of the FPs that VIPRE had. I’m not knocking VIPRE at all – I like it a lot and would purchase it again with no hesitation. However, when a well known organization like Virus Bulletin publishes test results, it makes sense to look at the data and try to understand what it means and how it may impact your organization. I personally feel confident with Sunbelt, but I would be interested to understand how they interpret the chart and what they feel the implications are for their product. By the way, some lies may be statistics, but not all statistics are lies. Information, including statistical, is the basis for sound decision making. -- *From:* Kim Longenbaugh [mailto:k...@colonialsavings.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:28 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives How about a little perspective on false positives? http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20003074-83.html and a reminder about statistics from Mark Twain: “there’s 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics” *From:* Ralph Smith [mailto:m...@gatewayindustries.org] *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:20 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Vipre effectiveness false positives I’ve had VIPRE for a couple of years now, and was fortunately not hit hard with the false positive problems others have had. With about 180 Win XP machines, I’ve had only a half dozen infections in that time – all but one of the rogue AV kind, so I have been feeling pretty good. However, the chart that was linked to is a bit worrying – the only popular business class AV solution that scored worse was CA (my former solution), and most of the others – McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky, Sophos to name a few – show significantly better results. It would be interesting to hear a comment from Sunbelt – a little reassurance needed here. :-) -- *From:* Erik Goldoff [mailto:egold...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, July 29, 2010 1:48 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Vipre effectiveness false positives I don't know what you have now, but I can tell you from experience at various client sites over the last year or so, none of the following was without issues : Trend, McAfee, Symantec SAV SEP On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Carl Houseman c.house...@gmail.com wrote: For all of you staunch Vipre supporters, I'm just wondering, are you still so staunch given the various false positives over the past year? It seems like I remember reading here about one every quarter or so, and I can confirm at least 3 since (from online records and messages I didn't delete) since June 2009. And how many of you have had to deal with infections despite having an up-to-date Vipre? Issue I'm debating is a switch from another product to Vipre, and even though the price is very good, I'm looking at the Virusbtn RAP quadrant ( http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/rap-index.xml) with a very poor showing for Sunbelt. Including the false positives and cost of switching, it doesn't add up to a good choice. At least if the protection was much better, then the occasional false positive might be justified. Is there any 3rd party comparison or statistic that gives Vipre a better than average result
