|
I totally agree. We're bordering the Soapbox though, I think I'll stop here 
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
... easiest jokes are the best[^] !
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Entropy isn't what it used to.
|
|
|
|
|
Worth a snort.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Do you know when your browser filter or your antivirus says: this file can harm your computer ? Well, people began to understand that these are false alarm signals. Because of this problem, no one trusts the browser filter and the antivirus (for a good reason). The problem arose from the moment VirusTotal appeared. All security companies take their files from there, and this is something totally wrong, because the files are uploaded by users like you and me ! Antivirus teams are like sheep, if one says that a file is suspect, then everyone says that the file is a virus or suspect.
They do this so they don't lose the so-called "detection rate". That is why over ~90% of the files they detect as malware, they are in fact clean files, belonging to different legit software companies or belonging to you or me. So when your browser or antivirus tells you that the file "x" is infected, you should not listen to it. I've given up Google Chrome (mainly due to so called "malware" filters) and all antivirus software because these have told me that my programs (just compiled) were a threat to my computer. That is stupid, how can you interdict me to download my own statistical software because it might harm my computer ?!
Source:
http://vb6awards.blogspot.com[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A few years back, a client of over 10 years called to report major problems with our software...the shortcut couldn't find the executable. Her IT department had just rolled out a new AV and it apparently did not like our executable. I was able to FTP down a fresh executable, (via a remote) and tested it. When I double-clicked, the AV gave a warning and then poof, the file was gone! 
The problem was referred to the IT dept. 'head' who totally believed that our files must be infected, even though the digital signature was still intact, and refused to set an exception or rule, or even to submit the file to AV for examination. The poor client was without their ordering and inventory system for 2 weeks until suddenly it just started working again...not sure what they did.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Often, when an antivirus company says about an executable that is malicious, then they can destroy that legit company (they do this often with many small companies). The question is where is the justice in that ?! This is called unfair competition. I wonder when this situation will be resolved ... I am surprised that many antivirus companies are not sued.
|
|
|
|
|
Do you have any personal knowledge of any software companies "destroyed" or seriously financially damaged by the top-tier AV companies ?
If so, how about a link to the evidence.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
I asked you:
"Do you have any personal knowledge of any software companies "destroyed" or seriously financially damaged by the top-tier AV companies ?"
And, you responded with the name of an obscure Romanian maker of AV software, not the name of a software company seriously damaged by top-tier AV-software makers' software.
Of course any naive user who installs more than one system-AV-checker is asking for a lot of grief: user stupidity never ceases.
By the way, would you purchase a Spreadsheet named "Trash," or a DataBase named "Lossy" ?
I think you are just blowing smoke in this thread.
«I'm asked why doesn't C# implement feature X all the time. The answer's always the same: because no one ever designed, specified, implemented, tested, documented, shipped that feature. All six of those things are necessary to make a feature happen. They all cost huge amounts of time, effort and money.» Eric Lippert, Microsoft, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you are not a security expert. The blog article posted here is entirely consistent with those observed by me, so I posted the aticle here too for I am sure I am not the only one who noticed this stuff in the browser filters and in the AV world.
I'm sure you asked, and I gave you an answer that I know. The Scut AV could not begin sales in 2009 thanks to the Google Chrome filter. Users were scared to download the antivirus because Google Chrome said that "This file can harm your computer" and that was/is not the case. Thus, how can the user trust the antivirus ?!
The antivirus is made by a friend of mine. I tested the product and it is really good on heuristics and in any case the Scut AV is no way a malware as Google says.
|
|
|
|
|
I had this problem twice when our software had an auto-update capability. Essentially, the anti-virus scan had determined that my software could download and execute an installer (for the update.) It happened once when we used a third party toolkit for doing this, and again when we implemented the capability ourselves. The first 'fix' was to go to the anti-virus vendor and get onto a white-list. Unfortunately, we had to resubmit for every release, and this became impractical. The final solution was to eliminate the auto-update feature, just detecting when it was out of date and giving the user a link to download a new installer.
|
|
|
|
|
Aye, between AV and UAC keeping distributed stuff updated is getting tougher. 
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
kmoorevs wrote: not sure what they did.
Probably used up some ammunition on the dic IT dept 'head'.
Geek code v 3.12
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- r++>+++ y+++*
Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
I came across this[^], but I was wondering if anyone came across anything else?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I was expecting a "Digital subscriber line", written in C#. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Heh, no, Domain Specific Language.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
The code there is full of problems (at least the visible part, there is more?), so it is not clear to me what are you looking for...DSL is Domain specific language?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, a Domain Specific Language. Basically, something "fluent" (or is it fluid?) that would make it easier to write HTML where tags are methods that you can chain together with . notation.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
After my last message, I changed my google search from "C# HTML DSL" to "C# fluent HTML" and found this.[^] More investigation will occur now.
And thanks, you helped me refine my search criteria!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Why not to write HTML? I means AS HTML?
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: Why not to write HTML? I means AS HTML?
Because there are times I want to generate the HTML server-side and I don't want the overhead of a view engine like Razor that compiles the view at runtime for Pete's sake, nor some goofy C#'s markup syntax for doing things like for loops and if statements inside the freaking HTML markup of all places, nor some idiotic idea that a view can only be associated with one model for referencing model data.
Is that a good enough reason? 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Way to tell him! Put 'im in his place!
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
It is fascinating how many people do NOT like the MVC implementation of Microsoft (and how Microsoft still push it AS IS)...
I'm working on the new engine for our next generation web application (in this step we will move all the functionality to the web and close the desktop app) and me too taking only parts of the MVC...
However until now I hadn't come to do my own DSL...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
