Firefox update -> Symantec FP

http://community.norton.com/t5/Nort...putation-1/td-p/228251/highlight/true/page/14

(it was a FP of the cloud/reputation.)

 

Thanks for the update IBK. Even i was not aware of Plugin-container.exe whenmy firefox got updated. Because at that time i haven't read the change log of firefox...so i thought something bypassed my security setup...But soon after my research i found that it was a part of FF 3.6.6...

 

Sorry IBK, I don't mean to be negative here, but considering who you are, there's 2 ways of looking at this.

1. Being the helpful forum member warning people about this medium impact FP.

2. Being the Avast employee attempting to draw attention to the negative sides of competitors. (which doesn't really help considering the recent avast FPs.)

Just putting my view on this thread out there.

 

I think you are confusing me with another forum member. So, I attach my signature.

 

Think you have IBK confused with vlk?

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/member.php?u=2154

 

Well done Symantec Was it a signature or Sonar?

 

.....

 

I updated FF yesterday without a problem, so I guess I was late for the party.

Btw, according to Symantec, it was Mozilla's fault.........................hehehe

 

Did I hear my name...?

 

Hahaha

 

>> Even i was not aware of Plugin-container.exe whenmy firefox got updated.
>> Because at that time i haven't read the change log

Is there no pupup after the update?
anyway Firefox opens the release site with news/whats new - you should read it instead clicking away
but the EXE was long ago announced as "lorentz feature" (OOPP now).
Symantec did its homework NOT again and failed as usual - even our german
forum is full of that talk. (although other security suites also fail)

 

I haven't read the website/what's new after updating...

 

I agree with elapsed!

Even though elapsed might have made a mistake thinking Andreas Clementi (IBK) for vlk from Avast Software , I think it is not appropriate for the head of an organisation like AV-Comparatives to make such public comments and even starting a thread regarding any AV company that takes part in their tests.

This FP was not a big issue and those affected (some Firefox users) have found the solution in the Norton forum . Threads like this one should not be started by AV experts like IBK because some might think that IBK has a negative attitude towards Symantec.

Just my personal opinion.

 

I think that IBK posted this to inform the Symantec users about this FP.
Nothing wrong in doing that even if you are the head of an Org as AV-Comparatives.

And I can't see that he posted this with an purpose of bashing, or posting negative comments about Symantec.

 

I don't think it is fair to comment his activites but ... even though part of his signature clearly states "Not speaking here on behalf of AV-Comparatives" he is and always will be connected to AV-Comparatives - the otherwise situation is impossible. Furtermore the other part of his sig is an ad for AV-Comparatives. He may well have good intentions informing Norton users about the FP but published from him this sounds suspicious , IMO. By writing suspicious I mean that some people think this thread is an informative one but other will think that this is kind of hidden "bashing"- showing each other's negatives. Hope you understand .

This is like Symantec when they made comments on McAfee's recent failure (FP). Of course the comments were all marking - hidden info and obvious advertisement. IBK is supposed to be independant , which means he should be Silent. This is how I understand it.

Respect to AV-Comparatives.

 

If we would live in China: Yes, he should be silent

Symantec is responsible for this FP, not IBK

 

false positives can cause a worry to most users and it is useful to know that they have been noted, are being worked on and resolved as quickly as possible