Wuzzup from BugBopper: What do you think of it?

I was reading from the php script, which says:
if($errorCode == 2){echo "The uploaded file exceeds the Max_file_size 800Kb";

Obviously, errorCode ==2 must occur at some larger size, and this error message must be wrong.

Do you have any large file that BugBopper or http://www.bugbopper.com/SubmitAFile.asp is not processing?

 

Re: Wuzzup: Worst cloud ever

5 stars from DownloadHungry...Truly impressive!
http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/The-Software-Awards-Scam/220568

 

Feedback:
After about 45 minutes 4:50min remaining...i think a pause button would be helpful to stop and research "found malware"

Its only uploading at 100 kb/s on dsl capable of 2 or 3 times faster...needs improvement

Cancelled scan...of 9 so called detections all were ati, creative components

Hello Revo uninstaller....Goodbye Bugbopper!

 

I would like to see BB implement some means for the user to mark files as safe so they don't keep getting flagged as possible malware. I've got 6 files that keep getting flagged at 10%. It's irritating to keep seeing these come up time after time. Otherwise, I like the program a lot. Support is very responsive as well.

 

I could try some bigger files. I didn't see that error message.

 

Everything it detected on my system was a legitimate file. 4 hour scans? Really?
I hope BB improves, and I am sure it will. Right now, it's not ready to be a part of my set-up.

 

The first scan is always the longest, after that it'll be very fast.

 

As J_L has stated once the first scan is out of the way, subsequent ones are very fast.

My first scan was over 5 hours; after that, less than a minute!

 

Agreed... same here...

Also I would like to see the options to skip large files from uploading...
with the new all extension scan it also uploaded my large document files/movies. Also an exclusion list should be implemented.

 

Re: Wuzzup: Worst cloud ever

When you put yourself in the place of a new vendor, things are less humorous. How should anyone go about capturing market share? I think all but a few vendors struggle with this issue.

But you shouldn't completely diminish the value of these awards. Whenever BugBopper or Wuzzup gets a 5 star award, a visit to the awarding site reveals that many, many products get 4 star awards, or no award at all. Truth is, I'm as surprised as you by this, because it would be easy to give every product a 5 star award. Some sites may do this, but not all do.

I posted the "awards" because they increase the chances of a link from these other sites to ours. The fact that Google favors sites that have many links to them forces such behavior. Until recently, our own site was getting more visits from users directly than from search engines.

I hope you will evaluate BugBopper on its merits. You can use a free trial to do so.

 

You might be interested in http://www.bugbopper.com/News/2010_07_20.asp. I am sure that any "false alarms" were noted in the log with scores of 10% or so. Any executable with a score of 10% has a flyover in the Score column which reads "Suspicious. About 10% of scanners would identify this as Malware. Might be a false alarm."

If you are bothered by detections of files that score only 10%, you can choose to view only those with higher scores, and you can select for quarantine those with scores above any threshold you set. Personally, I think this is better than just trusting a scanner to do the right thing. After all, if an executable has a score of 10%, then somebody out there, with the scanner that did detect it, is deleting that file right now.

Perhaps others in this forum don't like the Score innovation, and want BugBopper to decide. I'm interested in hearing from others here. Software is easy to change, and we want to be responsive and meet user needs.

 

It would be very easy for us to pronounce all files that score x% or lower as "clean" unless determined otherwise. For instance, we could configure things to only report files with scores of 30% or higher.

This would solve the 10% problem you have. But would it be a good thing, or would you still want to be able to mark something as safe from time to time?

 

I think we've had enough complaints about this that I should stop defending it and get busy coding. I hope that our next release can address the issues raised here.

 

thank you...

About those files having low score not all are FP... because many zero day malwares are detected by one or two scanners only. So, it would be better if we have a option to send files for reanalysis.

 

Actually, we do that for you. We routinely reanalyze every file received, and adjust our database based on that new information. So if we receive a file that is just minutes old, and no scanner finds a problem, and sandboxing doesn't find a problem, it gets re-examined automatically later on. If there is any new information, our database is updated, and your next scan will find the problem. This has happened for two of the millions of files that we previously determined to be "clean."

 

I REALLY like the Scoring thingee. It is a primary reason why I bought Bughumper. I shall renew - when the time comes - but NOT if you drop the Score. I think Scoring is a splendid innovation!

 

Well, the x% or lower would be good as an advanced option. But I would still like the ability to mark specific files as safe regardless of the % score.

 

You give me goose bumps. I'm glad you like it.

 

Wuzzup needs to upload almost 8Gb of data If I upload all this will you give me a license?
You should include and very sensible heurisctic scanner to exclude the safe files.

 

What is this stuff?

Yes, I can give you a one-year license if you upload this mess. You should be able to minimize BugBopper, and just let it run to completion. It shouldn't interfere with your other computer activities.

 

BugBopper just does not like my system, it installed fine but everytime it launches is just froze. Somewhere BubBopper must conflict with PandaCloud/PrivateFirewall/Windows Defender/ or ClearCloud DNS. It looks like a nice program but I do not want to dig around trying to figure out why is does not work. Anyway maybe a few versions later I will try it out again.

 

Hi Ibrad... give it some time after opening it... at first it will take some time... may be 5 to 10 min... then it will be OK...

 

They are just normal exe's, for the whitelist I guess that can be useful. I think is because I have a hard disk where I keep many installers so maybe is trying to upload all the installers...
I sent you a PM before take a look.

Still uploading 1.3gb of 7.6 20h left. Maybe I will split it in two times

 

Check the status line at the bottom of the BugBopper form when it loads. On its first load, it checks your internet connection, and if all is ok, must retrieve its scan strings for the first time, and its help file. You should have a message or two to this effect in the status line. This is a one-time effort -- you'll never again need to retrieve the entire detection database.

I know of no conflicts with any other software. HTTP is used to retrieve these files, so should not be blocked by your firewall.

Jim Hetland has thought about this problem, and writes:

I would agree that the likely cause is conflict with those other things, the exact nature of which I am ignorant.

Assuming the machine is otherwise usable for browsing, the most likely place to look is possible restrictions on HTTP PUT on port 80. Most firewalls allow GET, HEAD, &c without restriction; POST may require checking a box or listing the target domain, and PUT is even more likely to require specific permission in some form. Unclear why the blocking product is not alerting in some way, unless they too are falling over each other.

BB does not write anything to the registry anymore, so that's out of the picture. It does read many startup keys, as well as use documented platform functions to retrieve the special paths and so on, but a security fence anywhere in there would surely throw some form of Access Denied rather than a freeze.​

It is important to me that we fix this. Please give it another try, and let me know what happens.

 

Sure I will try it again tomorrow.