Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!rutgers!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: CHESS@YKTVMV.BITNET (David.M.Chess) Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: re: The Shape of the World (PC) Message-ID: <0006.9105141317.AA10748@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 13 May 91 13:50:26 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 26 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu >From: microsoft!c-rossgr@uunet.uu.net > >This loud cry for protection against research-only viruses is quite >quite bothersome -- the numbers game we have to play (as a vendor) in >order to counter "my scanner can beat up your scanner" type of games >is sorta foolish -- yet we must play the game. Must we? Or rather, given that we must at the moment, must we always? Is there any hope that the anti-virus community might band together (for a moment, at least!) and decide that the numbers game shall be played ONLY with viruses that have appeared in reliably-confirmed real-world incidents? I'm not sure; the hope that we might is part of why I asked those questions. It would mean restraining ourselves in advertising and in talking to the press, getting publications like the Virus Bulletin (and others less respectable) to stop using 300+ viruses, including losers like the Anti-Pascals, in their evaluations, and so on. It might be marketingly impossible, of course. On the other hand, is it possible that eventually people making buying decisions will get tired of "We Detect 100 More Viruses Than Our Competitors!!!" sorts of claims, and be more impressed by "We Detect Every Virus Known To Have Caused A Real Infection, and We're "? DC