Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!vax1.cc.lehigh.edu!cert.sei.cmu.edu!krvw From: microsoft!c-rossgr@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: comp.virus Subject: re: The Shape of the World (PC) Message-ID: <0001.9105151741.AA00799@ubu.cert.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 14 May 91 18:59:00 GMT Sender: Virus Discussion List Lines: 74 Approved: krvw@sei.cmu.edu >From: "David.M.Chess" > > Must we? [play the numbers game in scanners] Or rather, given that > we must at the moment, must we always? Remember that we can't even get the user community (the folks who spend their hard earned money to buy my products!) to make backups to protect themselves. They seem to prefer that somebody do that protection for them. Obviously if an ad indicates that Product A protects against 400 viruses -- and it might even be true -- that's going to offer 25% (or 33%) more protection than one that scans for "only" 300 viruses. Do you think the public is going to respond favorably to a condom that protects against the AIDS virus 99% of the time as compared to one that protects against it 99.9% of the time -- even when your odds of getting "hit" with the AIDS virus are pretty slim to begin with. Maximal Protection! That's what the market seems to clamour for. And the marketing dudes I work with closely at Microcom tell me what we can lose a site license because of and where our strong points are: I recall one site license potential that was lost on our not catching the Whale Virus in an early cut of our code. You know how difficult it is to get the Whale Virus to infect something without crashing your system, right? Well, the site license didn't and that cost a bunch-o-bucks. Now, of course, we catch the Whale Virus. The next time a site license asks we can put on our best Grey Poupon voice and say "Of course. Of course." >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? Speaking on my own behalf, I hope so. Speaking on behalf of Microcom (which I can't do in any case), marketing has to stay competitive. So, when one of our competitors says "Yes, but do you want to risk even the slightest chance of getting infected with this virus if it escapes into the wild.", my marketing can respond "Ha! We already protect you against that nasty virus!". > 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. As long as the advertising works (and is used by the competition) it would be suicide to drop out of the numbers game -- see my new release blurb below for an example of why we must continually play the damned game. Yes, I picked up a bunch-o new strings for this cut of the code. More important to me, though, are the minor enhancements that make the code easier to use. >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 etc>"? Hear, hear! I would love to be able to impress that upon people rather than the numbers game. The first people to convince would be in MIS, though: now how do you convince them that your second point is more important than the numbers games? Until then, I have to provide the marketing dudes at Microcom with ammunition for winning on both points you make. Ross