Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

The False Positive and Improperly Rated Site Epidemic

<< < (6/16) > >>

Jibz:
I think this is a really good idea, and I sincerely hope you manage to get the security companies interested and involved.

Having to report false positives to each company individually, and hope that they all fix the error is horrible. Having a common place to publicly post is a much better solution, increasing transparency and helping security companies to address the issues.

I posted on the bitsum forum as well, and because I am a dinosaur I posted in the historical section as well ;D.

db90h:
I sure hope this anti-FP action will go well.  :up:

However, already been told that the thread will move to another domain, I am not inclined to register at Bitsum's, in order to upload a post or two. I think more people than me may have had a similar thought.

-Curt (September 24, 2011, 05:00 AM)
--- End quote ---

Thanks, and do not worry, all accounts and posts will be moved... we use SMF, so will the new forum.. easy migration. I indicated this, but it may have been missed (or not believed ;p).

Renegade:
I sure hope this anti-FP action will go well.  :up:

However, already been told that the thread will move to another domain, I am not inclined to register at Bitsum's, in order to upload a post or two. I think more people than me may have had a similar thought.

-Curt (September 24, 2011, 05:00 AM)
--- End quote ---

Thanks, and do not worry, all accounts and posts will be moved... we use SMF, so will the new forum.. easy migration. I indicated this, but it may have been missed (or not believed ;p).
-db90h (September 24, 2011, 10:29 AM)
--- End quote ---

Was that what was happening? I saw 2 of my 3 posts were removed, so I got pissed at being censored, deleted my remaining post and deleted my account.

db90h:
Was that what was happening? I saw 2 of my 3 posts were removed, so I got pissed at being censored, deleted my remaining post and deleted my account.
--- End quote ---

I was informed the company we were discussing (Open Candy) likes to sue people. I got freaked out, removed the posts. Sorry... The new policy is: NO DISCUSSION OF BUNDLED PRODUCTS.

If you don't want the false positive, don't bundle with that software. You CHOSE to bundle with that software.

I do not mean to be harsh, I just have to set some limits. There are more egregious and clear examples of harm. Mentioning FPs with bundled software just confuses the issue and defeats our purpose.

Anyway, the site is under new management now and being moved as we speak, so maybe you can talk them into allowing it.. I no longer am in control.

OTHERS: Would you agree this is a reasonable policy? If we allow BORDERLINE cases, or cases of debate.. then we confuse the whole issue and defeat the purpose. I personally consider all bundles deceptive as they rely on those users who accidentally miss the checkbox. I, personally, don't want the bundled crap, and imagine others feel the same. Can someone back me up?

I mean NO OFFENSE.. but to get things done, we can NOT allow borderline cases like this.

I had a LONG discussion about this... this nearly destroyed the entire effort. If we allow these type cases, it would. Besides, since Open Candy, according to my sources that may or may not be accurate, sues everybody who calls them a threat, they can hold their own. I am NOT saying they are a threat, in face they are NOT a threat in most, if not all, cases. Since they have different bundles, I can't speak for all of them though.

app103:
Was that what was happening? I saw 2 of my 3 posts were removed, so I got pissed at being censored, deleted my remaining post and deleted my account.
--- End quote ---

I was informed the company we were discussing (Open Candy) likes to sue people. I got freaked out, removed the posts. Sorry... The new policy is: NO DISCUSSION OF BUNDLED PRODUCTS.

If you don't want the false positive, don't bundle with that software. You CHOSE to bundle with that software.

I do not mean to be harsh, I just have to set some limits. There are more egregious and clear examples of harm. Mentioning FPs with bundled software just confuses the issue and defeats our purpose.

Anyway, the site is under new management now and being moved as we speak, so maybe you can talk them into allowing it.. I no longer am in control.

OTHERS: Would you agree this is a reasonable policy? If we allow BORDERLINE cases, or cases of debate.. then we confuse the whole issue and defeat the purpose. I personally consider all bundles deceptive as they rely on those users who accidentally miss the checkbox. I, personally, don't want the bundled crap, and imagine others feel the same. Can someone back me up?

I mean NO OFFENSE.. but to get things done, we can NOT allow borderline cases like this.
-db90h (September 24, 2011, 11:39 AM)
--- End quote ---

I tend to agree on this, and here is another way of looking at it:

If you choose to bundle with anything, and your installers are getting flagged because of what you are bundling with, it's not your software that is triggering the false positive if there is one.

If it is not your software, then it's not your battle here. Your battle is with the company in which you are bundling their product.

If it is OpenCandy, you need to either cry to them about it or stop bundling their product.

If OpenCandy feels that it is a false positive, they can come and complain about it themselves, since it is their product that is getting flagged.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page