Rolo

Level 18
Verified
It's not being used out of it's rules, I just personally think that regardless of the rules, the usage is not always fair.
"Fair" based on what standard? You'll have to define "fair".

My other opinion is that too many vendors take from other vendors, such as through detection theft based on VT intelligence (e.g. they see a new submission and add it just because another vendor detected it without checking it themselves)
You are calling it "intelligence" and intelligence is shared. Competitive AV vendors do collaborate on this; Eugene acknowledged that. How do we know that this isn't what's happening and VT is just one venue for it?

or use the same engines from the same vendor too much (e.g. too many products use the BD SDK and it's ridiculous now IMO).
Are they using it without license/permission? Otherwise, it's a testament to how good BD is--and providing BD more income and market-share--no point in reinventing the wheel if you can't make a better wheel.

If you were Avast and had your engine on VirusTotal to help people identify threats when scanning new downloads at VirusTotal, how would you feel if a company was using VT for commercial uses alongside their own engine to use your intelligence without paying money to your own company?
Is there evidence to support this is happening?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dani Santos

Dani Santos

From Xvirus
Verified
Developer
@Rolo About your first point. I don't agree with your counter example. If you see the definition for opinion:
"2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal." you can see that's what Wave did. What you did with your example was give a statement (check 3.) and added "It is my personal opinion" to make it look like a opinion which is completely different. About your second point I agree with you, but you might check the fact and not fall for marketing but there is many people that don fall for it and that's why marketing is effective.

Ps: I'll stop here before this becomes a bad argument :)
 
W

Wave

@Rolo

Please look here: Urban Dictionary: opinion
The personal views and ideals of any particular human being (animals may very well have opinions as well, but I'll never know) that are generally revealed to others as a form of self expression. But can also be kept to oneself as not to be offensive or abtrusive.
If you have a problem with my personal views or anyone else's then it's best to just not respond in the first place instead of creating drama.. feel free to share your own views, but I already said I didn't want any argumentative drama in the original thread and it seems you've just ignored this. There is no need to start quoting and demanding answers, I already expressed it's all based on my personal view and if you think there is a fact in something I have said then that's a bonus plus.

Keep it neat, thanks. :)
 

Rolo

Level 18
Verified
@Rolo About your first point. I don't agree with your counter example. If you see the definition for opinion:
"2.a personal view, attitude, or appraisal." you can see that's what Wave did. What you did with your example was give a statement (check 3.) and added "It is my personal opinion" to make it look like a opinion which is completely different. About your second point I agree with you, but you might check the fact and not fall for marketing but there is many people that don fall for it and that's why marketing is effective.

Ps: I'll stop here before this becomes a bad argument :)
Critically analyzing an argument/claim/assertion/statement/opinion is never "bad". Attacking a person is. Nobody has done that, so we're good. To fear debate stifles knowledge and only leads to status quo.

Having said that, I can't see how my example differs from the OP; if I sum up the OP correctly and succinctly:

"I think it is wrong that AV vendors take from other AV vendors and sell it as their own."

That is both, an opinion and a statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dani Santos

Dani Santos

From Xvirus
Verified
Developer
Critically analyzing an argument/claim/assertion/statement/opinion is never "bad". Attacking a person is. Nobody has done that, so we're good. To fear debate stifles knowledge and only leads to status quo.

Having said that, I can't see how my example differs from the OP; if I sum up the OP correctly and succinctly:

"I think it is wrong that AV vendors take from other AV vendors and sell it as their own."

That is both, an opinion and a statement.
I just explained how it differs xD and you can't just "sum up" others opinion and argument based on that:

"I think it is wrong that AV vendors take from other AV vendors and sell it as their own." - This wasn't written or said by wave or me just like your counter-example.

This isn't fearing debate, this is just stopping it before it turns into non sense and that is what "stifles knowledge".
 
D

Deleted Member 3a5v73x

I sometimes think, that Bitdefender might be one of the richest company among AV/security vendors, just image how much percentage % ($) they get when selling /getting their AV engine (income profit) from other vendors who make money also of Bitdefender engine, e.g.(If i am Emsisoft user, i want pure Emsisoft product/technology, not Ikarus or Bitdefender or any other top tier AV engine complimented just to "shape" 3th party companies/vendors name). But Romanians from Bitdefender know for sure how to make money.
 

Dani Santos

From Xvirus
Verified
Developer
I sometimes think, that Bitdefender might be one of the richest company among AV/security vendors, just image how much percentage % ($) they get when selling /getting their AV engine (income profit) from other vendors who make money also of Bitdefender engine, e.g.(If i am Emsisoft user, i want pure Emsisoft product/technology, not Ikarus or Bitdefender or any other top tier AV engine complimented just to "shape" 3th party companies/vendors name). But Romanians from Bitdefender know for sure how to make money.
Eset also must makes a lot of money. Look here.
 
5

509322

VT is voluntary participation. If vendors don't want to share, then they don't have to participate. The less flattering aspects of VT are here and will stay here. This debate has been beaten to death over the years.

Like a lot of things IT-security (and life) related, it comes down to which option is the lesser of two evils ?

Would the industry - and users - be better off with a highly restrictive VT with only a certain set of vendors who meet even more stringent requirements participating - or - is the current VT system of greater benefit ?

Besides - antivirus users can boycott those vendors that copy others' signatures. Look into it and you will probably be surprised which ones do it. But realistically, how many users are going to put forth the effort ? What, drop my favorite AV ? --- screw you buddy --- I don't care if they copy Kaspersky's or Emsisoft's signatures ! And even if you look into it, you can't be really confident assurances by some who say they don't do it. On the other hand, when someone like @Fabian Wosar says they don't do it, you can take that at face value.

You really need someone like @Fabian Wosar or @Emsisoft to comment. They have a unique insight to this issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator: