New spwyare definitions

The spyware definitions were updated from 5678 to 5680 today. Has that
seemed to fix many of all these false positives?

In a word, no.


--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.


<blocher@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uaKO50R9EHA.2036@CPMSFTNGSA04.privatenews.microsoft.com...
> The spyware definitions were updated from 5678 to 5680 today. Has that
> seemed to fix many of all these false positives?
>

>-----Original Message-----
>In a word, no.

Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?

>-----Original Message-----
>In a word, no.

Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?

It's their call and it may be in the works. During the beta there are bigger
fish to fry though. Publishing detection changes is something that's done by
most vendors but that data is really only meaningful to a handful of people
and isn't really a part of the baseline product.

--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.


"thomas lee" <tfl@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13d101c4f591$05cbc580$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> >-----Original Message-----
>>In a word, no.
>
> Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
> signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?

I disagree, as participants in an open beta we are
entitled to information such as issues addressed in
incramental patches and updates, beta is a two way street
and demands the open flow of information in both
directions.

if an update is put out that addresses a specific
previously reported issue and we're not told about it how
will we know to report the issue as still active? or are
we supposed to re-report all previously detected bugs with
every patch just in case one of them was supposed to be
addressed in that patch?

do you see what I mean about the flow of info? we're not
animals in a lab getting sprayed with perfume so someone
can observe the results, we are supposed to be active
participants in this, and someone there needs to get a
handle on making this pig fly.

>-----Original Message-----
>It's their call and it may be in the works. During the
beta there are bigger
>fish to fry though. Publishing detection changes is
something that's done by
>most vendors but that data is really only meaningful to a
handful of people
>and isn't really a part of the baseline product.
>
>--
>Walter Clayton
>Any technology distinguishable from magic is
insufficiently advanced.
>
>
>"thomas lee" <tfl@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:13d101c4f591$05cbc580$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> >-----Original Message-----
>>>In a word, no.
>>
>> Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
>> signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
>
>.
>

Hey Thomas!

That would be a nice add on.


Ron Chamberlin
MS-MVP

"thomas lee" <tfl@psp.co.uk> wrote in message
news:102f01c4f591$06010650$a301280a@phx.gbl...
> >-----Original Message-----
>>In a word, no.
>
> Shouldn't MS publish details of the changes in
> signatures? Some sort of update log as to what's new?
>

<anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:114701c4f5b6$93f61ed0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>I disagree, as participants in an open beta we are
> entitled to information such as issues addressed in
> incramental patches and updates, beta is a two way street
> and demands the open flow of information in both
> directions.
>
> if an update is put out that addresses a specific
> previously reported issue and we're not told about it how
> will we know to report the issue as still active? or are
> we supposed to re-report all previously detected bugs with
> every patch just in case one of them was supposed to be
> addressed in that patch?

You got it. In general unless MS specifically says*not* to report an issue
you continue to report it after each build just for that reason.

>
> do you see what I mean about the flow of info? we're not
> animals in a lab getting sprayed with perfume so someone
> can observe the results, we are supposed to be active
> participants in this, and someone there needs to get a
> handle on making this pig fly.

We aren't lab animals. :-)
However one of the things most tricky in testing in general is in fact
providing too much information to specific groups. It's considered a form of
blind testing. I've been in formal betas where testing 'scripts' were
supplied and it was encouraged to stick to the scripts only. I've also been
in other betas where certain issues were published to the testing community
and not retested by the people with the original issues and the product went
out the door with the issue still present although in a subtly different
form. There's also the problem that something fixed on the current build
gets hosed on the next build.

Welcome to beta testing. 8-P

--
Walter Clayton
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.