Guest User!

You are not Sophos Staff.

Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 6 subscribers
  • Views 3188 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Possible Bug?

LDMartin1959

I originally posted this on the main Sophos forums and was chastised and told to post it here. I was directed to do this by a forum moderator, so please do not criticise me for cross-posting.

I have noticed an odd situation. I am using the free Mac edition on Lion. Sophos keeps reporting infection in a couple of files in my Time Machine backup. But it does not report infection of the same files on the primary drive where the primary/original copies of those files reside. It simply doesn't make sense that the primary/original copy of a file could be free of infection and the backup copy made from that primary/original file could be infected. Rationally, one of these things is wrong: Rationally, either they are both infected or neither are infected. Not sure which is the case, but it certianly shakes myfaith in Sophos AntiVirus.

Update: Since my initial posting on the main forums, I've noticed one additional apparant anomoly in this matter. Amoung the multiple references to "Original Locations" for each infected file are some "Original Locations" which seem to make no sense. For example, a reported infected Windows .DLL file includes an identification of originally being a .WMA file, and a reported infected Windows .EXE  file includes an identification of originally being a .RM file. Ignoring the fact that these "original location" references are nonsensical, even if we were to accept for the moment that these file name/format transformations did somehow occur, there is still the fact that these referenced "original" files do not report as being infected. As I say, all this certianly shakes my faith in Sophos AntiVirus.

As I mention in the thread on the main forums, my posting was and is in reference to a possible bug and to (hopefully) bring the matter to the attention of the Sophos folks so that if it is a bug it can be addressed. This is not principly a request for support or assistance to solve/explain my dilema, although such will be gladly accepted.

:1008143


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0
    photoglyph wrote:

    I'm quickly learning that Sophos does not want to know about any problems with the 'Anti-virus Home Edition', it's almost like they're refusing to stand behind their product.

    If they are like most anti-virus companies, their paid version uses the same basic scanning mechanism as their free version. So in general, anything that affects the free version would also affect the paid version. So while it is understandable that they may not being willing to provide full support for the free version one would think they would be interested in any bug report, regardless of the source (free user or paid user). And regardless of the claims to the contrary, I believe most legal authorities still require a company that produces a product to assume some level of responsability for that product, even if they give it away for free. But my impression is not just that they aren't standing behind their product but that they don't want any suggestion made that their product may not be perfect lest they loose paying customers. But in fact, I think if they try to hide issues, then more damage will be done when the issues become known. And they will be known at some point.

    :1008161
Reply
  • 0
    photoglyph wrote:

    I'm quickly learning that Sophos does not want to know about any problems with the 'Anti-virus Home Edition', it's almost like they're refusing to stand behind their product.

    If they are like most anti-virus companies, their paid version uses the same basic scanning mechanism as their free version. So in general, anything that affects the free version would also affect the paid version. So while it is understandable that they may not being willing to provide full support for the free version one would think they would be interested in any bug report, regardless of the source (free user or paid user). And regardless of the claims to the contrary, I believe most legal authorities still require a company that produces a product to assume some level of responsability for that product, even if they give it away for free. But my impression is not just that they aren't standing behind their product but that they don't want any suggestion made that their product may not be perfect lest they loose paying customers. But in fact, I think if they try to hide issues, then more damage will be done when the issues become known. And they will be known at some point.

    :1008161
Children
No Data