Test results for BOCLEAN

[Guest]

[Rotty]

This details the test:

http://techsupportalert.com/Security%20Tests/Security%20Tests%20-%20%20Comodo%20BoClean%204.23.htm

What does everyone think?

[john2g]

Tested by someone who obviously doesn't know what BOClean is supposed to do.

[LeoniAquila]

Tested by someone who obviously doesn't know what BOClean is supposed to do.

But still, some tests do address the kind of protection BOClean is supposed to give? Anyhow, the test seems very strange. It just can't be true that the results should be that bad... I still believe in BOClean as it has saved me once or twice

[Toggie]

I would want to see more detailed methodology.

Toggie

[Rotty]

I would take this as a list of possible ideas or extra features to add, although there are so many other programs that take care of these section(s) of the computer.  The features are not needed.

[~cat~]

Address lookup:
canonical name    techsupportalert.co
Administrative Contact:
 Richards, Ian editor[ at ]techsupportalert.com
 PO Box 445
 Moss Vale, NSW 2577
 AU
 4868 1350
Fax:4868 1350

Ian Richards?
Isn't this the same clown that wanted payola for published results several years ago?
The ink spammer IIRC...

Address lookup:
canonical name    anti-trojan-software-reviews.com.
Registrant Contact:
   
   Ian Richards (editor[ at ]techsupportalert.com)
   +61 2 4868 3116
   Fax:
   PO Box 445
   Moss Vale, NSW 2577
   AU

Bingo!
Heh, Melih will be getting an offer "he can't refuse" before long if he hasn't already.
IIRC, he blackmails vendors for a good review.
Kevin would be able to confirm the ID.
His associates were comment spamming BBR for awhile.

[N.T.T.W.]

Gizmo Richards???

http://www.techsupportalert.com/

http://www.backup-software-reviews.com/about_site.htm

http://www.pcsupportadvisor.com/index.htm

http://www.techsupportalert.com/free-vs-paid-av.htm

He is a busy fellow it seems.

I cant take these results too seriously - many of the tests are just not applicable and BOClean has not proven so popular for these many years by failing to stop malware.

 

[JWill]

From the test-
"Here I try to install some adware and malware infected programs typical of the kind naive surfers download from free and crack websites. They include an infected game, screensaver, keygen, crack and a search toolbar. All were obtained from currently operating web sites"

Seems to me to be the case for your AV or some type of behavior blocker.

Now I've been using BOC for well over 2 years and from my understanding BOC being a memory scanner stops the malware BEFORE the damage can occur.
Remember BOC is considered a second line of defense as per Kevin, not a replacement for something like your AV.
Just giving my opinion on what I believe this test is all about, now if I'm wrong someone please correct me.

[yeow]

Is it because most of his tests were done with "simulators" that simulate malware behavior? If so, and if BOClean does not have signatures for these "simulators" (since no need to), I can understand the results.

But his "2.4 Shoot In The Foot" tests, if they're applicable to real world then perhaps some improvements needed there.

[Kevin McAleavey]

Address lookup:
canonical name    techsupportalert.co
Administrative Contact:
 Richards, Ian editor[ at ]techsupportalert.com
 PO Box 445
 Moss Vale, NSW 2577
 AU
 4868 1350
Fax:4868 1350

Ian Richards?
Isn't this the same clown that wanted payola for published results several years ago?
The ink spammer IIRC...

Address lookup:
canonical name    anti-trojan-software-reviews.com.
Registrant Contact:
   
   Ian Richards (editor[ at ]techsupportalert.com)
   +61 2 4868 3116
   Fax:
   PO Box 445
   Moss Vale, NSW 2577
   AU

Bingo!
Heh, Melih will be getting am offer "he can't refuse" before long if he hasn't already.
IIRC, he blackmails vendors for a good review.
Kevin would be able to confirm the ID.
His associates were comment spamming BBR for awhile.

 Hehe ... the "TONER GUY!" Ayup ... that review being at the top of google for years after we couldn't AFFORD to pay his "publish or perish" blackmail along with a certain moderator at a certain "security board" with an agenda is what put PSC out of business ... I am speaking SOLELY as myself here, no reflections on COMODO but truth be told, THAT boy is a shakedown artist and will publish whatever "truth" he's paid to print. We did rather well in an earlier "review" when PSC ***PAID*** him, but his price to "endorse or screw" was *WAY* beyond PSC's ability to pay and so the "higher bidder" won the "best for most users" award. And of course, it was the ONLY thing that could defeat (ahem) "the BEAST trojan." Heh.

 But the review, as have been MANY in an absence of the reality that BOClean was *never* a file scanner or HIPS, just never got the difference that BOClean was and just lumped it in with all the other "scanner thingies" and inevitably in the absence of a clue, we lost the comparison. Nobody else out there ever designed a program to be a "backup solution" rather than a primary one and for our unique approach among so many clones, we lost every time in the comparision aside from those actual experts that recognized the difference and endorsed BOClean as actually useful. But with THIS particular guy, he was a shakedown artist and Nancy still has the cancelled cheques to prove it. 

[Threedog]

I see "Toner Guy" made a post over at Wilders.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=175512

[Melih]

The most important question that he is missing is:

Does Boclean catch the malware your AV misses?

the answer is yes!!! And that's what its designed to do...?

If he wants HIPS... then should wait for V3 of CFP and use Boclean in combination...

Melih

[Toggie]

Gizmo at Wilders!

Interesting isn't it?

After my post virtually no comment about the BoClean defects I listed. No denial, no qualification of my comments, nothing. Instead more innuendo about me.

Let's get straight to the pointy end. Here's a set of yes/ no questions for Kevin and his defenders to answer about BoClean.

1. Can BoClean be terminated with Windows Task Manager?

2. Can BoClean be terminated by a number of malware programs currently in circulation?

3. Can BoClean protect memory space?

4. Can BoClean detect process injection of running processes?

5. Can BoClean prevent a trojan crashing the system to force a restart?

6. Does BoClean use simple text string based signature detection?

7. Can BoClean detected processes cloaked by common rootkits?

other anti-trojan software

Yes/ No answers will be just fine.

OK I've made the challenge. It's now up to Kevin to respond.

And note that in the process I have not criticized anyone, just the product.
Reply With Quote

[Toggie]

The real problem is no one understands what this program is. maybe some education is in order, it'll be hard though...

[Melih]

I spent more time reading this guy's write up...

now some interesting observations:

We all know that he damn well knows Kevin and Nancy quite well! He makes his review sound as if he is new to Boclean..

ok, Kevin was kind enough to share an email communication between Nancy and Ian Richards and Nancy and Chris Carvan dating back to Aug 2002.

I hope Kevin will post the full email thread but here are some excerpts that might of interest

Email from someone called Ian Richards to Nancy: Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:34:14 -0700 (PDT)

"I note your comments about adding a scanner to BOClean and I would certainly like to check out any betas that you might have.  As an aside, I  think there is little marketing disadvantage to BOClean in not having an scanner. It's reputation is well established as a small and resource efficient product that provides great real time protection. This sets it apart from most of the other AT products and defines its own market niche.  Just my opinion."


Now... its a great thing that we can Archive our data like email and thanks to Kevin for providing this... and guess what i found.. again thanks to the marvels of archiving technologies

Now this is before they turned against Boclean (archive.org is a great service that literally archives the web thru time)
http://web.archive.org/web/20020921055426/http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/review-boclean.htm

and this is after they turned against boclean:
http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/review-boclean.htm

Now, if you look at when they turned against boclean is Dec 2003. You can check the history of the review here... look at the archive for dates before Dec 2003.. its good review.. after Dec 2003 the very same review has been modified to be bad...
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.anti-trojan-software-reviews.com/review-boclean.htm

I didn't want to get involved, however the more I read, the more I felt compelled to interject as there is great misinformation.

I hope the authors of this so called review website will be ashamed of what they have done!!!

Melih

[Tags:]