Toad 10.6.1 is GA
It’s more like the old two vendor finger pointing scenario:
Toad is doing something (right or wrong) that McAfee thinks is a virus.
McAfee is penalizing Toad performance do to this situation.
So our solution is that they fix that identification or globally white list
Toad.
I’m sure their solution is that Toad quit doing whatever it’s doing (right
or wrong).
And thus progress moving along like a government committee – slow and
sometimes at a standstill ……
Not making excuses mind you – just pointing out the two vendor dead lock of
sorts is all ……
“dead lock” - to me this implies no motion on either side.
I hope that’s not the case.
Is there discussion between the two vendors? Some logs from either to the other
about what the “something” is?
If the “something” can be identified, it seems like it should be fairly simple
to determine whether it’s right or wrong
and then pick one of 4 choices (these may or may not be simple to implement)
wrong - Toad gets fixed to not do the wrong “something”
right - Toad performs an alternate but functionally equivalent “something” that
doesn’t trigger a false-positive on the virus check
right - McAfee is changed so its detection methods do not flag the “something”
as a virus - this could be a global white list or local change
right - Toad and McAfee are both updated
or if the position on either is “it’s a problem and the mutual customers just
have to live with it”
then I guess make that an official statement from both so the customers can make
better informed decisions as to how to proceed.
For me it’s and easy decision there are lots of AV’s, but only one Toad.
Unfortunately making that decision doesn’t help since I can only use the
software my company provides so I’m solidly in the “live with it” group.
Bert Scalzo
Sent by: toad@yahoogroups.com
2010/11/10 08:33
Please respond to
toad@yahoogroups.com
To
cc
Subject
RE: [toad] Toad 10.6.1 is GA
It’s more like the old two vendor finger pointing scenario:
Toad is doing something (right or wrong) that McAfee thinks is a virus.
McAfee is penalizing Toad performance do to this situation.
So our solution is that they fix that identification or globally white list
Toad.
I’m sure their solution is that Toad quit doing whatever it’s doing
(right or wrong).
And thus progress moving along like a government committee – slow and
sometimes at a standstill ……
Not making excuses mind you – just pointing out the two vendor dead lock
of sorts is all ……
att1.dat (43 Bytes)
I’m only saying that it’s a much more complicated problem that
cannot get the overnight toad fixes our dev team has provided in the past on
purely internal issues. Progress is being made and there are talks – but
this is more complicated than typical issues. They have not said what they think
we’re doing wrong by their standards – so we cannot fix what we
don’t know. And they are hesitant to add globally white listed apps to
their database – plus those white lists do not automagically push out in
corporate environments like they do on McAfee personal edition – where
there are corporate processes and standards applied to the updates and stuff
that McAfee sends. For example it could be fixed and pushed out and then a
corporate catch all for updates might not accept that new white list entry
– in which case it could still seem broken. There are many moving parts
here….