Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?
-
@Reid-Cooper The problem there is funding. As the article talked about, a lot of the testing labs are funded through subscription.
If you can find a way to build a testing lab that tests 100% un-funded by the industry it's testing, I can promise you we would be the first interested party to submit and participate.
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@Reid-Cooper The problem there is funding. As the article talked about, a lot of the testing labs are funded through subscription.
If you can find a way to build a testing lab that tests 100% un-funded by the industry it's testing, I can promise you we would be the first interested party to submit and participate.
A broad problem that we have is a need for general testing in IT. Labs for everything. No one has labs for any purpose, storage, AV, operating systems, nothing. No one has a financial interest in funding labs except for the businesses that use IT at the end of the day, and that doesn't work as the freeloaders break the system.
-
@scottalanmiller Kickstarter.com
#makelabsindependentforonce
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@scottalanmiller "One vendor, CrowdStrike, even pulled out of the NSS Labs tests and revoked the testers' license, then attempted to obtain a restraining order to block publication of the results NSS had obtained. "CrowdStrike filed suit in US Federal District Court against NSS Labs to hold it accountable for unlawfully accessing our software, breaching our contract, pirating our software, and improper security testing," a company spokesperson wrote in a post to CrowdStrike's blog. "Regardless of test results (which we have not seen), CrowdStrike is making a stand against what we believe to be unlawful conduct." The court denied CrowdStrike's initial request for a restraining order, but the case has yet to be decided.'
We aren't CrowdStrike.
Care to comment on the rest of the article instead of only the little bit that doesn't concern Cylance?
Hint: Sophos obtained a copy of Cylance Protect from a reseller in order to conduct its own test, then posted the results in a YouTube video. Cylance then "contacted the reseller who provided access to the Cylance PROTECT product, citing license compliance concerns and threatening 'retribution' if the reseller involved did not demand that Sophos withdraw the video immediately," Schiappa wrote. "This left the reseller in fear of a lawsuit." Sophos pulled the video to protect the reseller. But, Schiappa claims, Cylance has continued to do public demos using Sophos products in violation of their licensing terms—and after renewing the license through a Sophos reseller. Cylance says that the company has since stopped using Sophos' software in its "Unbelievable" demos. And Gale rejected Schiappa's assertion that the demos were unfair.
I think we all understand about protecting the licensing terms, what we can't accept is the removal of a comparative analysis with no explanation. Also, yes, I realize Sophos is a competitor, that makes things even worse as they were attempting to utilize what they thought was a proper license.
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@scottalanmiller Kickstarter.com
#makelabsindependentforonce
Hmmmm.... Kickstarter....
-
@travisdh1 We commented on that part last year....when it happened. https://www.cylance.com/cylanceprotect-vs-smoke-and-mirrors
I've been commenting on everything else throughout the thread.
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@travisdh1 We commented on it last year....when it happened. https://www.cylance.com/cylanceprotect-vs-smoke-and-mirrors
And that post is not a bunch of smoke and mirrors? All you did was turn the accusation around on your accusers. Well, that and insist that your testing methods are revolutionary and paradigm shifting...
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@travisdh1 We commented on that part last year....when it happened. https://www.cylance.com/cylanceprotect-vs-smoke-and-mirrors
I've been commenting on everything else throughout the thread.
I'll attempt to make this easier to understand by asking a different way.
What confidence do customers have that Cylance won't threaten legal action when attempting to talk about the product publicly?
-
@travisdh1 said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
@travisdh1 We commented on that part last year....when it happened. https://www.cylance.com/cylanceprotect-vs-smoke-and-mirrors
I've been commenting on everything else throughout the thread.
I'll attempt to make this easier to understand by asking a different way.
What confidence do customers have that Cylance won't threaten legal action when attempting to talk about the product publicly?
No need to be pandering or rude. I get what you are asking.
You're trying to cross two different situations. The issue we had was not with a customer, but with a reseller breaking their terms and conditions they agreed upon. Sophos' video showed the settings they used, and we called them out on it. They changed their T&Cs to stop public testing, we removed them from our list of products we use in public testing. Then we all moved on.
You can talk about the product all you want. Share the results of your POC, use, or results. That's all on you and your experience, and there are plenty of threads all over the web that have those kinds of conversations.
-
@Richard_Cylance The issue is that you're fighting a problem of credibility. I read the Ars article a couple days ago and read through this thread and your responses to this tread's participants and while it feels like the folks here are asking some pretty direct questions, they are getting marketing speak in return. Sometimes, especially when credibility has taken such a hit, whether the stories are true or not, you have an uphill battle to climb and skirting questions with round-about answers won't get you where you need to be.
Having said this, I agree that a standardized approach to testing would be valuable. Problem is, malware is hardly "standard" with different variants behaving differently from one day to the next as these evolve. So as much as I'm with you on "let's get an open, public, standard way of measuring effectiveness", I don't think that's very realistic and I certainly don't believe this will address Cylance's credibility. The same would be true of any vendor in the same position.
My recommendation...stop...put away your marketing hat, and deal with questions head on. Failure to do so only casts further shadow and doubt.
-
@Richard_Cylance said in Cylance Unbelievable Tour Lives Up to Name, Can Cylance Be Trusted?:
The issue we had was not with a customer, but with a reseller breaking their terms and conditions they agreed upon.
This doesn't really make sense. The reseller got in trouble for how their customer used the product? Whether pressure is put on end users directly or through their reseller, the end result is the same.
-
-
