Talk:Virus Bulletin

vfd
no consensus per vfd vote at Votes_for_deletion/Virus_Bulletin. --Woohookitty 06:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Helen Martin
its not that Helen Martin. pls remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.47.57 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is actually the case for all links in the blurb on the side. VB's John Hawes is not the deceased architect, Simon Bates not the DJ. As none of them are well-known enough to be on Wikipedia, I'd suggest all the links are removed..

Minor error
I noticed than the link for editor leads to a page of an actress with the same name. Is that really the case? I believe it's an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehfoos (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, see above. Removed from infobox. The whole idea of the infobox is to summarize details that are cited in the body. The whole notability of this outfit is probably suspect, but at least use citations to source anything in the article and avoid promoting the people involved. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

VFD
Just thought I'd add my two-cents in here. Virus Bulletin has been running for 16-odd years, and is THE anti-virus industry magazine. Everyone in the industry subscribes to it, it's really that simple :-) Sadly they've completely retardo'd their website, but note that the site is the fourth entry for 'virus' on Google. They run annual conferences attended by all the major anti-virus researchers (http://www.virusbtn.com/conference/vb2005/programme/index.xml) and the idea that the site is non-google-able is entirely ridiculous (try googling for it!). Anti-virus companies are keen to put VB's VB100 award all over their products:


 * http://www.sophos.com/search/search-results/?search=VB100&x=38&y=20
 * http://www.symantec.com/press/2003/n030305a.html
 * http://www.eset.com/company/article.php?contentID=738

With Symantec describing the award as prestigious. Perhaps the people trying to get the page deleted are threatened by the fact the magazine is older than they are? WoodenBuddha 12:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Another explanation is that we are trying to have consensus-based guidelines on evidence of notability. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

About the ownership!
The domain points to Sophos... Using the SmartWhois on http://www.all-nettools.com/toolbox gives you this: www.virusbtn.com (194.203.134.163)

194.203.134.128 - 194.203.134.255 Sophos Plc

Paul Fisher Sophos Plc The Pentagon Abingdon Science Park Abingdon Oxon OX14 3YP UK +44 1235 544105 +44 1235 559935 paul.fisher@sophos.com

http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/en00x8.htm "6) The author of VTC test reports was deliberately vague in describing the reason for non-admission (aka exclusion) as "undue pressure" as Sophos is not just an AV company:


 * the technical Virus magazine "Virus Bulletin" is co-owned by Dr. Jan Hruska, who is also co-owner of Sophos
 * Virus Bulletin holds annual conferences, the content and speakers of which are not selected by an independent body (e.g. a Program Committee which selects papers and invited speakers)"

Consequently, Virus Bulletin can hardly be compared to a really independent magazine such as "Secure Computing" (also of UK).


 * It's worth noting that most vendors boast about their VB100 awards, and have done for years - why would they do this if they didn't consider it independant? Every few years some industry outsider 'discovers' they're owned by the same people (the postal address being the biggest give away), and tries to kick up a storm, and then realises that everybody in the industry considers the magazine to be the industry bible. Having personally had some very negative articles about Sophos published in the magazine, I can confirm they're independant :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.185.240.121 (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC).


 * The fact that NOD32, a program in direct competition with Sophos products, regularly slam-dunks the VB100 awards would seem to suggest that they are in fact editorially independant.212.71.37.89 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)