Page 1 of 1
McAffee tries to cheat and decive (Large Image)
Posted: 2005-09-14 02:25am
by Faram
McAfee wireless security scan
Okay found this on an other forum and thought that I will test it if it was true.
I opened that link in explorer answered "I do not know" if I had security or not. And lo and behold this is what it told me:
Now I use WPA2 with AES encryption and a 63character randomgenerated passkey. It is hard to get much more secure than that with wireless.
And still they say that I am at risk.
Godamn liars!
This is my real status:
Posted: 2005-09-14 05:48am
by SPOOFE
Yes, but there's still a .00000013% chance that you might be hacked, so-o-o-o... RISK!! Ooh, scary!!
Posted: 2005-09-14 07:00am
by Faram
SPOOFE wrote:Yes, but there's still a .00000013% chance that you might be hacked, so-o-o-o... RISK!! Ooh, scary!!
Yea is it not?
I am all for raising awareness about wireless security, but crap like that stunt macafee pulled is just so wrong.
Scare customers into buying somthing that they do not need.
Fucking Coperate Whores.
Posted: 2005-09-14 01:57pm
by Vertigo1
Are you really suprised about companies trying to scam potential customers into spending more money than they actually need to?
You would really be suprised how many people I've stopped from buying no-name "anti-spyware" software in stores and tell them where to download Ad-Aware and Spybot for free (legitmately, mind you).
Posted: 2005-09-14 01:58pm
by Vendetta
What do you expect? Mcafee is only slightly less bad for you than Norton.
Posted: 2005-09-14 02:15pm
by Glocksman
It's not just you:
I used a random keygen (probably the same one as you) to get the same level of encryption strength that you did.
I think McAfee needs to work on this tool a little more.
Posted: 2005-09-14 02:19pm
by Vertigo1
Vendetta wrote:What do you expect? Mcafee is only slightly less bad for you than Norton.
Not to mention nowhere NEAR the resource hog. I refuse to use ANY symantec product until they get their shit in one sock. Any program like that, that uses over 200MB (compared to ~10MB for v4) in system resources needs to be pulled from the market and given a complete revision.
Posted: 2005-09-14 03:37pm
by SPOOFE
Scare customers into buying somthing that they do not need.
Eh, they've been doing that ever since there were customers to scare. Ever have a salesperson try to convince you to buy an extended warranty?
Posted: 2005-09-14 04:41pm
by Lancer
SPOOFE wrote:Scare customers into buying somthing that they do not need.
Eh, they've been doing that ever since there were customers to scare. Ever have a salesperson try to convince you to buy an extended warranty?
a few times. The only time I actually got one was when I was replacing a $50 set of stereo headphones I accidentally smashed up, just a few days after the manufacturer's warantee expired too
.
Posted: 2005-09-14 05:42pm
by phongn
Vertigo1 wrote:Not to mention nowhere NEAR the resource hog. I refuse to use ANY symantec product until they get their shit in one sock. Any program like that, that uses over 200MB (compared to ~10MB for v4) in system resources needs to be pulled from the market and given a complete revision.
Symantec's corporate products are actually quite good but the Norton line is still quite bad, alas.