Is anyone out there using these reviews? It's just amazing that we are still going through this. SecReview is busting Adam for not credentializing himself, but I see nothing of how they have credentialized what they are doing. It's absurd.
<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/2/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Tremaine Lea</b> <<a href="mailto:tremaine@gmail.com">tremaine@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Regardless of whether your intentions are good or not in performing<br>these reviews, one thing is crystal clear. In order to perform these
<br>reviews and have them accepted by those who would actually read and<br>depend on them to a degree, you need to have established yourself as a<br>credible source and have a good reputation.<br><br>With that in mind, I think the vast majority will continue to rely on
<br>word of mouth from peers, or well respected and long standing<br>companies such as Gartner or even Dark Reading. In my not so humble<br>opinion, you will not establish yourself as a credible resource by<br>engaging in petty disputes and mud slinging on FD.
<br><br>Worse, it becomes more and more apparent that this is essentially an<br>attempt to drive interest to your blog. I don't believe any serious<br>company would engage in the behaviour you have to date, so both your
<br>motives and your method are in question. If you genuinely wish to be<br>taken seriously and treated as a credible source of information about<br>other security vendors, I'd consider starting again from scratch and
<br>develop a better method of attracting professional interest. The key<br>is to attract the attention, not try and push your product down<br>throats.<br><br>Another quick lesson : if a vendor doesn't provide you with
<br>information, the correct thing to do is simply note that you were<br>unable to review their product or services, and why. To still attempt<br>a review with seriously incomplete information and then give a low<br>score is irresponsible at best.
<br><br>--<br>Tremaine Lea<br>Network Security Consultant<br>Intrepid ACL<br>"Paranoia for hire"<br><br>On Jan 2, 2008 11:08 AM, SecReview <<a href="mailto:secreview@hushmail.com">secreview@hushmail.com</a>> wrote:
<br>> Hi Adam,<br>><br>> We've said this before and will say this again, this time to<br>> everyone.<br>><br>> We would be more than happy to give your company (QuietMove) a<br>> "better" review if you'd enable us to do that. So far you haven't
<br>> helped us to effectively review you at all. We tried to call you<br>> before our initial review, but never got hold of anyone. We also<br>> sent you an email before writing our second review, and you never<br>
> responded to any of the questions in that email. If you'd like us<br>> to do a better review then provide us with the information that you<br>> think we will need to get the job done.<br>><br>> Our current review is the product of your website, emails that
<br>> you've posted to this and other forums, and your reaction to our<br>> first review. We haven't been able to find anything related to<br>> major accomplishments by you or by QuietMove, we haven't seen any
<br>> sample reports, and we haven't received any answers to any<br>> questions about your methodologies for service execution and<br>> delivery. We even think that our current review might be too harsh,<br>> but can't change anything without more information.
<br>><br>> If you want us to change our review, we can do that again and we<br>> can do it in a non-biased way (regardless of all the rants and<br>> noise). We need you to tell us about your service delivery<br>
> methodologies, your reporting methodologies, how you define<br>> specific service offerings, what markets you play in, and if<br>> possible sanitized sample reports. We won't publish any of that<br>> information directly, but we would use that to produce your next
<br>> review.<br>><br>> We want our reviews to accurately and truthfully reflect the<br>> quality and professionalism of the providers that we study. (In<br>> fact, if anyone has any suggestions as to how we could better
<br>> "rank" security companies we'd be more than happy to listen and<br>> consider those suggestions.)<br>><br>> Hope this helps. This will be our last email about QuietMove unless<br>> you request a redo of the current review. We will only redo the
<br>> review if you are able to provide us with accurate information to<br>> help us get it done. We think that you should do it, because we<br>> think that you can score much better than an F+. (You're clearly
<br>> not an idiot and you do have at least some experience.)<br>><br>> -the end.<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> Regards,<br>> The Secreview Team<br>> <a href="http://secreview.blogspot.com">
http://secreview.blogspot.com</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.<br>Charter: <a href="http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html">http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
</a><br>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - <a href="http://secunia.com/">http://secunia.com/</a><br></blockquote></div><br>