r2nwcnydc wrote:Buster_BSA, you claim you use PCAP to monitor network traffic, which (as I said above) means you do not have a direct association of the traffic to the process that initiated that traffic. You can try to use other methods to guess which process caused the traffic, but it is just that a guess. Unless you use some other method to monitor traffic, which would contradict what you claim in a previous post.
Warning the following is my opinion:
I have tried your analysis tool, and I find it far behind other free and commercial options. Anubis is not a great benchmark by any means, but your tool has many flaws aswell. Using other tools, like Anubis, can help make your tool better. So, until you are willing to take a nonobjective look at your tool's abilities, it will always behind your competition.
Yes, I use WinPCap to monitor network traffic. When a packet is captured then I find out what program belongs to it.
Could you make a list of the flaws in my tool? I´m always open to improve it.
About the nonobjective question:
I didn´t say Anubis is better or worst than BSA, therefore your attempt of attack is pointless. I just told that in this case Anubis is missing information because inbound traffic is missing as yourself already wrote: "I ran the sample and only see traffic from the 64.12.96.129 address (both inbound and outbound)"
So what I said is correct: Anubis misses information in the report.
I also would like to hear your explanation about this: "So, until you are willing to take a nonobjective look at your tool's abilities..."
When did I say or did something that lead you to think I´m not willing to take an objective look at BSA´s abilities?
I feel like you are just annoyed because I gave a negative review to one of your comments. I hope you can probe I´m wrong. If you do it, then I´ll be glad to apologize.
