Off the back of Palo Alto's recent marketing video, one of the staff at Check Point put together a response for each of his claims which can be found here.
Original promo -
Making bold claims about inventing technology, vendor specific capabilities, the size of your coverage, and so forth? I get that everyone has a tagline along the lines of "We are the best there is..." and nobody is aiming for "Second best" but when it comes to security the bad guys only need to win once, the good guys have to win 100% of the time.
How is it acceptable for a company to say we are 100% safe when that is a) impossible to promise, and b) untrue with a basic level of research and understanding of their equipment. This is shocking behavior. If I sold you a '100% safe' bullet proof vest but when you put it on it had big holes in it you would want a refund.
I said in a recent article that independent reviews should be the only way forward. I stand by that, but have learned that some such as Gartner are less reliable than say NSS Labs. We all need to be more vigilant in what we do to research a product. I talk with so many individuals who have had a rep in from Vendor X and they're completely sold on the idea before you have a chance to warn them of the inaccuracies faced.
Is there a better way for us to hold these vendors accountable to their bold claims?
Does it affect your view of either side if one makes bold claims and the other side calls them on it?
I wish it wasn't necessary, but personally I like that a rebuttal has been made.