|
Posted by RedForeman on May 7, 2007, 9:36 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> > Virus scanners work on signatures... signature based scanners see the
> > 'signature' of the virus in a file, thus reacting to the file's finger-
> > print on/in the file. right or wrong?
>
> Which has two trivial implications:
>
> - a malware whichs signature is not in the list will slip by
> - attack vectors not involving files (f.e. exploiting webbrowsers) can't be
> checked either
>
> Thus, in general virus scanners fail and therefore don't protect. They can't
> replace safe hex and keeping the system up-to-date and well-configured.
>
> (However, they might be usable as intrusion detection system)
We could go on and on, and I'm just gonna keep learning stuff from
you.... you gotta problem with that?
> > Ok, a fully patched OS, sitting behind a firewall, with properly setup
> > ACLs and firewall rules will be as protected from the external world
> > as a pc with virus scanners, sitting behind the same firewall... that
> > much I agree.... both machines are protected by inbound rules, access
> > list, and packet rules.... if the perimeter had AV scanning there,
> > then you wouldn't need a desktop AV solution...
>
> You don't need any virus scanners, especially if a system is protected that
> well (according to your description). Heck, it simply won't change anything,
> except for possibly creating new security holes.
Need, want, desire... I'm still running a windows box, so there's the
need for more and more and more.... More software, creating more
holes, resulting in more software to patch the holes made by more
software... it's the total Microsuck cycle....
> > Well, my web saavy friend likes to get on the web and look at old car
> > pictures.... one day his friend sent him a link that sent him to a
> > page that he downloaded... and the rest is history....
>
> Your point being?
I dunno... just some filler....
> > The fact remains, security is a state of mind, and is relative to the
> > situation, the setup, configuration, etc....
>
> While I agree with the latter, the first one is bullshit. Security is an
> objective property of a system (wrt. to some criteria) and must be well
> measurable, calculable and reliable to a certain anything. Just believing in
> security ("state of mind") won't change anything.- Hide quoted text -
and it was... I was just BS'ing because I am not as armed as you are
on this topic...
Curious.... <Sebastian G> wouldn't happen to be Sebastian Gottschall,
would it?
wrt, huh? I liked open, never tried dd....
| 
XML site map