Re: XP Security - in general
From: Kent W. England [MVP] (kwe@mvps.org)
Date: 10/12/02
- Next message: Kent W. England [MVP]: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Previous message: Kent W. England [MVP]: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- In reply to: Michel Gallant (MVP): "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Next in thread: Alun Jones: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Reply: Alun Jones: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "Kent W. England [MVP]" <kwe@mvps.org> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 14:22:28 -0700
You forgot to describe the simple procedures for disabling AV scanners
when installing software and how McAfee email scanning deletes emails.
AV scanners are more trouble than they are worth for the majority of
naive users. Simpler to set OE never to allow attachments to be opened
(the new default). Most folks don't need to open attachments. End of
story.
However, the most prevalent viral program willingly downloaded via the
Net and installed by the majority of naive users is never identified as
a virus by any of the AV companies. Yet this one program causes endless
grief for those users who eagerly download and install it. I know, I
read posts from the ten percent of naive users who can find newsgroup
support.
-- Kent W. England, MS MVP for Windows XP (Please respond only in the newsgroup) Michel Gallant (MVP) <neutron@istar.ca> wrote: > Time to jump in :) > If anything really makes sense, it is keeping things very simple for > the majority of naive end users: > > - (1) install AV software on ALL machines > - (2) never open email attachments, even from senders you know, > unless you are EXPLICITLY expecting something (say via phone or > out of band email) > > I know many folks with win OS who have never been virus infected, and > don't have AV software (disks were scanned), but these people are > extremely diciplined in item 2 above. > Most folks (even most IE pros) are not diciplined wrt 2, and so > generally imho the brush should be broad ... everyone install AV > software ! > > It still amazes me how some security companies have huge holes in > their public practices ... but I'm sure most of the audience here > knows what I refer to :-) > > - Michel Gallant MVP Security > > Robert Moir wrote: > >> Karl Levinson [x y] (MVP) wrote: >>> "Robert Moir" <robert.moir@ntlworld.com> wrote in message >>> news:#hu1RoScCHA.2492@tkmsftngp12... >>> >>>> Now I'd certainly agree that its a good idea for the average user >>>> to run a virus scanner but this isn't a magic bullet solution. >>>> Please don't get caught up in the hyperbole. >>> >>> It is true that there are other things you need to do besides >>> running antivirus, and that users running antivirus can still >>> THEORETICALLY be at risk, but in the real world, running antivirus >>> that is set to download updates every day really has been a magic >>> bullet. >> >> I think we had best agree to disagree on this one above. >> >>> IMHO there's more hyperbole on the other side, the side that says >>> that antivirus is dangerous because it causes a false sense of >>> security. [Don't laugh, I've read people saying those exact words >>> in newsgroup postings.] >> >> But I'd agree with the above statement. Extremes on either side are >> foolish.
- Next message: Kent W. England [MVP]: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Previous message: Kent W. England [MVP]: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- In reply to: Michel Gallant (MVP): "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Next in thread: Alun Jones: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Reply: Alun Jones: "Re: XP Security - in general"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
