On 06/06/2011 06:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 6/6/2011 10:29, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Seems to me more like "useless busy-work to reassure the customer that we
>> really are doing something".
>
> Or maybe "check that you haven't installed something while the scanner
> was turned off"?

...which the on-demand scanner is *still* going to detect...

>>> Try Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really good.
>> It has "Microsoft" in the name. Why would it be good?
>
> Because it's written by the same people whose OS you're trying to
> protect is?

Heheh. These are the people who thought "hey, let's make it so that 
every home user has full admin rights by default". Yes, I'm sure they 
know a thing or two about security. ;-)

>> That's a valid argument for a file server. But even in that case, you (or
>> somebody else) still has to *access* the file.
>
> But the other person might not have a virus scanner.

If the file is on a file server, then each time you try to access it, 
the AV product on the server will perform an on-demand scan.

> Too many people try to do cool stuff and just skip all the tools that
> Windows gives you to make it work well.

Now /that/ I can agree with.

>> Now why the **** couldn't McAfee have done that for itself?
>
> Dunno. Privilege problems?

What, this scenario didn't show up in testing? "We want to clean a virus 
that's currently running" seems like more or less test #2 or #3 in any 
sane test suite...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message