On 6/6/2011 11:22, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...which the on-demand scanner is *still* going to detect...

Again, the on-demand scanner is the worst possible way, efficiency-wise, to 
detect such things.  Where "efficient" means "minimal impact to actual 
users." It should be a last resort, not a primary mechanism.

>>>> 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. ;-)

I'm sure they do. And I'm sure every programmer in Microsoft *wanted* to not 
make that the default. That business cases mean you lessen security doesn't 
mean the security team doesn't know how to do 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.

Sorry? What file server?  I'm pretty sure Linux doesn't have a virus scanner 
that will detect Windows viruses, for example.

> 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...

As I said, "dunno."

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message