It's funny: AV is doing a pretty good job reducing the threat on all those legacy networks where half the desktops still run XP. But rather than boasting about it, AV vendors keep telling people to patch their systems, upgrade OS's. That's also why I believe AV aren't bad people.
-
-
Replying to @martijn_grooten @lorenzofb
Don't push it too far Martijn, a homeopath that tells you to exercise and eat right is still a homeopath
Installing antivirus on XP does not make it a secure system, if the antivirus ever makes a difference then you're in serious trouble.1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @taviso @lorenzofb
I don't disagree with that statement. In theory, a company's CFO should never run in a situation where AV¹ makes a serious difference. In practice, a whole lot of of them do and I think AV still makes a decent difference. ¹endpoint protection and ignoring APT-style attacks.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Allow me: what _exactly_ does AV protect? And, follow on, at what collateral risk?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
It protects the user from things like installing a "Flash Player update" because a website tells them to, when it's actually malware. At a risk that is quite small for this threat model.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
And how does the AV know it is malware?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cynicalsecurity @martijn_grooten and
(More herd immunity than solving the halting problem, I think...)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @martijn_grooten @AlbertTLunde and
No. Computer viruses are not organic viruses, no matter how much the antivirus industry wants people to think so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @AlbertTLunde and
No one thinks that really. But it's even less about the halting problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The halting problem is absolutely relevant.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.