homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam

The Geek Culture Forums


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Geek Culture Forums   » News, Reviews, Views!   » Your News!   » Bad Apple...no cookie!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Bad Apple...no cookie!
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 16:09      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Advice on the site said: "Apple encourages the widespread use of multiple antivirus utilities so that virus programmers have more than one application to circumvent, thus making the whole virus writing process more difficult."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7760344.stm

In best David Tennant voice: [Wink]
What?!

That's such an utterly irresponsible opinion. Security through obscurity is not security.

It's certainly a good idea to consider using different choices in security software, as certain applications catch things others miss, but the practical advice for the masses is to pick a leading product, as it will most likely catch the majority of threats. Advising people to use 'other' products that can't afford R&D likely puts them at great risk.

Furthermore, if an 'on access scanner' is used, extra programs will turn shiny computers into doorstops. Running different 'on demand' scanners is actually quite alright, though potentially overkill.

Apple should focus on keeping people from needing admin privileges, encourage safe computing, and patch their OS and applications frequently. *That* is how they should keep the attackers at bay.

/me steels himself for the upcoming flames...

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
GrumpySteen

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan
Member # 170

Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 16:36      Profile for GrumpySteen     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it makes you feel any better, that article is really just the BBC freaking out over an update to an old technical support note. They updated the versions of the virus scanning software that they referenced.

--------------------
Worst. Celibate. Ever.

Posts: 6364 | From: Tennessee | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 17:13      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks...I thought that might be the case. I still think it's an appallingly stupid recommendation and attitude. ("Let's make the virus writers work hard at attacking us...")

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quantumfluff
BlabberMouth, a Blabber Odyssey
Member # 450

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 18:25      Profile for quantumfluff     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's not really an unreasonable position. You never completely eliminate threats. Security is not about absolutes. It is risk management. By increasing the cost of attacking your assests - by surface reduction (better OS) or increased hardening (multiple A/V packages) - you change the cost benefit equations so it is more effective to attack other platforms.

OS/X and Linux have been relatively free from attacks because the economics don't work rather than because of provable vastly increased security. The number of targets is smaller than windows targets and the attack surface of Safari and Firefox is much smaller than IE. But... with enough firefox plug-ins, I'm sure the software community can bring Firefox down to IE's level. The number of targets is, however, really the driving factor. It's not work attacking linux desktops because the payoff isn't there. That is really another way of saying security through obscurity.

That all said, multiple virus scanners is probably the stupidest idea I've heard in a while. If they root you once, they can jack up the OS and install the rootkit under any scanner. You've really got to compartmentalize the browser (and any network facing apps) in a separate VM and not give it even user (let alone system) privs.

Posts: 2901 | From: 5 to 15 meters above sea level | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Mister Boo

Solid Nitrozanium SuperFan!
Member # 1419

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 19:20      Profile for Mister Boo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dman,
The intent is not for you to use multiple scanners on one desktop, but pointing out that having multiple products on the market and in use lead to things being caught. Just like in the Windows world where McAfee or Kaspersky might find a new virus and put out the alert due to their particular heuristic algorithms, while Norton might catch a different new virus due to their algorithm, etc. More eyes on the microscopes so to speak. Nothing to get riled up about. [Beard of Peter Gabriel!]

Posts: 314 | From: Naugatuck, CT | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
dragonman97

SuperFan!
Member # 780

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted December 02, 2008 20:56      Profile for dragonman97   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mister Boo:
Dman,
The intent is not for you to use multiple scanners on one desktop, but pointing out that having multiple products on the market and in use lead to things being caught. Just like in the Windows world where McAfee or Kaspersky might find a new virus and put out the alert due to their particular heuristic algorithms, while Norton might catch a different new virus due to their algorithm, etc. More eyes on the microscopes so to speak. Nothing to get riled up about. [Beard of Peter Gabriel!]

Actually, I understand that perfectly well.

It's still something to get perfectly riled up about. [Smile]

--------------------
There are three things you can be sure of in life: Death, taxes, and reading about fake illnesses online...

Posts: 9331 | From: Westchester County, New York | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged


All times are Eastern Time  
Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Geek Culture Home Page

2015 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0



homeGeek CultureWebstoreeCards!Forums!Joy of Tech!AY2K!webcam