BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> BearItAll <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6095119.html
>>>
>>> This is a bit of a tricky one, because anti-virus and security would
>>> undoubtedly be better integrated into the kernel. It would certainly be
>>> faster.
>>
>> No it wouldn't. Anti-virus has no place in the kernel.
>>
>> Anti virus is required at the point of entry : see Customs for an
>> explanation.
>>
>
>
> And where is the point of entry? Here's a clue K....L
here's another clue : ports and email.
Point of entry : not the root of infection.
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Norton wanted to be more deeply ingrained into the MS OS system several
>>> versions ago. There was even an agreement of some kind at one time
>>> with
>>
>> Of course they did : because then they would be on the gravy train for
>> ever.
>>
>>> Symantec, I don't know what came of that. Norton also wanted to properly
>>> secure an area of the system so that the anti-virus code itself could be
>>> invisible to the virus (as in a Linux system). But neither was given
>>> by MS.
>>
>> Could you explain this some more please?
>>
>
> A great deal of the work of an anti-v/secure suit on MS platforms is in
> protecting itself. Including multiple self checksum scans. This is because
> the code on the drive and in memory are visible to the virus.
>
> On a linux you can scan user files etc with anti-v that is outside of the
> scope of the virus. Because of this the anti-v is much faster because the
> self scans are not needed. (Obviously of more value on a server than a
> client).
>
> This is further improved with application caging (SELinux & AppAmor) and
> then again with the use of multiple admin levels, as is done on mainframes.
> This is likely to be the next area where the caging systems will take us
> once users have grown used to the current changes.
>
>
>>>
>>> Whether MS are capable of putting in the necessary security plus their
>>> current record with virus's and holes we have to all be doubtfull of,
>>> could they really come up with a viable solution when they have ignored
>>> the problem for so long. Then when you concider all the years Vista has
>>> been in development and it seems the idea of adding security only came
>>> about through preasure from outside of MS in the last half year or so. I
>>> think it was just pre-xmas when developers who had ever been on MS
>>> mailing lists or job books were getting messages asking for help with
>>> security. We were invited to a forum, simmilar to a forum many years ago
>>> when Win98 and NT were in development.
>>
>> You're on a soapbox I believe.
>>
>
> Which is risky for me, what with my middle aged splat adding to my weight.
>
>
--
Limitations on coverage and remedies apply.
|
|
