On May 20, 4:37 am, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Book of Job peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>
>
> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> >news:8789399.0XtOS087F8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > *snip*
> >> Pay up or become part of the 320,000,000-PC zombies fleet. You'll
> >> probably become one either way because AV software is no longer
> >> effective (Schneier publicly calls it "snake oil" now).
>
> > Interesting how, for all the claims you make and links you provide, you
> > didn't provide anything to support *this* particular claim.
>
> > The reason? You are lying about what Schneier said. Indeed, he said
> > just the opposite:
>
> > "Antivirus is easy. Antivirus products actually work. They have for
> > years. A lot of the software on [the Infosec] show floor is just snake
> > oil, but antivirus does work. You should have an antivirus program."
>
> > Oh, and I'll provide a link for *my* quote:
>
> > <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/144938/schneier_lots_of...>
>
> > I'm sure you'll just claim it was a mistake, a result of posting too
> > quickly without verifying. And yet, your mistake attributes the
> > complete opposite meaning to what was said.
>
> > Odd, that.
>
> Of course, you stopped your quote short. Here's the whole paragraph:
>
> Schneier: Antivirus is easy. Antivirus products actually work. They
> have for years. A lot of the software on this show floor is just
> snake oil, but antivirus does work. You should have an antivirus
> program. You should have it updated regularly. It doesn't make you
> secure, but it gets that bottom layer of the trivial stuff. That's
> why. It's not sufficient but it's certainly necessary.
Every computer column I see in the newspapers or magazines advises
everyone to keep their antivirus software up-to-date. Of course
they're talking about Windows. This is the advice that ordinary, non-
technical people see all the time.
Funny how antivirus software is only needed on Windows. Linux and Mac
OS/X don't need it.
|
|
