Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
Curt wrote: > I don't follow how this follows from your erroneous attribution. try harder ;-)
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On 2019-03-11, deloptes wrote: > Curt wrote: > >> I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote. > > but there is no secure OS, as soon as you get connected to the network, and > if you have a server with multiple users ... well. We used to put sensitive > servers in DMZ aside of the user network - for a good reason. I don't follow how this follows from your erroneous attribution. But if you're saying that no OS is immune from some form of insecurity, you're wasting your breath because that man is made of straw. On the other hand, some operating systems are more secure than others (*for whatever reasons*). I think that statement is statistically verifiable. (I was going to invent one of those strained, if handy, car analogies but thought better of it.) > regards > > -- “Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance, shaped like a globe, which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain and logical story, so that when one matter is despatched--love for instance-- we go on, in an orderly manner, to the next.” - Virginia Woolf, The Waves
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On 3/10/19 3:53 PM, Brian wrote: On Sun 10 Mar 2019 at 13:18:54 -0400, deb wrote: Crumogeon tip: It is no longer 1972. If you have nothing nice or at least helpful to say on a USER list, say nothing at all. All the responses were helpful. You just have to fit them into your World View and accomodate them Thanks Brian for introducing some sanity to the issue. Ric
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
Curt wrote: > I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote. but there is no secure OS, as soon as you get connected to the network, and if you have a server with multiple users ... well. We used to put sensitive servers in DMZ aside of the user network - for a good reason. regards
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 11:45:28 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > I think the premises of your syllogism might lead some to another > > conclusion---that the livelihood of the AV software houses depends > > upon the innate insecurity of the Windows OS. > > Hmm... they don't actually need that: they only need people to > think that they're vulnerable (regardless if their Windows is actually > secure or not, and regardless is Windows is more or less secure than > other OSes). > > But yes, this is made easier if Windows is actually insecure. > To a large extent, it is Windows users who are insecure. Even today (or at least, three months ago) the first-time user of Windows 10 is set up as an administrator, and no advice is offered about changing this. I used to help out on Windows Small Business Server newsgroup, where many administrators/installers admitted to making all their users administrators to reduce service calls... it was actually *necessary* for the user of MS Office to be an administrator for the first run of each of the components (not just the installation), or else various files and permissions didn't get written correctly. -- Joe
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
> I think the premises of your syllogism might lead some to another > conclusion---that the livelihood of the AV software houses depends upon > the innate insecurity of the Windows OS. Hmm... they don't actually need that: they only need people to think that they're vulnerable (regardless if their Windows is actually secure or not, and regardless is Windows is more or less secure than other OSes). But yes, this is made easier if Windows is actually insecure. Stefan
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On 2019-03-11, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS >> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it, >> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning. > > This is misleading: all OSes are somewhat insecure, in practice. > The question is what to do when a security hole is found: plug the hole > right away, or try to recognize potential attacks via some anti-virus > software? > > Of course, AV software houses can't really plug security holes in > Windows (only Microsoft can), so their livelihood depends on making > people believe that an AV is a good supplement. > I think the premises of your syllogism might lead some to another conclusion---that the livelihood of the AV software houses depends upon the innate insecurity of the Windows OS. This kind of gentleman's agreement seems to be one of the fundamental cogs in the great Wheel of capitalism to which most of us are tied. Having said that, the Windows 10 on my hubby's laptop has native virus- detection software and the OS is patched frequently via the net (at times to inadvertent ill effect, though not here, at least not yet). > Stefan > > -- “Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance, shaped like a globe, which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain and logical story, so that when one matter is despatched--love for instance-- we go on, in an orderly manner, to the next.” - Virginia Woolf, The Waves
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS > and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it, > it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning. This is misleading: all OSes are somewhat insecure, in practice. The question is what to do when a security hole is found: plug the hole right away, or try to recognize potential attacks via some anti-virus software? Of course, AV software houses can't really plug security holes in Windows (only Microsoft can), so their livelihood depends on making people believe that an AV is a good supplement. Stefan
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On 2019-03-11, deloptes wrote: > deb wrote: I don't believe he did, actually. I believe that's what Reco wrote. >> Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS >> and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it, >> it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning. > > If you have windows users in your network, the best is to pay for a server > license for linux and integrate it into clamav. I think most of the popular > anti virus software companies have their products running on linux and able > to integrate in clamav. You have to pay but it pays off, if you have > employes or simply people using windows in your network. > > The security of course is not only the antivirus, but also the firewall, VPN > and similar - 1. reduce the risk of intrusion and 2. increase the chance of > detection. Anti virus software is only part of it all. > > regards > > -- “Let us again pretend that life is a solid substance, shaped like a globe, which we turn about in our fingers. Let us pretend that we can make out a plain and logical story, so that when one matter is despatched--love for instance-- we go on, in an orderly manner, to the next.” - Virginia Woolf, The Waves
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
deb wrote: > Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS > and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it, > it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning. If you have windows users in your network, the best is to pay for a server license for linux and integrate it into clamav. I think most of the popular anti virus software companies have their products running on linux and able to integrate in clamav. You have to pay but it pays off, if you have employes or simply people using windows in your network. The security of course is not only the antivirus, but also the firewall, VPN and similar - 1. reduce the risk of intrusion and 2. increase the chance of detection. Anti virus software is only part of it all. regards
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On Sun 10 Mar 2019 at 13:18:54 -0400, deb wrote: > I posted a question A/Vs and got negative waves like the below. It only looks "negative" because you have an agenda. I myself thought the responses were reasonable and balanced. > Several people ASS-UMED I was trying to kludge Windows into Linux, > (see Canonical if you want to find Linux-folk sucking up to Windows) > instead of working to bring Linux into Windows strongholds (and > be aware of the problems there.) Knocking Canonical (who produce a premier Linux distribution) doesn't advance your argument; it is unclear what that is. > Some just crushed my starting points, without alternatives. > > > N.I.C.E. Your argument (for what it was) was demolished. Explicit alternatives to it are unnecessary when it hasn't a leg to stand on. > It is little wonder that Linux can not beat Windows on the desktop (as it > should), Is that part of the agenda? > if this is how people are helped who are trying to Bring In Linux. Or is this the nub? The Lone Ranger syndrome. > Crumogeon tip: It is no longer 1972. If you have nothing nice or at least > helpful to say on a USER list, say nothing at all. All the responses were helpful. You just have to fit them into your World View and accomodate them -- Brian.
Re: And now, from the Nice people? Re: Group thoughts on: Anti-virus tools
On Sun, 10 Mar 2019, deb wrote: I posted a question A/Vs and got negative waves like the below. Several people ASS-UMED I was trying to kludge Windows into Linux, (see Canonical if you want to find Linux-folk sucking up to Windows) instead of working to bring Linux into Windows strongholds (and be aware of the problems there.) Some just crushed my starting points, without alternatives. N.I.C.E. It is little wonder that Linux can not beat Windows on the desktop (as it should), if this is how people are helped who are trying to Bring In Linux. Crumogeon tip: It is no longer 1972. If you have nothing nice or at least helpful to say on a USER list, say nothing at all. I haven't been able to follow the core of the discussion, partly because I don't know the technical issues and partly because I didn't quite understand your question but for a different perspective on 'nice' I actually thought the responses you received were trying to be helpful; they were warning you against a certain approach to your issue (especially about using Windows or thinking AV is needed on Linux). I think curmudgeons can put people off but I didn't think people were being curmudgeonly to you (or didn't intend to be) but instead critical of Windows or Windows-like approaches. they were pressing the case one doesn't need AV on Linux as such, at least not if properly configured. this seems helpful. But you will anyways... "assorted help" Not that I'm aware of. The thing is - instead of taking an insecure OS and building assorted kludges (in the form of anti-virus) around it, it's considered wise here to use a secure OS from the beginning. I thought he was saying the surest approach is not touching Windows with a ten foot pole, for which I doubt there's a list to read. this seems to support my interpretation. f. -- Felmon Davis
