On 10 Oct 2006 at 4:34, Lou wrote:

> I found this interesting but I am curious to what the more 
> experienced people on this list think about this subject.
> 
> http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6124040.html?tag=nl.e589

How can I avoid jumping at the bait? :o)  First, the article is based on 
a wildly false premise: that Windows systems have been effective 
protected by these "third party" apps he refers to.  One has only to look 
at the chaos in the windows world when a new virus or etrojan appears to 
realize that those apps are marginal-to-useless security at best.  As 
with the nature of the third-party apps: when a new attack appears their 
ultimate uselessness becomes readily apparent, you get all of this "be 
sure to update your definitions" advice [always late compared to the 
attacks], and then in a little while, in the best of barn-door tradition, 
things calm down.  The third-party-apps aren't bad at protecting you from 
last-week's attack.

His description of all that cool nonsense about the heuristic stuff in 
the AV apps to detect un-signatured-attacks is, of course, bogus: if 
you're running with enough privileges to do nastiness to your system, 
you're running with enough privileges to wholly disable [or replace or 
whatever] all those little traps.  [recall the eTrojan a while back that 
started by disabling your firewall, thereby allowing it to phone home 
without being hassled].  Also, there's the question of system-speed and 
system stability.  Implanting that kind of stuff so deeply in the system 
so as to intercept even the lowest-level system calls *HAS* caused 
stability problems and for-sure slows your system down.  And what's 
amusing, or depressing, YMMV, is that that stuff is compounded *on*top* 
of the security machinery already built-into XP [security machinery that 
folks would rather disable [even though it is still there, still doing 
all its ACL checks and object checks and policy checks, etc] and instead 
overlay with a *less*effective*, more complicated, more fragile, more 
bothersome [and more expensive] secondary security mechanism.

And what he leaves out is *every*other* operating system.  Why do other 
OS's have fewer problems than Windows does in massive-compromises from 
the simplest of vulnerabilities? -- a hint: it is NOT because they have 
all that AV stuff he likes so much "built in", but rather because they 
incorporate all the 'standard' computer security mechanisms that too many 
windows users have eschewed.

There are several real security principles at work here, and the AV stuff 
is *NOT* part of the forumla [other than as a pretty weak, secondary or 
tertiary backup system]: the first principle is to use as few privileges 
as you need to do what you're currently doing.  This should be obvious: 
you can cause less damage accidentally [or via maliciousness] if you've 
made your circle-of-exposure as small as possible.  The second is that 
there should be mulitple *layers* of protection acting independently and 
from different "directions", if you will.  This so that when you either 
make a mistake or an attacker manages to find an exploit in your first-
line of defense instead of having free rein to hose your system what 
they'll find is that they just ran into the *next* round of bulwarks.

The basic idea is very simple: when you do everything perfectly, never 
run (or blunder into) malware, never have a finger-slip or do something 
stupid, you really need essentially no "protection" at all -- folks can, 
and have, driven cars hundreds of thousands of miles without their 
seatbelts and avoided problems; you can work for years on construction 
sites without a hard hat and manage to avoid getting beaned with a brick. 
The point of the security machinery is to protect against slipups and the 
unexpected and the third-party apps just don't do that very well if 
you're running with excessive-privileges (and they're hardly necessary at 
all if you're running with minimal ones).

  /Bernie\
-- 
Bernie Cosell                     Fantasy Farm Fibers
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]     Pearisburg, VA
    -->  Too many people, too few sheep  <--       

--
                ----------------------------------------
To Change your email Address for this list, send the following message:
 CHANGE  WIN-HOME  your_old_address  your_new_address
 to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Note carefully that both old and new addresses are required.

Reply via email to