Ron DuFresne wrote:
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Pavel Galynin wrote:
>
> > --------------------------- cut ----------------------------------------
> > > > I don't think the virus filters come close to being worth the cost.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Every organization I have worked with found that the best way to handle
> > > the issue of viri is at the desktop workstation.
> > >
> > It is the most efficient way, efficience/cost ratiowise, but it is not
> > perfect and leaves HUGE scurity holes.
>
> Agreed it's not perfect, but is at this time the most viable solution
> available.
Are you familiar with Unix desktop anti-virus soft? i'm not, but I
assume that with Unix high-level programming required for portability
and impossibility to write ASM progs. This leaves you undefended and
dressed-down in front of a polymorphic. I would be scared to even think
about what would happen if a virus was designed for a specific Unix
brand and platform...
> Sure, one can scan at the wall/gateway, but, that's more
> imperfect a solution at this point in time, not to mention the possible
> bottlenecking that can most likely ensue. But as for this leaving "HUGE
> scurity holes", I'd certainly like to see you clarify that statement a
>tad
Well, I don't know of any virii that use protected mode, but if there
were ( there could be by now ), circumventing Unix memory protection
would be very easy with some use of Appendix H and the likes
instructions.
> OK, so you're a Ph.D. Just don't touch anything.
Just lookin' :))
Paul.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
