Don't rely on Microsoft AV, warns analyst
Posted by Tom Warren on 17 September 2003 - 07:22 · 15 comments & 1737 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by StaTiKMaT on 17 Sep 2003 - 07:36
- Call me crazy, but why would you even think that non-windows systems would be supported? They won't be running windows... Maybe I missed something?
-
#2 Posted by macrosslover on 17 Sep 2003 - 07:39
- complain, complain people will never be happy. as if rely on 2 companies for AV needs is really that much better. in a perfect world you'd think all 3 of them would work together but oh well guess not....
-
(7 replies)
#3 Posted by Ji@nBing on 17 Sep 2003 - 07:50
- who the hell would rely on a built in anivirus anyway? we all know how "fantastic" the firewall in xp is
-
#3.1 Posted by Fubar on 17 Sep 2003 - 08:10
- well the firewall in xp is ripped straight from FreeBsd so if the xp built in firewall is poo then so is the freebsd, did you know you could do more with the built in firewall through command prompt than you can do through the GUI ? i take it you didnt as you wouldnt have made the above remark , the built in firewall from xp is probably one of the best out there IF you know how to config it right.
-
#3.2 Posted by roadwarrior on 17 Sep 2003 - 09:20
- Last I heard, it didn't block any OUTGOING traffic, so what good is it if you have a trojan on your system? At least ZoneAlarm (even the free version) prompts you for incoming AND outgoing connections.
-
#3.3 Posted by Fubar on 17 Sep 2003 - 09:44
- Like i said use command prompt to config it and you block what ever you want., can even run scripts through it if you know how, all it takes is reading the manual oh and i assure you it does block outgoing traffic
-
#3.4 Posted by mrbester on 17 Sep 2003 - 13:24
- How many newbies and luddites are going to go near the command prompt, let alone have knowledge of firewall setups? Just because you know about it means nothing. The average user will still have a relatively insecure machine because the options to lock it down aren't in the GUI front end and will shy away from command prompt stuff on general principle (and magazines warning about how you can trash your system in one command increase the fear). So from a useability standpoint the built-in firewall is indeed "poo".
-
#3.5 Posted by Avicus on 17 Sep 2003 - 13:54
- I would like to know more info on how to tweak the firewall in XP, can anyone show me where to get this info???
-
#3.6 Posted by alister on 17 Sep 2003 - 14:15
QUOTE (#3.2) Last I heard, it didn't block any OUTGOING traffic, so what good is it if you have a trojan on your system?
Who says that is not gonna change
Alister
-
(1 reply)
#4 Posted by Jon on 17 Sep 2003 - 09:10
- Security software is only as good as its users, and as blaster proved, most users are not good enough. (not patched, sh1t firewall config, not updating AV)
/me sticks hand up for internet driving license.
-
#5 Posted by mr_da3m0n on 17 Sep 2003 - 11:32
QUOTE
"XP is not good enough for the enterprise and if companies wait for Longhorn there are questions over how effective the new personal firewall will be."
What the... XP is not good enough for the enterprise.... and who are they to suddendly decide that? And this is based on what factors...?
That's like saying Win 2k3 server is no good for production servers because it's too new, therefore too unstable. (Yes, a friend of mine said that to me. I was really deceived.)
-
#6 Posted by Eduardo on 17 Sep 2003 - 13:34
QUOTE Businesses should not rely on Microsoft's future operating system
The OS is not out there yet, but analists says that it *will* be insecure
-
#7 Posted by havyn on 17 Sep 2003 - 17:59
- longhorn is gonna be pretty cool. i am excited about the built-in items, because it means that joe user will at least have SOME chance of not getting attacked. my grandparents got the blaster worm because they only know how to check email, and that's it. thumbs up to MS for making it a built-in piece so i won't have to try to get an AV downloaded, installed, and configured over the phone with them!!
Businesses should not rely on Microsoft's future operating system to secure desktops against viruses, analyst Gartner Group has warned, despite its plans to embed the recently acquired GeCAD antivirus engine into Windows.Gartner predicted that by 2008 it is likely that 80 per cent of companies will be using Longhorn - the desktop release of Windows due in 2005 - for lock down and antivirus management, rather than third-party software. However, Arabella Hallawell, research director at Gartner, warned attendees at its IT Security Summit against relying solely on Microsoft for antivirus protection at the desktop.
"A fully integrated antivirus Microsoft solution may appear attractive but non-Windows platforms may not be supported," she said. "XP is not good enough for the enterprise and if companies wait for Longhorn there are questions over how effective the new personal firewall will be."
In an effort to stem the widespread copying of music over the Internet, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 261 computer users last week, and it plans to sue hundreds more. Several of those sued have expressed dismay that their Internet providers turned over information about them without their permission.
The association is the first to apply the subpoena provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 to identify people who make files available for others to copy from their personal computers using file-sharing software like KaZaA. Under the statute, copyright holders do not need a judge's signature to compel Internet service providers to turn over the names of subscribers.
The appeals court decision, expected later this fall, could have important consequences for the music industry's antipiracy campaign. Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry group, said today that using the subpoenas made it easier and less expensive for the organization to file so many lawsuits because it could consolidate the lawsuits in geographic regions under local lawyers hired for that purpose.
Verizon contends that the law was meant to apply only to material that subscribers post on Web sites that reside on computers controlled by Internet providers. The rise of peer-to-peer technology, which lets Internet users find and retrieve files on one another's computers, the company says, was not foreseen by Congress when it passed the law.
Verizon is also challenging the constitutionality of the law, arguing that if it does allow the subpoenas to be used in this way, it violates subscribers' rights to privacy and due process. Judge John D. Bates of Federal District Court in Washington ruled against the company earlier this year, forcing it to turn over the names and addresses of at least four Internet subscribers.
Sarah B. Deutsch, a vice president and lawyer for Verizon, said the company had received 200 subpoenas since then. It is complying with all of them, except for one in which a New York woman has challenged the recording industry's use of the subpoenas to identify her.
The hearing came as two Congressional committees prepare to examine the 1998 statute more closely. On Wednesday, the Senate Commerce Committee will hear testimony about copyright protection and consumer privacy from lawyers for Verizon and SBC, which has filed a separate challenge to the subpoenas in federal court in San Francisco. John Rose, executive vice president of EMI, and Mr. Sherman of the recording industry trade group will also testify.
Senator Norm Coleman, a Minnesota Republican, has scheduled a Sept. 30 hearing of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations that will address privacy issues as well as the broader effect of technology on copyright enforcement.
And Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican, introduced a bill today to protect Internet providers from the controversial subpoenas. His proposal would block subpoenas except in pending civil lawsuits or in cases where unauthorized copies were stored on Web sites.