Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:49:26 -0300 From: Dexter J <lamealameadingdongnopsamlamelame.org> Subject: Re: OT - Windows port 135 virus alert
Salutations: 'nuther Bob wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:48:53 +0100, MeatballTurbo > <carl.robsonnopsamcing-czechs.com> wrote: > > >Luckily we are running Symantec Corporate anti virus, so once a new def > >file is out, the whole network gets updated automatically, and new > >versions are checked for nightly. > > Personally, I despise Symantec products . I understand the Corporate > desire to run some thing "main stream". However, they invade your > system, putting hooks all over the place which are near impossible > to extract. Even uninstall doesn't work-you have to hack the > registry. An ugly mess if you ask me. There are other lesser known > virus products that appear to be better and less invasive. > <snipped for length - not for spite> > Bob Afternoon brother Bob and brother Carl - yes - the norton question is a bit of pickle... Personally - despite its overhead and some other oddness regarding its implementation and its 'live update' function - I still very much like the product because of it's wide use and availability to home users as well as corporate installations.. Basically - if something goes seriously wrong, there are so many installations out there that use it - that response on any given issue is fairly quick and the knowledge base surrounding it is pretty broad.. There was a norton targeted trojan last year I think and I understood it was very quickly publicized and fixed to their great credit.. If only your friends and mine in Redmond were so diligent.. As to road warriors and telecommuting staff, that is going to be the hole in the all armour for a considerable time to come I fear.. Cudos to brother carl for having it covered so well.. Basically - the assumption is made that all machines are updated as alerts are put out - but often many travelling machines are not immediately available at the time a given event happens.. While not traditionally a problem, the broad advent of active VPN has allowed that someone in hotel room trying to quickly pick up their e-mail can effectively bypass the network update protocol depending on bandwidth and the particular VPN protocols in place.. I don't actually know if Norton (or anyone else) is offering a network driven VPN solution that works effectively across low bandwidth connections - either of you gents heard anything? I've seen strategy that follows a complete DMZ model for VPN connectors - but often that is not how it is implemented.. -- J Dexter - webmaster - http://www.dexterdyne.org/ all tunes - no cookies no subscription no weather no ads no news no phone in - RealAudio 8+ Required - all the Time Radio Free Dexterdyne Top Tune o'be-do-da-day Afro celt sound system - Falling http://www.dexterdyne.org/888/001.RAM
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
