Re: standards status in the industry - opinion?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Matthew Murphy wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
> Gadi Evron wrote:
> > Well, about the AV I tend to disagree. I believe the AV simply isn't
> > adequate to deal with these sort of threats anymore.
>
> I agree 100%.  Purely signature-based scanning that proved able to
> detect all the WMF exploits out there would produce scores of FPs.  It's
> yet another example of why sig scanning is broken.
>
> When I said we were setting our standards too low on AV, I didn't mean
> that I wanted the AVers to just produce better sigs.  Better technology
> is one of the things AV needs as well.  We've set our standards *FAR*
> too low there, and are still allowing AVers to ram this terrible,
> decades-old technology down our throats.
 
Every problem is an opportunity in disguise. I agree, something better 
than signature scanning is needed, but I'm not going to go for this one, 
so get programming!

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.