Re: Anti virus installations on Windows servers

[T Biehn <tbiehn () gmail com>]

Close, but no cee-gar.  The XKCD is saying that if you designed it so that
you need that as a contingency, you blew the design.

This one bothered me, the rest is typical.
How do you fit that into the analogy provided of the teacher who wears a condom?
Should he have sealed the vulnerable surfaces of his penis with a hot glue gun?

-Travis

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:10 PM,  <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:29:28 EDT, you said:
> > What do you suggest to use on a server that must accept uploads of
> > binaries from users?
>
> Now that's a particular special-case instance.  The original poster only
> differentiated as far as "Is it a different answer for your server and desktop".
> So I answered the original question at that same level of detail.
>
> > Should these binaries be scanned by an anti-virus? Can we trust that
> > end users have competent Anti-Virus?
>
> I don't know. *CAN* you trust that your end users have competent AV installed
> and up-to-date?  If you can't, you probably need to be addressing *that* issue,
> since those end users are probably visiting a lot of *other* servers besides
> your upload server - and most of those are probably outside your control.
>
> > Because of the relative infancy of non-windows-based anti-virus
> > software would it be advisable to host a windows virtual machine that
> > shares a 'virtual disk' that is monitored by a robust a/v software to
> > use to host the binaries?
>
> Properly done security is about tradeoffs.
>
> How much will it cost to design/install/maintain/document the shared Windows
> server that does the AV scanning, and how much will it save you in infections
> that would not have been stopped *anyhow* by the end user's AV?
>
> >                            Which antivirus software would you
> > recommend?
>
> Let's say we have 2 AV products, FooBar and Quux.  FooBar detects 20% more
> stuff which you estimate will save you $60K/year in infections you don't
> have to deal with, but the Quux site license will be $75K/year cheaper.
>
> Your best bet at that point is buying Quux and coming out $15K/year ahead.
>
> Now you discover that neither FooBar nor Quux will easily integrate into your
> binary-upload server environment - each will require another $20K in R&D to
> make that happen.  Frobnoxx sucks in detection capability, but will drop
> right in for essentially free.
>
> In the real world, you *often* end up choosing a product that's not the best
> one rated solely on its main mission - things like licensing costs and
> integration issues often end up dominating the decision.
>
> > The easy out is to say "I don't need a/v and nobody does" perhaps you
> > might want to put a little more thought into your answers before you
> > hit send.
>
> Note that's *not* what I said - what I *said* was that if you designed things
> properly, you don't need "a/v" as a separate add-on because the things the
> a/v will do for you are *already* done by other stuff.
>
> > This, however, is not the point of the XKCD cartoon, the XKCD is
> > saying that you shouldn't have a contingency plan for something that
> > ISN'T A CONTINGENCY.
>
> Close, but no cee-gar.  The XKCD is saying that if you designed it so that
> you need that as a contingency, you blew the design.
>
> > On a general purpose OS, especially a desktop, insane surface exists,
> > no matter what protection you've put in.
>
> Right.  The point you're missing is that if you apply the protection *properly*,
> you shouldn't be needing a separate "a/v" add-on.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/