Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

[Shaqe Wan <sha8e () yahoo com>]

 Pieter,


I somehow agree with you that using an AV is not always necessary if you have implemented a good protection for your 
environment, but I mean in my previous comments that using an AV is a requirement of PCI, it is forced on us. If you 
deal with CC then you need to get compliant and that means you need to install an AV based on the compliance 
requirements.

Its a shame, but thats a fact.

Regards,




________________________________
From: Pieter de Boer <pieter () thedarkside nl>
To: full-disclosure () lists grok org uk
Sent: Mon, April 26, 2010 5:20:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

Shaqe Wan wrote:

> I am not stating that PCI is good in no way, but I am saying that its a
> MUST for companies dealing with CC. And in a windows environment, an AV
> is important.
>
> He probably thought that I am with the rules of PCI, or that I don't
> have any idea that the world is not just WINDOWS !!!
Now you've missed both Nick's and Christian's points ;)

Nick's point was (at least, this is how I understood it ;) that AV is 
not necessarily the best approach to protect your systems against 
malware. If you have implemented a better way to protect your systems 
against malware, but the PCI standard and auditors force you to install 
AV software anyway, then the standard or the auditor's practices are flawed.

Please do remember that adding complexity in the form of AV software can 
have a negative impact on security. The recent McAfee 'svchost.exe' 
debacle is a perfect example.

-- 
Pieter

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



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