[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <4BD50B42.16868.774A780F@nick.virus-l.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:40:50 +1200
From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
Tracy Reed to me:
> > Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
> > component of a "reasonably secure" system is a fool.
>
> No, they just think all the world is Windows.
My comments were, and still are, OS agnostic.
It matters not what the OS -- anyone authoritatively stating that
antivirus software is a necessary component of a "reasonably secure"
system is a fool.
Ditto my second comment...
> > So _if_, as you and another recent poster strongly imply, the PCI
> > standards include a specific _requirement_ for antivirus software, then
> > the standards themselves are total nonsense...
>
> PCI only requires antivirus for systems commonly affected by
> viruses. ...
Then, as I said, the PCI requirements are total nonsense...
> ... This means Windows. PCI security council has said that UN*X
> OSs etc. are not required to have antivirus.
So what system and application integrity requirements do they require
for those OSes (presumably "instead of antivirus")?
Your response strengthens my belief that PCI is dangerous because it
enshrines small-minded ignorance as "best practice" (or, at least, as
"minimally acceptable practice") without recognizing the possibility
that there may be better options that have not been so, ummm "over
sold" as to become perceived as necessary.
Regards,
Nick FitzGerald
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists