Message-ID: <i2t3af3d47c1004270037r40103a9an2f0092ad816b066f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:37:24 +0200
From: Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
To: Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds

Surely being forced to install an anti-virus only brings in a monopoly? How
do I know that PCI Standards writers are getting a nice commission off me
installing the anti-virus? (I know they don't, I'm just hypothesizing).

You stated it yourself, an anti-virus may not do any difference, it is there
as per PCI standard.....so what is it's use? Why the heck do I have to
install something useless?

Lastly, that is where you are wrong, there is no "base starting point"
companies don't give a shit about proper security measures, they get
PCI-certified and all security ends there.
That is the freaken problem.

NB: I do use anti-virus software, what I specified above is not in any way
my opinion about anti-virus vendors, etc.







On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I don't actually beleive there is a "democratic society". No such thing
> exists. If it does? Then ask the organizations who made the compliance
> requirements drop them and make audits based on some other measure that you
> believe is more secure and has less flaws in it. Finally, regarding the AV
> issue that I wish I end here, is that "I don't believe that an AV shall make
> your box secure, but its a requirement to be done - Added by PCI"
>
> And yes I have noticed that FD is for such security measures discussion,
> but never thought of joining it and discussing with others until a couple of
> days ago when I saw this topic.
>
> Finally, the compliance can be taken of as a base starting point, and then
> moving further, like that it shall not be a waste of money !
>
> Regards,
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
> *Sent:* Tue, April 27, 2010 9:59:59 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, this is Full-Disclosure, which at least, is
> used to discuss security measures.
> As such, it is only natural to argue with PCI's possible security flaws.
>
> Besides, in a democratic society (where CC do operate as well), you can't
> "force" someone to install an anti-virus just because _you_ think it is
> secure.
>
> The argument were compliance is wasted money still holds.
>
> Cheers.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hola,
>>
>> The problem is not weather they are educated against other standards or
>> policies or not, the problem is that without this compliance you can't work
>> with CC !!! Its something that is enforced on you !
>>
>> BTW: why don't people discuss what is the points missing in the PCI
>> Compliance better than this argue ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>> *Sent:* Mon, April 26, 2010 4:19:27 PM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> "All those in favour of PCI raises their hands."
>>
>> Kidding aside, of course it is a must, since the said companies doesn't
>> have any notion of security before this happens.
>> However, how much is this actually helpful? Now let's be honest, how much
>> would it stop a potential attacker from getting into a system "protected" by
>> PCI?
>> Little, if at all.
>>
>> On the other hand, a company should adopt real and complete security
>> practices.
>>
>> Again, my point is, these companies shouldn't be "educated" or limit their
>> security to this standard. Because if they do (and I'm pretty sure they do)
>> would make this standard pretty much useless.
>>
>> Anyway, I won't get into this argument, since no one will give a sh*t
>> about it anyway.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Christian,
>>>
>>> Did you read my first post?
>>>
>>> ((( IMO, PCI is not that big security policy, but without it your not
>>> able to use the credit card companies gateway. I think its just the
>>> basics that any company dealing with CC must implement. Because it shall be
>>> nonsense to deal with CC, and not have an Anti-virus for example !! )))
>>>
>>> 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 !!!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> *From:* Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@...il.com>
>>> *To:* Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com>
>>> *Cc:* full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>> *Sent:* Mon, April 26, 2010 3:54:20 PM
>>>
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>>
>>> Why exactly are you complying with Nick's statements? I would have
>>> thought you guys were arguing against said statements?
>>>
>>>
>>> By the way, requirement #6 is particularly funny; it sounds peculiarly
>>> redundant to me...
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Shaqe Wan <sha8e@...oo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Nick,
>>>>
>>>> Please if you don't know what the standards are, please read:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/security_standards/pci_dss.shtml
>>>>
>>>> See *Requirement #5*. Read that requirement carefully and its not bad
>>>> to read it twice though in case you don't figure it out from the first
>>>> glance !
>>>>
>>>> Also, I said that using an AV is some basic thing to do in any company
>>>> that wants to deal with CC, its a basic thing for even companies not dealing
>>>> with CC too !!! Or do you state that people must use a BOX with no AV
>>>> installed on it? If you believe in that fact? Then please request a change
>>>> in the PCI DSS requirements and make them force the usage of a non Windows
>>>> O.S, such as any *n?x system.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the topic here is not about "default allow vs default deny" and
>>>> if I understand what that is or not! You can open a new discussion about
>>>> that, and I shall join there and discuss it further with you, in case you
>>>> need some clarification regarding it.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Shaqe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- On *Sun, 4/25/10, Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>*wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Nick FitzGerald <nick@...us-l.demon.co.uk>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Compliance Is Wasted Money, Study Finds
>>>> To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>>>> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2010, 1:57 PM
>>>>
>>>> Shaqe Wan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <<snip>>
>>>> > Because it shall be nonsense to deal with CC, and not have an
>>>> Anti-virus for example !!
>>>>
>>>> Well, you see, _that_ is abject nonsense on its face.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any understanding of one of the most basic of security
>>>> issues -- default allow vs. default deny?
>>>>
>>>> There are many more secure ways to run systems _without_ antivirus
>>>> software.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>>>> component of a "reasonably secure" system is a fool.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone authoritatively stating that antivirus software is a necessary
>>>> component of a "sufficiently secure" system is one (or more) of; a
>>>> fool, a person with an unusually low standard of system security, or a
>>>> shill for an antivirus producer.
>>>>
>>>> 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...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
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