[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <214738.1274069914@localhost>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 00:18:34 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: stuart@...erdelix.net
Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Windows' future (reprise)
On Mon, 17 May 2010 03:48:36 BST, lsi said:
> It is mutating at approx 243% per annum, a rate which is more than
> twice as fast as Moore's Law (200% every 24 months). I do find this
> alarming, because I want my CPU back. So does everyone else I know.
Unfortunately, you haven't shown that the CPU actually consumed is going up by
243% or any significant fraction thereof. Admittedly, A/V products are slowly
taking more and more resources, but nowhere near a Moore's Law rate.
Do some benchmarking. Time how long it takes to scan a collection of 500 or so
random files using a 2007 version of your favorite A/V software and signatures,
and time how long this week's version take. The difference between the two
numbers is the CPU you can "get back". I guarantee it has no relationship
to the 243% you're complaining about (for starters, even if it *was* gaining
243% a year, that's a 243% grown rate of the 5% or so your anti-virus uses,
not of your entire CPU capacity.
> I'm not analysing infections, I'm analysing "new threats" (as defined
> by Symantec).
Read Thor's description of the difference between threats and risks.
Defending against threats doesn't consume additional CPU.
Defending against risks *may* consume additional CPU.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" 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