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 <[email protected]> To: [email protected] 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/
