No worries John we would never question your genius, now if you wouldn't open that PDF and wait for instructions :-)
Not yet, wait for.... Almost ready.... There we go, thank you for your time :-) Robert (arch3angel) On Aug 25, 2012 10:15 AM, "John Strand" <[email protected]> wrote: > Yea.. > > Thinking about it. Smart has nothing to do with it. > > I just announced to a security list that I dont run AV on my mac. > > Not to bright... Is it? > > John > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 7:17 AM, ash <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hahaha I have to agree .. I also run Sophos on my macs .. im also not >> as smart as John Strand .. and I am Australian .. I don’t have much going >> for me here do I??**** >> >> ** ** >> >> DAMMIT**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Ash D**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Pommerening >> *Sent:* Saturday, 25 August 2012 2:16 AM >> >> *To:* PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List >> *Subject:* Re: [Pauldotcom] AV for OSX**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I run Sophos on my MAC and don't notice any performance hit. But I am >> NOT as smart as John Strand. >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Jeremy Pommerening >> CISSP,GCFA,GPEN,GAWN,GCFW, >> MCSE Win2K, MCSE NT4**** >> >> *From:* xgermx <[email protected]> >> *To:* PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, August 24, 2012 10:22 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [Pauldotcom] AV for OSX**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> I like that analogy Chistopher. I've been running Sophos for a couple >> days now and it's stayed out of my way for the most part. Even if I decide >> to turn it off, I'll keep it installed for one-off scans. >> >> Thanks all. >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Christopher Croad <[email protected]> >> wrote:**** >> >> I have mixed feelings. I figure AV is at best 30% effective, and I know >> I can keep my Mac pretty secure without it. Still, I run Sophos on my Mac >> and it doesn't get in the way. If it did, I would have no issue in >> shutting it down. AV is like seatbelts on an airplane. They provide a >> little security during bumpy flights, but a lap belt isn't going to do >> much when the plane is rocking and rolling ( or crashing). >> >> Chris Croad**** >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh More >> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:23 PM >> To: PaulDotCom Security Weekly Mailing List**** >> >> Subject: Re: [Pauldotcom] AV for OSX >> >> I agree with Ryan's view. >> >> Also, as a counterpoint to Michael's, it is surprisingly difficult to >> not do anything stupid under OSX. The only way I've found to be >> reasonably secure is to not run as admin (not hard, actually), use >> Little Snitch and Glimmer Proxy (annoying) AND replace Safari >> completely with a hardened Firefox (noscript, HTTPS Everywhere, >> Request Policy, WOT, Adblock+, Certificate Patrol, etc)... which >> pretty much completely kills a large part of the OSX experience. >> >> When you add to this, the tendency of Apple to release patches as >> frequently as cicadas, I don't think that adding an additional layer >> of defense, imperfect as it is, is a bad idea. >> >> I use Sophos on mine. >> >> -Josh More >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Michael D. Wood >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I also agree. Don't believe the hype, when/if it really comes down to >> it - >> > maybe, then look into something. In the meantime, be security aware and >> > don't do anything stupid. >> > >> > -- >> > Michael D. Wood >> > ITSecurityPros.org <http://itsecuritypros.org/> >> > http://www.itsecuritypros.org/ >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] >> > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alex >> Kornilov >> > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 10:55 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: [Pauldotcom] AV for OSX >> > >> > On 8/22/12 10:20 PM, John Strand wrote: >> >> No. >> >> >> >> The reason? I have yet to be on a test were it gets in the way. >> >> >> >> I do know it causes your system to run slower and crash more. >> >> >> >> I would rather have a faster, less secure system than the illusion of >> >> security. >> > +1 >> > I agree. Don't believe propaganda from yellow press IT blogs. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pauldotcom mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Pauldotcom mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com/**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pauldotcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom >> Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >> > > > > -- > John Strand > O: (605) 550-0742 > C: (303) 710-1171 > > > _______________________________________________ > Pauldotcom mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom > Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com >
_______________________________________________ Pauldotcom mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pauldotcom.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pauldotcom Main Web Site: http://pauldotcom.com
