Thus spake Matt Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Therefore, signature based scanners CANNOT be a 100% reliable method
> for preventing viruses.
Plus, they are a security risk in themselves.
And, they normally even cost money.
> Felix, you seem to be of the opinion that anything less than 100%
> effectiveness is worthless? Or is it just that in your opinion
> signature based scanners are TOO FAR beneath that 100%?
If running a virus scanner would be free (i.e. does not reduce security,
does not eat up CPU time on the email server, does not use memory, does
not cost time and money to maintain) then I would not be against it.
But virus scanners are a marketing vehicle for a whole industry that
did nothing to prevent any virus I have ever seen anyone close to me me
have.
> And yes, the right solution to viruses is getting rid of the holes
> they exploit. There is no good reason why the functionality a Word
> macro virus exploits needs to exist. However, good luck getting
> Microsoft to fix their broken logic!
I don't care about Microsoft and what they fix or don't fix.
I don't use their software and document formats.
It's that easy. Really.
Felix
