From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wolfgang.rupprecht@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 2010/May/15 12:26
>
> Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> On the contrary, I'd say we are a healthily paranoid community. Being
>> security-aware means focussing safeguards on where it matters, such as
>> proper account control, proper firewall configuration, proper scepticism
>> about random binary downloads etc.
>
> And you know what the biggest bit of irony is in this anti-virus thread?
> The AV vendors want you to run a blackbox mystery binary in order to
> "protect your system". Um, yea. That gives me a warm secure feeling.
>
> -wolfgang
I rather like the irony, as well. But it points out something important.
We trust Fedora because if it's reputation; and, they make what we want,
a semi-stable, fairly up to date, and fairly usable Linux distribution.
We trust their reputation and the vetting of other eyes. Why I should
trust any given pair of other eyes more than an AV company with a solid
reputation I don't know. A large set of other eyes has something to be
said for it. But, bottom line is I trust the Fedora brand to give me
something of a known, if not perfect, quality.
I am stuck using Windows for income purposes. So I also use it for the
business records. I picked an anti-malware company with a good reputation.
I picked a second anti-malware organization for its good reputation that
is independent of the other company's reputation and happens to be open
source. And I receive email via ISPs that have email anti-malware filtering
that is enabled. The open source one scans incoming after the ISP's
filtering attempt. The first one mentioned scans incoming again. It also
scans the system as files are opened and used. The first one mentioned,
the third in the line, has picked up on ONE (particularly nasty) piece
of malware that got past the first two filters.
I figure if my socks and my shoes have holes in them, hopefully the holes
don't line up with each other often and my feet will stay warmer than
when I wear only flip-flops.
You guys are largely young enough to start over (or old enough the
suffering may not be too prolonged.) I am just old enough start over is
out of the question. I am young enough I still that the downside of being
hacked is prohibitive. So I spend the money and effort needed to protect
myself. That one intercept showed me that the effort is worthwhile.
I doubt I am vulnerable on the Linux machine as it is used here. I doubt
that on any given day it really needs specific anti-malware protection.
I don't have it as a vault for anything precious. So I run light on it
for protection. And I monitor it continuously, pay attention to LogWatch
reports, and keep it buttoned down very tight with iptables. If I used
it more for personal stuff I'd have clamav active for scanning the Linux
machine and its networking connections. Just as many people remark about
nuclear energy, perhaps, I figure the probability of being hit is very
small; but, the downside of being the one hit is more than just ruining
your whole day.
And I categorically reject the anti-"Star Wars" arguments that it's not
worth even trying if you can't achieve perfect protection. That's rejecting
the jacket because your legs and feet will still be unprotected to the cold.
{^_^}
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
