At 05:07 PM 3/4/02 -0500, David F. Skoll wrote:
>Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the MUA and the end-user's OS
>vendor. We either put secure end-user software onto the desktop, or
>we admit defeat.

I understand the complaints, but I don't admit defeat nor will I reject as
futile a solution that's working. Server-based mail scanning has technical
limitations. So? If a server-based solution intercepts only 80% of the
inbound malicious code to an enterprise that still 80% less for the IS/IT
staff to worry about and 80% less for desktop scanners to catch or 80% less
for users to judge whether "new photos from my party" is a bad or good
thing. Certainly there are ways to attack the scanner and cause a denial
of service, as there are ways to bypass some scanners. The scanners must
keep up with the threats and so far most have. Server-based scanning
provides a chokepoint in today's environments that is far easier to
maintain than thousands of Microsoft desktops with wide variations of
client anti-virus "solutions."

Ultimately we live with the deployed systems we have, and their
limitations. I'm unaware of a solution available today that supports
management and user demands for "friendliness" and puts secure end-user
software on the desktop. Server-based scanning provides a solution *today*
that, while imperfect, is manageable and effective in stopping most of the
malicious code in the wild. "Most" is not "all," but it's a lot more than
"none."

-- 
Regards,
David Kennedy CISSP                         /"\
Director of Research Services,              \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
TruSecure Corp. http://www.trusecure.com     X  Against HTML Mail
Protect what you connect;                   / \
Look both ways before crossing the Net.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]