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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Mar 06 2002 - 14:39:49 PST