Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:25:02 +0800 |
This is going off-topic, so my apologies. The following caught my interest: [... deleted ...]
Symantec has updated themselves to add Spam and Spyware to their antivirus product. We are using Symantec, Websweeper, MS anti-spyware, and Whole Security (behavior based AS). You might say this is overkill but who knows for sure - while they all play nice together I feel like I am at home by the fireplace with a good supply of logs.
I cannot help but question the continued use of these band-aid/prop-up "tools" because the underlying foundation is built on clay. I would like to hear from the list how would you now quantify the "Total Cost of Ownership" in this scenario. We see the sponsored, self-serving studies by MS on how their TCO is better than all, but no where in that "TCO study" does it show the criminal waste of money and resources to shore-up shoddy software. How much extra does the running of those "products" cost the organization? What if those "products" fail? False negatives/false positives? If you can only see the obvious flaw in continuing to prop up these companies and their so-called "products", I am sure you will want to get out of this never-ending maze and seek a simpler and better solution. (overheard somewhere) Symantec: hey, thanks to our Redmond friends, we have a business to run and so long as they cannot get their act together, we will have a steady stream of revenue. (meanwhile, some where in Building 20 along One Microsoft Way): How do we continue to grow in 2-digit numbers? Our growth is single digit and Wall Street is not happy (never mind that that single digit represents a few billions). You know what, since there is a ready made business to get into, as shown by Symantec and others, why don't we just get into the anti-virus/spyware/spam game ourselves? The pressure to build a good product is lessened (and perhaps removed) and we can sell to the public tools to "protect" them from our products! We are so good at spinning stories, that they will never know what hit them and they will only happily pay for the "new and improved OS" and "new and improved anti-spyware for the new and improved OS". Wonderful. We might piss off Symantec and others, but who's checking? They are sponging us off, we might as well take it back. Harish
| Previous by Date: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Martin_Brad |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Evan Mann |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Bruce Klein |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Microsoft AntiSpyware falling further behind, Kieran Murphy |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |