Originally posted here by catch
I am arguably the biggst advocate of NT security on this site. I freely and frequently state that that NT security is superior to UN*X security.
Sorry... yeah, that is kinda funny.. hehe!


The number of viruses makes no difference, and I never said that it will prevent every single virus ever from causing harm. I said it will outright stop most and dramatically limit the damage possible by others. To the point where the costs saved by an AV are less than the cost of using one plus the new vulnerabilities introduced by the AV itself.
Security isn't about being 100% safe, it is about cost avoidance.

And would you consider your environment to be a low or high assurance one?
Okay, I guess we have reached the point were we both understand each other, and how it all depends on the different environments.
It all depends on how you define "High Assurance" I guess...
I may not have as "High Assurance" as you, but we are still required to have it as secure as we can, with all the student information and stuff, HR and Payroll etc...
But like in my wife's case for example, working for the military, they have a very high security policy. Workstations are tightly locked down, but they still have an A/V solution in place.
So in my case, I wouldn't agree to your last statement. There are cases when security IS about being "100%" safe and cost comes secondary.

Also if you can't prevent every single virus, how then do you know for sure you don't have a virus? Maybe you have a virus that might not be very destructive and detectable by general network monitoring tools and stuff, but would easily be detected by an A/V solution?

Just my last thoughts. I'm guessing netiher of us will change, we both have different environments and both work well. However it was nice to dive in to some deeper thoughts and share different views on something so "basic" at first thought.. heh!

Thanks Catch for staying in here through this whole discussion!