Quote:
In the purest sense of that statement you are completely correct.
In every sense this is correct... the only systems that benefit from AVs are those with poor architecture that allows random processes unmitigated access... if a virus can do that, why can't an attacker? The whole system is just ****ed and viruses are the least of your worries... although you'd prolly put them higher up because you get hit with so damned many of them in this case.
Quote:
With enough time and knowledge a single computer or a network could be set up so that a virus would not be able to function on the system making the need for AV moot.
Or by using common sense and utilizing both roles and a finely grained security infastructure an entire organization can be by a competent infosec team and very simple procedures.
Quote:
Even on a system set up to the standard you describe where AV is not 'needed' it could well be 'required' for insurance cover and to meet other regulations which may state a requirement for AV to be present on a system.
I can think of no such requirement... the organization I work for is accountable to various ISO, DOD, and MIL standards not to mention privacy and fiscal accountablity standards... and yet we have no AV system. Why? Because none is required... even ISO17799 which specifically mentions virus protection does not require anti-virus software. It merely states that you must have a clearly established and defined method of dealing with viruses. Using sandboxing, multi-account sessions, and least privilege are all acceptable under best practices.
Quote:
This is not to mention the comfort factor of having AV ,"just in case", as mentioned before.
If running more software (which by definition under DOD-5200.28-STD is a bad idea since you are placing security related software which not only needlessly increases complexity AND falls outside of the systems assurance audit, but also exists outside of the TCB) makes you feel better, that is fine. Doesn't make it the best or most correct solution.
cheers.
catch