|
|
|
|
Re: Re: toad 10.1.1.8
Posted:
Feb 18, 2010 12:19 PM
in response to: Pete
|
|
|
On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 18:49 +0000, Pete wrote:
> Hello Alison--Seriously? I have to wonder if this decision is from a manager or from a security expert, because it is a grossly misinformed.
>
> As I'm sure you know, software can only do so much. It depends on humans to provide settings to better guide its behavior to suit the needs of the enterprise. Certainly they allow changes to settings of other software like Oracle Database? If so, why not AV software?
>
> I'm no expert on AV, but since this appears to be the problem and hence the solution, the only other solution I can think of is to turn off your AV. I'm guessing that is worse than whitelisting, so perhaps educating them as to exactly what whitelisting means and why they will probably be running into more and more problems as AV's switch to monitoring behaviors rather than signatures. Time to update the policy maybe?
>
> I don't mean to sound sarcastic; I'm sure it's not your fault. Maybe you can come back in a week and ask for a "settings change" to your AV to allow Toad 10 to run unhindered. 
>
I'm not the OP but I can see their reasoning. They're putting security
over convenience. This isn't tweaking a setting. This is "can you swear
this can never become infected." Usually the only things whitelisted are
things that are so low level, the very act of scanning/protecting them
causes the system to malfunction.
Joseph Charpak
jcharpak@worldnet.att.net
|
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Guru: 2001
+
pts
|
|
Expert: 751
- 2000
pts
|
|
Enthusiast: 31
- 750
pts
|
|
Novice: 0
- 30
pts
|
|
Moderators
|
|
Helpful answer
(5 pts)
|
|
Answered
(10 pts)
|
|
