Re: standards status in the industry - opinion?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

On Sun, 8 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:

> > I agree 100%.  Purely signature-based scanning that proved able to
> > detect all the WMF exploits out there would produce scores of FPs.  It's
> > yet another example of why sig scanning is broken.
> >
> > When I said we were setting our standards too low on AV, I didn't mean
> > that I wanted the AVers to just produce better sigs.  Better technology
> > is one of the things AV needs as well.  We've set our standards *FAR*
> > too low there, and are still allowing AVers to ram this terrible,
> > decades-old technology down our throats.
>
> I disagree on a part of what you say.
>
> If AV-ers could make better detection, they would. They are no slackers.
>
> The fact that the marketing part of the business keeps sticking that 
> same solution down our throats is indeed the truth, and it is no longer 
> adequate and research should proceed in other fields as well.
>
> Our industry likes old and stable though. It fits well in budget requests.

I can tell you that in 1988, signature-based scanning was not "old and 
stable". 

A replacement for this is possible, and I think I can even see how to do 
it. But it's someone else's turn to implement it.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.