DBeckett wrote:Anyway, such a law would be absolutely pointless. In the case I cited above for example, the thing blew right past the installed and updated AV.
No one is immune, and anyone can get bit. The question is, how much time, energy, and resources can/will one invest to limit one's vulnerability to the greatest extent? Where does the point of diminishing returns take over? It's like Zeno's Paradox -- you can approach a fully secure environment, but never quite get there.
Let's say the MSE is 90% effective, and MBAM Pro is 90% effective on the remaining 10%. That's 99%. Pretty darn good. But maybe Avira is 95% effective, and MBAM is still 90% effective on the remaining 5%. You end up at 99.5%. If MSE has benefits over Avira other than its detection rate (fewer false positives, for example, or ease of use, i.e. set-and-forget), do they outweigh that 0.5% increase in presumed protection?
In my opinion, for the users I support, they do.
Of course, if it wasn't for freaking iTunes, I'd have my users running Linux. If I'm going to put myself out of business by locking down Windows installs to the point that they never get infected, I might as well do it right.