Antivirus are some crazy shit that may trigger on any random action and will teach people to follow the most unsafe procedures without questioning, so they can get anything done.
I've heard it put this way: If you force users to trade convenience for security, they will find a way to obtain convenience at the expense of security.
> If you force users to trade convenience for security
I _wish_ it was better security they were making the trade for. It often isn't though. These programs are large, expensive, and don't do much most of the time. I feel there's a perverse incentive for developers to make their AV products as noisy as is possible to justify their own existence.
And yet.. even with full AV rollouts locked down at the highest level, bad actors still get into networks and exploit them. So, to me it feels like our users are trading away their convenience for our misguided CYA policies.
The truth is, you don't need much in the way of AV software if you are willing to outright block certain types of files.
In most large corporations you are basically not allowed to send anything that could even potentially hide a virus except for maybe Office files (nobody yet built a compelling alternative to Powerpoint and Excel).
Typical rules already block all executable binaries, scripts and password protected archives (because they could hold binaries or scripts), etc. As a Java developer I have recently discovered my company started blocking *.java files.
A lot of this stuff (AV software) is getting deployed at all different layers of the environment. Firewalls are getting better at dynamic file analysis and file blocking, the endpoints are loaded with user behavior/analytics, av and dlp tools. AV is so omnipresent because it's in a decent amount netsec appliances these companies stand up
I could be mistaken on this, but wasn't this basically the sales pitch for Spotify? Basically saying "you'll never get rid of piracy, but you can compete with it".
This was the sales pitch for iTunes and the iTunes store:
"We approached it as 'Hey, we all love music.' Talk to the senior guys in the record companies and they all love music, too. … We love music, and there's a problem. And it's not just their problem. Stealing things is everybody's problem. We own a lot of intellectual property, and we don't like when people steal it. So people are stealing stuff and we're optimists. We believe that 80 percent of the people stealing stuff don't want to be; there’s just no legal alternative. So we said, Let's create a legal alternative to this. Everybody wins. Music companies win. The artists win. Apple wins. And the user wins because he gets a better service and doesn't have to be a thief."
Another point of reference: because they had no legal ground to stand on, HBO targeted Canadian torrenters of Game of Thrones with an e-mail saying, among other things, "It's never been easier to [watch Game of Thrones legally]!"
This was true, it had never been easier. It had also never been harder. For the entire time that Game of Thrones was being aired, the only legal way for Canadians to watch it was to pay about a hundred dollars per month for cable and the cable packages that would give them HBO. You could buy it on iTunes, but only as a season, after the season was over.
So yeah, I kept torrenting it, everyone I know kept torrenting it, and everyone hated (or laughed at, or both) HBO the whole time.
Here in the UK, Sky offer a cheap 'over-the-top' streaming alternative to their satellite offerings, [0] so you could watch Game of Thrones for £8/month, provided you didn't mind the inferior video quality.
I meant HBO! I think GoT season 1 is the only season that's had a release at that res so far.
I was really hoping to get an HDR version of the "The long night", to address some of the banding and other visibility problems present in the episode, and maybe see a bit more of what went on. But there isn't one yet. So I watched it with the lights out so that my eyes adjusted :)
But yeah, you're probably right, NowTv has massive potential to undercut their main offering.
It's true, and often it's not laziness - corporate security measures are often focused only on denying access, and they're so overbearing that, were they followed to the letter, they could easily shut the company down. It's through workarounds that actual work gets done.
Sounds like a large organizational incentive intergration failure where subpieces are at odds such that they care more about dodging blame and outside of their domain it isn't their problem. "Not My Fault/Not My Problem" as a toxic approach making balancing decisions worse.
I remember having issues with a corporate email system where base64/uuencoded data would fail to get through with a very rough dependency on size - large files had a smaller chance of getting through but it was clear that there wasn't a hard size limit. Eventually someone twigged that the problem was a "rude word" scanner, and that beyond a certain size you would hit the "scunthorpe" problem, and forbidden words would appear in the ASCII text randomly.
The thing is, usability is security. People will do anything to be able to do their job (because people like being able to, you know, eat and stuff). Things that stop you doing your job are bad for security.
I wish more of the security industry would get their frigging heads around this. PGP did less for messaging security over decades of availability than iMessage and Signal did in a few weeks of availability.
This 100%. I recall many a fun night at $BIGCORP burning the midnight oil, receiving the warning emails that my "unauthorised software" had been reported to my manager, and that it had been quarantined away for my own safety and convenience. Given that $BIGCORP was a tech firm my manager would be intensely delighted that they would receive regular midnight notifications that I was doing my job. Whatever that damn thing cost it would have been cheaper to let the malware do its thing.
Windows development seems to be fun as of recently. Didn't touch it for couple of decades.
Sometimes I think that modern Windows is a nice platform already, even comfortable. (Like, you know, C++17 is very unlike C++98.) But then I'm reminded of the necessity to run an antivirus in front of it in a corporate environment.
I intensely dislike corporate "security product" culture. For whatever reason, every IT department thinks that you have to ruin Windows with tons of invasive antivirus and monitoring software. I've seen zero evidence that these performance-killing tools are necessary. It's all theater. Microsoft itself doesn't do this shit to Windows, and neither should anyone else.
There was a discussion in our IT Security department about how to install McAfee on CoreOS servers. (For the uninitiated, CoreOS is a Linux distribution that comes without a package manager. It's intended as a base to run containers on, so you would deploy all software via container images.)
I remember someone suggesting to put McAfee into a fully isolated container that only exposes the port where it reports compliance, allowing it to scan itself to death all day long.
At one company, Symantec would also quarantine the compiler and build system. It certainly made builds exciting to have the antivirus playing Russian roulette with the entire toolchain.
Every time I went to configure a toolchain on Jetbrains' CLion, Cmake would create some test files and compile them. Windows Defender deleted every file and even the embedded toolchain. Fun :)
"You must exclude our program sub directory because temporary files are created containing interpreted code and your antivirus will ether block it outright, or lock the file so long you get application time outs"
Antivirus are some crazy shit that may trigger on any random action and will teach people to follow the most unsafe procedures without questioning, so they can get anything done.