3 ms·
What seems crazy to me is running this type of antivirus on servers. It's kind of a hacky drag on the desktop, but I can at least see the tradeoff - you're goin
by ufmace 8y ago
What seems crazy to me is running this type of antivirus on servers. It's kind of a hacky drag on the desktop, but I can at least see the tradeoff - you're going to be visiting websites that could be hacked, downloading and testing software that could have been modified or malicious, etc. There have been plenty of cases of very safe mainstream ordinary websites getting set up to serve ads that install malware.
Servers, though. I get defense in depth and all that, but running antivirus seems like a step too far. Your servers should be locked down and only running well-tested software. Least permissions for all web processes, etc. Why risk slowing down or corrupting your server processes for a small increase in protection in an unlikely scenario?
- amaccuish 8y agoFor web I'd say no, for print and file servers I'd say yes to antivirus.
- sokoloff 8y agoThough I substantially agree with you, PCI-DSS requires anti-virus for in-scope servers. (They used to only require that it "be installed", which meant it was dutifully installed and not enabled in a lot of cases. Later, they updated that to require that it be configured to at least periodically scan.)
- snarfy 8y agoIt's blacklist vs whitelist. Servers should only have a whitelist.