5 ms·

Doesn't it seem that everyone is avoiding the "elephant in the room" here? Virus scanners are a severe drain on productivity. Perhaps I'm in the minority by run

Doesn't it seem that everyone is avoiding the "elephant in the room" here? Virus scanners are a severe drain on productivity. Perhaps I'm in the minority by running a Windows box, but when I open up Process Monitor (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645) it sickens me to see how much I/O is going toward stupid virus scanning operations. Not to mention the 500MB of real memory that the various scanner binaries are consuming. My virus scanner consumes more memory and I/O than my IDE (Visual Studio 2010). Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I would expect that a developer should know enough about computing to not get a virus. This, of course is assuming the organization has a competent IT department and is "securing the perimeter" with firewalls/proxies, and only allows approved software loaded on machines. Sure, this would be a radical approach to IT, but I think it's a policy that needs to be implemented.

rawsyntax 15y ago
what's interesting about this is that you now have a new virus... the virus scanner itself. They are difficult to uninstall, take up CPU and RAM, much like a real virus
Havoc 15y ago
>500MB of real memory that the various scanner binaries are consuming. I think you need a new AV. MSE uses <50MB and does an acceptable job. Another 5MB for a firewall and you're set.
johngalt 15y ago
IT here who has tried this. Completely agree, av tools are pigs and they never seem to stop viruses. Intuitively virus writers must test vs common av tools before releasing. A locked down network without av on the endpoints worked better in my experience, and the users loved it. The only reasons I still use av for some offices is this: 1. A manager will inevitably ask "omg why wasn't there AV on this users station?! Are you negligent!?" 2. Locking down the network can get in the user's way too. Just because I have good network practices doesn't mean that the software you require does too. All it takes is one business need/damn the damn the risks, and you are left scrambling.

rawsyntax 15y ago

what's interesting about this is that you now have a new virus... the virus scanner itself. They are difficult to uninstall, take up CPU and RAM, much like a real virus

Havoc 15y ago

>500MB of real memory that the various scanner binaries are consuming. I think you need a new AV. MSE uses <50MB and does an acceptable job. Another 5MB for a firewall and you're set.

johngalt 15y ago

IT here who has tried this. Completely agree, av tools are pigs and they never seem to stop viruses. Intuitively virus writers must test vs common av tools before releasing. A locked down network without av on the endpoints worked better in my experience, and the users loved it. The only reasons I still use av for some offices is this: 1. A manager will inevitably ask "omg why wasn't there AV on this users station?! Are you negligent!?" 2. Locking down the network can get in the user's way too. Just because I have good network practices doesn't mean that the software you require does too. All it takes is one business need/damn the damn the risks, and you are left scrambling.