RE: How Secure is Windows, Really?

From: QSCANFSCTL

Well based on what you are saying then IBM spent a lot of time on
something
that has very little usefulness as you say. And the LUG must have been
'stupid' as you say when it was placed in the top 10 requirements every
year
since 1999. My entire reason for being in this thread was to clarify
misrepresentations in the marketplace. You have your perceptions, not the
reality I see every day, but I'll respect that.

I never said it was useless.  The very first thing I said was that it might
be appropriate under certain circumstances.  But the fact that IBM spends a
lot of money on something doesn't mean everyone needs it.  Take DBCS, for
instance.  IBM has spent zillions of dollars over the years on DBCS, and yet
only a very few of my customers ever use it.  Similarly, the iSeries AV
hooks may be useful in certain circumstances, but yet may not be appropriate
for the average user.

Also, I never said anyone was stupid.  The only time I used the word was to
say that I was NOT stupid enough to install a program that did a DLTLIB
QSYS.  So stop putting words in my mouth... it's the last bastion of the
weak argument.

The common sense approach seems to me to be to spend your AV money
protecting your primary network storage.  Unless your iSeries is your
primary file server, you need a non-iSeries solution, and then you have to
put the appropriate procedures in place to ensure that your iSeries isn't an
inadvertent infection vector.

Joe