I'll drink to that Art !
Dave
|
| >Only one DLL needed... MSHTML.DLL
| >
| >But this whole argument is a bit pointless...
|
| It's not pointless simply because it's a semantic (not Symantec
)
| quagmire.
|
| >An AV suite shouldnt *need* IE. But if it does, this on it's own
| >doesnt make it bad. I would have thought reliability and detection rate
| >might be important factors!
|
| Of course, but obviously you're using the term "bad" in a different
| way than others who have posted.
|
| >In the same way that malware might hijack libraries such as
| >MSHTML.DLL, they might also go for any other library.
|
| Hijacking libraries is not the issue. That IE is particularly
| vulnerable and exploitable is the issue.
|
| >So the argument that using an AV suite that needs IE
| >is less secure doesnt hold.
|
| That's not the argument at all. The argument is that IE is a honeypot
| for malware so any av that requires it is a self contradiction and
| just plain stooopid!
Symantec, by requiring IE is, in effect,
| putting its blessing on IE. That's stooopid! And a "BAD THING".
|
| >So I'm not sure whose side I'm on now, so I'll hedge my bets and
| >say you are all wrong!
|
| Best to say we are all correct since we are.
|
|
| Art
|
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg