Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 1 subscriber
  • Views 10359 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Anti-Virus exclusions

Sophos_User

Can anybody provide any Anti_Virus exclusions for the following products?

NetBackup

SureSync

Microsoft VSS

:2463


This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • 0

    I can't resist, I - just - can't - resist

    Now what is this exclusion all about? I think that several categories should be distinguished:

    1. "unnecessary" (duplicate) scanning
    2. performance or access issues
    3. false positives

    1. is of rather general nature.

    2. is often product specific and not necessarily the scanner's fault.  Software should be written bearing AV software (and security products in general) in mind - there are some not-so-good examples (like software which puts data into unaccessible folders for "recovery" purposes - which is fun when you scan for rootkits).

    3. well - how likely is this, seriously?

    If vendors think that some vital files should be exempted from scanning then they shouldn't scatter them all over the place, refrain from putting executable code in places they don't want to be scanned and so on. Excuse, I had to rant after collecting samples (got about a dozen of new detections) for two weeks - with all the so-called security (OS and applications) in place you wonder how this crap sneaks in. And now I'm told that I perhaps should only do occasional scans and restrict them to areas or files where no harm could be done by a (and it's not even explicitly stated) false positive? :robotmad:  

    Christian

    :2709
Reply
  • 0

    I can't resist, I - just - can't - resist

    Now what is this exclusion all about? I think that several categories should be distinguished:

    1. "unnecessary" (duplicate) scanning
    2. performance or access issues
    3. false positives

    1. is of rather general nature.

    2. is often product specific and not necessarily the scanner's fault.  Software should be written bearing AV software (and security products in general) in mind - there are some not-so-good examples (like software which puts data into unaccessible folders for "recovery" purposes - which is fun when you scan for rootkits).

    3. well - how likely is this, seriously?

    If vendors think that some vital files should be exempted from scanning then they shouldn't scatter them all over the place, refrain from putting executable code in places they don't want to be scanned and so on. Excuse, I had to rant after collecting samples (got about a dozen of new detections) for two weeks - with all the so-called security (OS and applications) in place you wonder how this crap sneaks in. And now I'm told that I perhaps should only do occasional scans and restrict them to areas or files where no harm could be done by a (and it's not even explicitly stated) false positive? :robotmad:  

    Christian

    :2709
Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML