Such a system won't necessarily be insecure. But its level of security will depend heavily on how it is designed and implemented.
It's no different that what we have today. Systems that aren't very well designed and poorly implemented, such as Microsoft Windows 98, are horribly insecure. On the other hand, systems with a solid design and an effective development and testing process will turn out to be very secure (ala OpenBSD).
These days, there's only one reason why a network is susceptible to spyware: the use of Microsoft Windows.
It's also well-known that the best way to avoid spyware is to not use Windows. Thankfully, alternative systems like Linux, Mac OS X, *BSD, and Solaris, among others, are available (and often for free).
Now, if for some reason a particular application requires Windows, the safest thing to do is to not connect that system to a network. At least if it does get infected, it will likely keep the infection contained.
Of course, the proper use of firewalls and other security devices is a must. Proper routers will effectively deal with the excessive network traffic such malicious software might generate.
We know exactly what the problem is. We have multiple methods of effectively dealing with it, if not preventing it outright. Thus there should never be a reason why a computer, let alone a network, becomes compromised by spyware. It's a totally preventable situation.
While it may be difficult to deal with the inherent instability often present in Windows-based systems, I don't see why you should have any problems keeping your network secure without spending a bundle of cash.
You should be able to set up an OpenBSD-based firewall, at the very least, to protect the network. Depending on how much traffic you're dealing with, you may instead want a few such systems. The cost of such a system is minor, especially when you consider the massive protection and benefits it brings.
Justice is about proving guilt. That's why in many legal systems there are prosecutors, whose job is to present claims against the accused. And then there are lawyers to defend the accused. There's usually a judge, and at times juries. I'd hope you realize that this whole show is there for the sole purpose of finding the truth. That is, finding what can be proven. It's not easy an easy task, but it's what justice is all about: proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Internet is known to be hostile. Any networks facing the Internet need to be properly secured. And the techniques for doing so are very well known and accessible.
We shouldn't allow people to display such incompetency and/or ignorance. While we can't expect any system to work perfectly, we also can't expect them to fail so horribly, apparently due to a deficient design. This was obvious a very serious flaw with the network, to allow it to fail so easily.
If those in the various fields designing computer-related systems ever wish to be considered engineers in the same vein as mechanical and civil engineers, then they can't let incidents like this go. This is comparable to a bridge collapsing in a faster than normal windstorm, all due to negligence on the part of the designers.
Your analogy isn't an apt one. The hospital is clearly the ones at fault here as well, mainly for not taking the very basic precautions that would have protected them.
It would be more akin to a white person walking naked into 1970s Harlem, shouting racial epithets, and then getting shot. Sure, the person may not be responsible directly for doing the shooting itself, but they did put themselves into a dangerous situation that was easily avoidable. Thus they are at the very least partially responsible for what happened.
No system, be it at a hospital or a business, should every be shut down in such a fashion. Basic security precautions will go a very long way towards preventing such incidents.
I'm not supporting NAV, nor AVG, nor the use of anti-virus software at all. In fact, I'm not supporting the use of Windows.
The best solution is to use software like OpenBSD or Solaris, which offers a far greater degree of security. Not only that, but it avoids all of the problems associated with the Windows anti-virus software.
The lowest end Sun Fire T1000 server costs £ 2,200.00. It doesn't come with a hard drive. You can get an 80 GB SATA drive from them for £ 81.94, but that's a hassle, and often isn't enough for many uses these days. Also, it only offers 1 PCI-E slot. It will be great as a server once it's available, but it's not desktop material.
Even the higher-end T1000s only include an 80 GB hard drive. While external storage is always an option, it isn't something that most regular users wish to deal with.
One can get an entry-level Ultra 20 for £ 560.00, and yes, it comes with a hard drive. Even a higher-end Ultra 20 will run you £ 1,700.00. A low-end Ultra 20 costs £ 1,450.00. Keep in mind that those are actual workstations, where you can easily add and remove hardware.
The number of CPUs is one factor. But there are many other concerns, including storage capacity and the ability to add additional hardware. Sun could offer a package including the best of both worlds, and they could potentially rival Apple.
Of course such capabilities have been available to paying users for decades. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What is being suggested, however, is that these capabilities can be economically brought down to everyday users. Apple is a favourite for mid-range multimedia applications, a market that SGI once dominated. Indeed, if SGI were to put out a lower-end system like the Indy again, things might must pick up for them.
I take it from your general attitude that you never seriously used SGI systems. They were lightyears ahead of their time, and in many respects aren't even equalled today. Their proprietary systems, while expensive, were of an extremely high quality. Unlike today, where you buy a Dell and know it'll likely fuck up within a short time span, SGI systems were engineered to function, and to function for ages.
Lately we've seen near-death companies turn themselves around. Apple managed it, and Sun isn't far behind. It would not be unreasonable to see SGI make a comeback, assuming they're quick enough to take advantage of opportunities like this. They need to start focusing on lower margin products, and offering affordable systems featuring 8 or more cores could be a good start.
Of course Sun already makes processors with 8 cores, in addition to numerous systems with far more processors than that. But those cost a lot. Far more than most individuals could possibly afford, and far more than many small businesses are willing to spend.
A dual 4-core processor system based on this technology from AMD may prove to be far more affordable. Thus it becomes a system that is within the financial grasp of individuals, and a real bargain for business users.
What freedoms do you really have with Firefox? No, seriously. Think about it for a minute.
Do you really think you'd be able to modify the code in an practical way? Take a peek at the Firefox and Mozilla codebases. They're of a terrible quality, and an unnecessary level of complexity in many cases. Sure, you have the freedom to mess with the code, but you'd likely be doing that because of a problem you've encountered. By the time you're comfortable enough with the code to make changes, you've already wasted a lot of time. Of course, there's a very small chance that your modification will even be accepted by the Firefox developers. Opera, on the other hand, just tends to work.
You could also create a branch of Firefox, if you saw fit. But then you run into the problems above, in addition to putting forth the effort towards maintaining your distribution.
So in the end, the "freedoms" you get by using Firefox are quite minimal. The minor benefits far outweighed by the massive hassles associated with trying to actually do anything with those "freedoms". Not only that, but the freedoms necessary with Firefox (due to its poor quality) are not necessary with Opera, because it just works.
This is a trend that may play out well for SGI and Sun. Both have been building systems which involve a massive number of CPUs for quite a while now. They have the experience that Microsoft doesn't have, for instance.
IRIX and Solaris are known to scale far beyond 4 processors. They're proven technologies that are known to work very well on multiprocessored systems.
SGI could easily use this to their advantage, releasing affordable systems that offer the benefit of IRIX on such machines. If they can come out with a system that appeals to developers and business users, then they could take on Apple, Sun, Dell and others again.
Sun, of course, already offers Opteron-based workstations. A dual CPU entry-level system, with four cores per CPU, could be quite useful. When you factor in the superb quality of Solaris, we could really see some truly fantastic workstations, at a very affordable price.
In the near future we'll likely see DragonFly BSD taking the lead as the performant open source operating system.
They have put much effort into creating a system that scales very well, at every level, on multiprocessor systems. The other BSDs are only beginning to catch up, but even then they've got a long way to go. Linux may be able to remain competitive, just due to the larger userbase and corporate backing.
Again, without actual numbers to back up your claims, I can't take them very seriously. "Wager" all you want. I want to see real data.
Even then, you'll likely have a difficult time offering capability parity. I know you may not like to admit this, but NAV does offer a lot of functionality. Even when going with the best of the best alternative firewalls, anti-virus solutions, email scanners and so forth, you will have a difficult time matching NAV's feature set comparably.
And your metric for measuring security is still rather flawed. While RAM consumption and CPU usage is easily measured in a quantitative fashion, "security" is not. Your test depends wholly on the individual attacking the system, how accessible the network is, and so forth. Even then, it's not a solid measure by any means. It's not something you could show to a CTO without being laughed at.
Frankly, I'll just stick with OpenBSD. There's no need for resource-consuming anti-virus and anti-spyware systems. There's no need to search for a firewall, as a very solid one is built right in. And even without ensuring its security, it'll likely remain far less vulnerable than a highly secured Windows system.
I can go to a CTO and show them the history record of OpenBSD. I can show them that it's built upon a highly reliable theoretical base, and that its implementation is superb. The development process inherently leads to secure software.
It's too bad that you're willing to accept software that fails so horribly.
Why do you deem it acceptable that Firefox crashes on certain plugins? Why do you deem it acceptable that it consumes massive amounts of RAM?
On one hand you call Firefox "good", but point out that its horribly flawed. Not only that, but Opera doesn't suffer from those problems. It doesn't matter that Firefox is open source, and Opera is not. All that matters is that Opera is a better product.
Now, I suspect that you may have been trying to be funny. But the joke sort of fails because Firefox does actually exhibit the problems you describe.
The problem may be Firefox. Is it a 1.5.x release? There have been people who have reported numerous security problems relating to its use.
The best thing for you to do at this point may be to switch to Opera, at least for a little while. If you do not experience the problems, then you ought to remove Firefox, and continue to use Opera instead.
>Recall, most of the serious users of business applications are already on systems from IBM or Sun.
Recall?!?!?
Seriously;
Quickbook, Autocad, Lotus Notes, need any more examples for your serious users of business applications?
You realize that IBM puts out Lotus Notes, correct? The server portion runs on a number of non-Windows platforms, including Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, and a number of IBM systems. The client is also available for Mac OS X.
Then there's software like CATIA, which is marketed by IBM.
And while QuickBooks (it's QuickBooks, not "Quickbook", just so you know) may have somewhat of a following with small businesses, it's nowhere near as widely used by major business users.
Any administrator would do their best to incorporate technology which has a proven track record at being secure. Unfortunately, Windows does not offer such a record. Between this and the numerous other well-known issues involving Windows, it has been nothing but trouble for many, many users.
Thus, any administrator worth his or her weight in salt knows to use systems that are designed to be secure. Systems like Solaris and OpenBSD fit such a criteria. Much effort has been put into making them solid, reliable systems that are far more secure than their counterparts.
While it's naive to think they're perfect, an administrator of such systems can rest assured that they have picked quality systems. One just can't do that with a Windows system. Issues like this crop up, even on beta or development systems, far too often. A development or test server going down for a day because of Microsoft's anti-spyware program removing other essential software can be a massive burden. Halted development and testing can often be nearly as detrimental and financially harmful as a downed production server.
Better yet, replace Firefox and Internet Explorer with Opera.
The recent 1.5.x releases of Firefox have been a disaster for many. They weren't very well managed, thus leading to all the problems we have experienced. Opera, on the other hand, have proven time and time again that they're committed to puttin out a solid, well-engineered product. The recent preview releases of Opera 9 are looking quite swell. Give it a try, if you haven't already.
I know a lot of Windows users who decided to, unfortunately, avoid the use of anti-virus software after switching to Firefox. One of the main points that those urging a switch to Firefox used was that Firefox won't allow one's system to become compromised. Of course, that is a very false statement to make, and potentially quite dangerous.
The first problem I see with your experiment is that you're comparing software that offers vastly different capabilities. Some do more than others, for instance. Like I said, some include email scanning, while others don't. Some include firewall capabilities, while others don't.
So while AVG alone might run quicker than NAV, it doesn't offer the firewall capabilities. Soon enough you've installed ZoneAlarm or Kerio or some other firewall. And you may very well find your system performing worse than using only NAV for similar functionality, with a greater amount of memory consumption.
Second, you're trying to give a quantitative value to something that is qualitative. What metric do you use to measure the vulnerability of a particular PC? Sure, you can throw a certain amount of malicious software at it, but that's not a realistic test.
Working with Commodore 64s all day would be a dream job for many. After dealing with shitty Dell systems and Windows all day long, maintaining Commodore 64s would be a dream come true.
McAfee is another fairly major competitor. AVG is a rising star. And there are others, including Panda. NAV is one of the big players, but by no means does it completely dominate the market.
Software like NAV must inherently use the CPU on a frequent basis. Recall, it often has to scan data on each file access. Each time an application is started, or a DLL is loaded, it must perform a scan. Some of these products also protect from malicious VBScript scripts. When you're dealing with a product that also includes a firewall component, you'll incur some overhead during network activity. And of course, many of these products also include email filtering, which will again consume some CPU and RAM.
While I wouldn't call NAV (or much other Windows software) well-written, we can't pretend that it'd be possible for them to offer the services and capabilities they do without using the amount of resources they use. Continual resource usage is inherent to the task they perform.
What sort of business applications are we talking about? If we're talking about serious users, Excel and Access aren't exactly the software that is used. Recall, most of the serious users of business applications are already on systems from IBM or Sun.
But for smaller shops and firms, an OpenBSD or Linux box running OpenOffice is often more than sufficient. Not only that, but it's far more secure that a Windows box, and doesn't suffer from nonsense like this. The maintenance costs of such non-Windows systems are often much less, because you don't need to have a technician in to deal with Microsoft's anti-virus or anti-spyware program interfering with the operation of other software. And of course, the initial price of $0 for the software is superb.
Is it really worth the hassle to use Windows, especially when it comes to business users? I mean, when I set up a system for a firm, they want it to work. They don't want to be hassled with issues like this. This sort of nonsense drastically cuts down on the performance of the IT staff, as they're forced to deal with it rather than with other issues.
Each time I hear about a problem like this, I'm glad I recommend and employ the use of Solaris and OpenBSD. There's no worry about installing anti-virus software, let alone anti-virus software from one vendor which targets anti-virus software from another.
Slashdot Mirror
Such a system won't necessarily be insecure. But its level of security will depend heavily on how it is designed and implemented.
It's no different that what we have today. Systems that aren't very well designed and poorly implemented, such as Microsoft Windows 98, are horribly insecure. On the other hand, systems with a solid design and an effective development and testing process will turn out to be very secure (ala OpenBSD).
These days, there's only one reason why a network is susceptible to spyware: the use of Microsoft Windows.
It's also well-known that the best way to avoid spyware is to not use Windows. Thankfully, alternative systems like Linux, Mac OS X, *BSD, and Solaris, among others, are available (and often for free).
Now, if for some reason a particular application requires Windows, the safest thing to do is to not connect that system to a network. At least if it does get infected, it will likely keep the infection contained.
Of course, the proper use of firewalls and other security devices is a must. Proper routers will effectively deal with the excessive network traffic such malicious software might generate.
We know exactly what the problem is. We have multiple methods of effectively dealing with it, if not preventing it outright. Thus there should never be a reason why a computer, let alone a network, becomes compromised by spyware. It's a totally preventable situation.
While it may be difficult to deal with the inherent instability often present in Windows-based systems, I don't see why you should have any problems keeping your network secure without spending a bundle of cash.
You should be able to set up an OpenBSD-based firewall, at the very least, to protect the network. Depending on how much traffic you're dealing with, you may instead want a few such systems. The cost of such a system is minor, especially when you consider the massive protection and benefits it brings.
Justice is about proving guilt. That's why in many legal systems there are prosecutors, whose job is to present claims against the accused. And then there are lawyers to defend the accused. There's usually a judge, and at times juries. I'd hope you realize that this whole show is there for the sole purpose of finding the truth. That is, finding what can be proven. It's not easy an easy task, but it's what justice is all about: proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Internet is known to be hostile. Any networks facing the Internet need to be properly secured. And the techniques for doing so are very well known and accessible.
We shouldn't allow people to display such incompetency and/or ignorance. While we can't expect any system to work perfectly, we also can't expect them to fail so horribly, apparently due to a deficient design. This was obvious a very serious flaw with the network, to allow it to fail so easily.
If those in the various fields designing computer-related systems ever wish to be considered engineers in the same vein as mechanical and civil engineers, then they can't let incidents like this go. This is comparable to a bridge collapsing in a faster than normal windstorm, all due to negligence on the part of the designers.
Your analogy isn't an apt one. The hospital is clearly the ones at fault here as well, mainly for not taking the very basic precautions that would have protected them.
It would be more akin to a white person walking naked into 1970s Harlem, shouting racial epithets, and then getting shot. Sure, the person may not be responsible directly for doing the shooting itself, but they did put themselves into a dangerous situation that was easily avoidable. Thus they are at the very least partially responsible for what happened.
No system, be it at a hospital or a business, should every be shut down in such a fashion. Basic security precautions will go a very long way towards preventing such incidents.
You obviously didn't read my posts.
I'm not supporting NAV, nor AVG, nor the use of anti-virus software at all. In fact, I'm not supporting the use of Windows.
The best solution is to use software like OpenBSD or Solaris, which offers a far greater degree of security. Not only that, but it avoids all of the problems associated with the Windows anti-virus software.
The lowest end Sun Fire T1000 server costs £ 2,200.00. It doesn't come with a hard drive. You can get an 80 GB SATA drive from them for £ 81.94, but that's a hassle, and often isn't enough for many uses these days. Also, it only offers 1 PCI-E slot. It will be great as a server once it's available, but it's not desktop material.
Even the higher-end T1000s only include an 80 GB hard drive. While external storage is always an option, it isn't something that most regular users wish to deal with.
One can get an entry-level Ultra 20 for £ 560.00, and yes, it comes with a hard drive. Even a higher-end Ultra 20 will run you £ 1,700.00. A low-end Ultra 20 costs £ 1,450.00. Keep in mind that those are actual workstations, where you can easily add and remove hardware.
The number of CPUs is one factor. But there are many other concerns, including storage capacity and the ability to add additional hardware. Sun could offer a package including the best of both worlds, and they could potentially rival Apple.
Of course such capabilities have been available to paying users for decades. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What is being suggested, however, is that these capabilities can be economically brought down to everyday users. Apple is a favourite for mid-range multimedia applications, a market that SGI once dominated. Indeed, if SGI were to put out a lower-end system like the Indy again, things might must pick up for them.
I take it from your general attitude that you never seriously used SGI systems. They were lightyears ahead of their time, and in many respects aren't even equalled today. Their proprietary systems, while expensive, were of an extremely high quality. Unlike today, where you buy a Dell and know it'll likely fuck up within a short time span, SGI systems were engineered to function, and to function for ages.
Lately we've seen near-death companies turn themselves around. Apple managed it, and Sun isn't far behind. It would not be unreasonable to see SGI make a comeback, assuming they're quick enough to take advantage of opportunities like this. They need to start focusing on lower margin products, and offering affordable systems featuring 8 or more cores could be a good start.
Of course Sun already makes processors with 8 cores, in addition to numerous systems with far more processors than that. But those cost a lot. Far more than most individuals could possibly afford, and far more than many small businesses are willing to spend.
A dual 4-core processor system based on this technology from AMD may prove to be far more affordable. Thus it becomes a system that is within the financial grasp of individuals, and a real bargain for business users.
What freedoms do you really have with Firefox? No, seriously. Think about it for a minute.
Do you really think you'd be able to modify the code in an practical way? Take a peek at the Firefox and Mozilla codebases. They're of a terrible quality, and an unnecessary level of complexity in many cases. Sure, you have the freedom to mess with the code, but you'd likely be doing that because of a problem you've encountered. By the time you're comfortable enough with the code to make changes, you've already wasted a lot of time. Of course, there's a very small chance that your modification will even be accepted by the Firefox developers. Opera, on the other hand, just tends to work.
You could also create a branch of Firefox, if you saw fit. But then you run into the problems above, in addition to putting forth the effort towards maintaining your distribution.
So in the end, the "freedoms" you get by using Firefox are quite minimal. The minor benefits far outweighed by the massive hassles associated with trying to actually do anything with those "freedoms". Not only that, but the freedoms necessary with Firefox (due to its poor quality) are not necessary with Opera, because it just works.
This is a trend that may play out well for SGI and Sun. Both have been building systems which involve a massive number of CPUs for quite a while now. They have the experience that Microsoft doesn't have, for instance.
IRIX and Solaris are known to scale far beyond 4 processors. They're proven technologies that are known to work very well on multiprocessored systems.
SGI could easily use this to their advantage, releasing affordable systems that offer the benefit of IRIX on such machines. If they can come out with a system that appeals to developers and business users, then they could take on Apple, Sun, Dell and others again.
Sun, of course, already offers Opteron-based workstations. A dual CPU entry-level system, with four cores per CPU, could be quite useful. When you factor in the superb quality of Solaris, we could really see some truly fantastic workstations, at a very affordable price.
In the near future we'll likely see DragonFly BSD taking the lead as the performant open source operating system.
They have put much effort into creating a system that scales very well, at every level, on multiprocessor systems. The other BSDs are only beginning to catch up, but even then they've got a long way to go. Linux may be able to remain competitive, just due to the larger userbase and corporate backing.
Again, without actual numbers to back up your claims, I can't take them very seriously. "Wager" all you want. I want to see real data.
Even then, you'll likely have a difficult time offering capability parity. I know you may not like to admit this, but NAV does offer a lot of functionality. Even when going with the best of the best alternative firewalls, anti-virus solutions, email scanners and so forth, you will have a difficult time matching NAV's feature set comparably.
And your metric for measuring security is still rather flawed. While RAM consumption and CPU usage is easily measured in a quantitative fashion, "security" is not. Your test depends wholly on the individual attacking the system, how accessible the network is, and so forth. Even then, it's not a solid measure by any means. It's not something you could show to a CTO without being laughed at.
Frankly, I'll just stick with OpenBSD. There's no need for resource-consuming anti-virus and anti-spyware systems. There's no need to search for a firewall, as a very solid one is built right in. And even without ensuring its security, it'll likely remain far less vulnerable than a highly secured Windows system.
I can go to a CTO and show them the history record of OpenBSD. I can show them that it's built upon a highly reliable theoretical base, and that its implementation is superb. The development process inherently leads to secure software.
It's too bad that you're willing to accept software that fails so horribly.
Why do you deem it acceptable that Firefox crashes on certain plugins? Why do you deem it acceptable that it consumes massive amounts of RAM?
On one hand you call Firefox "good", but point out that its horribly flawed. Not only that, but Opera doesn't suffer from those problems. It doesn't matter that Firefox is open source, and Opera is not. All that matters is that Opera is a better product.
Now, I suspect that you may have been trying to be funny. But the joke sort of fails because Firefox does actually exhibit the problems you describe.
The problem may be Firefox. Is it a 1.5.x release? There have been people who have reported numerous security problems relating to its use.
The best thing for you to do at this point may be to switch to Opera, at least for a little while. If you do not experience the problems, then you ought to remove Firefox, and continue to use Opera instead.
>Recall, most of the serious users of business applications are already on systems from IBM or Sun.
Recall?!?!?
Seriously;
Quickbook, Autocad, Lotus Notes, need any more examples for your serious users of business applications?
You realize that IBM puts out Lotus Notes, correct? The server portion runs on a number of non-Windows platforms, including Solaris, Linux, HP-UX, and a number of IBM systems. The client is also available for Mac OS X.
Then there's software like CATIA, which is marketed by IBM.
And while QuickBooks (it's QuickBooks, not "Quickbook", just so you know) may have somewhat of a following with small businesses, it's nowhere near as widely used by major business users.
Any administrator would do their best to incorporate technology which has a proven track record at being secure. Unfortunately, Windows does not offer such a record. Between this and the numerous other well-known issues involving Windows, it has been nothing but trouble for many, many users.
Thus, any administrator worth his or her weight in salt knows to use systems that are designed to be secure. Systems like Solaris and OpenBSD fit such a criteria. Much effort has been put into making them solid, reliable systems that are far more secure than their counterparts.
While it's naive to think they're perfect, an administrator of such systems can rest assured that they have picked quality systems. One just can't do that with a Windows system. Issues like this crop up, even on beta or development systems, far too often. A development or test server going down for a day because of Microsoft's anti-spyware program removing other essential software can be a massive burden. Halted development and testing can often be nearly as detrimental and financially harmful as a downed production server.
Better yet, replace Firefox and Internet Explorer with Opera.
The recent 1.5.x releases of Firefox have been a disaster for many. They weren't very well managed, thus leading to all the problems we have experienced. Opera, on the other hand, have proven time and time again that they're committed to puttin out a solid, well-engineered product. The recent preview releases of Opera 9 are looking quite swell. Give it a try, if you haven't already.
I know a lot of Windows users who decided to, unfortunately, avoid the use of anti-virus software after switching to Firefox. One of the main points that those urging a switch to Firefox used was that Firefox won't allow one's system to become compromised. Of course, that is a very false statement to make, and potentially quite dangerous.
The first problem I see with your experiment is that you're comparing software that offers vastly different capabilities. Some do more than others, for instance. Like I said, some include email scanning, while others don't. Some include firewall capabilities, while others don't.
So while AVG alone might run quicker than NAV, it doesn't offer the firewall capabilities. Soon enough you've installed ZoneAlarm or Kerio or some other firewall. And you may very well find your system performing worse than using only NAV for similar functionality, with a greater amount of memory consumption.
Second, you're trying to give a quantitative value to something that is qualitative. What metric do you use to measure the vulnerability of a particular PC? Sure, you can throw a certain amount of malicious software at it, but that's not a realistic test.
Working with Commodore 64s all day would be a dream job for many. After dealing with shitty Dell systems and Windows all day long, maintaining Commodore 64s would be a dream come true.
McAfee is another fairly major competitor. AVG is a rising star. And there are others, including Panda. NAV is one of the big players, but by no means does it completely dominate the market.
Software like NAV must inherently use the CPU on a frequent basis. Recall, it often has to scan data on each file access. Each time an application is started, or a DLL is loaded, it must perform a scan. Some of these products also protect from malicious VBScript scripts. When you're dealing with a product that also includes a firewall component, you'll incur some overhead during network activity. And of course, many of these products also include email filtering, which will again consume some CPU and RAM.
While I wouldn't call NAV (or much other Windows software) well-written, we can't pretend that it'd be possible for them to offer the services and capabilities they do without using the amount of resources they use. Continual resource usage is inherent to the task they perform.
What sort of business applications are we talking about? If we're talking about serious users, Excel and Access aren't exactly the software that is used. Recall, most of the serious users of business applications are already on systems from IBM or Sun.
But for smaller shops and firms, an OpenBSD or Linux box running OpenOffice is often more than sufficient. Not only that, but it's far more secure that a Windows box, and doesn't suffer from nonsense like this. The maintenance costs of such non-Windows systems are often much less, because you don't need to have a technician in to deal with Microsoft's anti-virus or anti-spyware program interfering with the operation of other software. And of course, the initial price of $0 for the software is superb.
Is it really worth the hassle to use Windows, especially when it comes to business users? I mean, when I set up a system for a firm, they want it to work. They don't want to be hassled with issues like this. This sort of nonsense drastically cuts down on the performance of the IT staff, as they're forced to deal with it rather than with other issues.
Each time I hear about a problem like this, I'm glad I recommend and employ the use of Solaris and OpenBSD. There's no worry about installing anti-virus software, let alone anti-virus software from one vendor which targets anti-virus software from another.