henry@att.att.com (10/07/89)
In article <0002.8910051142.AA12544@ge.sei.cmu.edu> ut-emx!chrisj@cs.utexas.edu (Chris Johnson) writes: [Stuff Deleted] >Furthermore, I gather that GateKeeper is significantly more >configurable than SAM insofar as it maintains a privilege list which >can be easily viewed and edited (I've never used SAM, so I don't speak >from first-hand experience on this point, but people assure me that >it's a *very* important difference in practice). I have used both GateKeeper and SAM Intercept and I prefer the latter. The main reason? When "something suspicious" happens, GateKeeper says "you can't do that!" then if you want to override, you must open the Control Panel select GateKeeper and set up the permission; with SAM Intercept, at the time of the happening you can allow the action once or LEARN the action then and there! >GateKeeper doesn't provide a virus-scanner, but with Disinfectant >available (also for free) it's not much of a problem. Agreed. But it is handy to be able to scan as soon as you pop in a floppy. VirusDetective DA is a good way to do this. >One other thing that makes GateKeeper unique in the world of Macintosh >anti- virus systems is that it keeps a log file that details exactly >what virus related operations have been attempted, when, by whom and >against whom. I only see this as being useful if you're trying to track the propagation of a virus, but then you have to allow the "suspicious action" which GateKeeper doesn't do (unless you gave permission, in which case it isn't logged!) >- ----Chris (Johnson) >- ----Author of GateKeeper I'm not trying to put down GateKeeper, if you want to fight viruses cheaply, it's a must! Keep up the good work Chris! Henry C. Schmitt Author of Virus Encyclopdeia Latest Version dated 6/8/89 H3nry C. Schmitt | CompuServe: 72275,1456 (Rarely) | GEnie: H.Schmitt (Occasionally) Royal Inn of Yoruba | UUCP: Henry@chinet.chi.il.us (Best Bet)