a)Yes.It is necessary. b)No.It is unnecessary. Just vote it and very welcome to you to give reason for your answer.Thanks.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Well, if cloud means internet, it is necessary to update your antimalware definitions (but I don't use one), fix vulnerabilities in installed software, internet backup, etc. So I voted: a)Yes.It is necessary.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Not really. Real-time updates and online backups are nice, but doesn't guarantee protection, especially over virtualization and default-deny. I'll say they're useful though.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Yes, with the new trends are tech they can be a great tool (File rating, heuristics, behaviors, comparing and many many other features), only one thing. We shouldn't depend on them so much, just as an additional layer of protection.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Not at all. It's one method and it's fine... but to say it's necessary? That's silly.
Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? It's just another Security aspect; not the sole Security aspect.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? The "Clud" is neccesary as a ekstra layer of protection, and only that IMHO. We still need solid tools like signatures HIPS/behaviour blocker, firewall..and common sense.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? For those who rely on conventional approaches to security like AVs, the cloud has the potential to enhance their performance. That said, the additional features do not necessarily equal better protection. It also has the potential of introducing additional vulnerabilities by making your security apps dependent on someone elses server, which you have no control over. Servers and sites are being hacked all the time. What guarantee is there that it won't happen to the AVs cloud servers? What are the potential consequences if/when it does happen? IMO, adding "the cloud" is an attempt to keep an increasingly ineffective but profitable class of security apps viable, and is an attempt to keep users dependent on apps that require them to keep paying. Your security package should be able to stand on its own.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? If properly implemented it improves overall performance and protection of an antivirus application. However I dislike the fact that nowadays many companies use it just as a marketing word. But like I said it is a method of improving protection and performance, just like many other technologies. Nowadays most major antivirus vendors already use many technologies, I don't agree with the statement that antivirus software is outdated or relying on one technology. You can see many different technologies which can provide great protection when combined: classic malware signatures, generic signatures (static heuristics), emulation (dynamic heuristics), behavioral blocking, behavioral analysis, reputation data, sandboxing/virtualisation, intrusion prevention, cloud computing and url filtering. Now don't tell me antivirus software is outdated.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? I agree - because it could be problematic when the connection to the cloud is broken
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? No, the cloud isn't necessary for security. It won't make the internet safer by any means, all is does, as far as this particular discussion goes, is make it easier on the user. There aren't any missed updates, updates per day won't matter, and so on. Now, if your connection goes south, you might have a problem. But, people like Panda foresaw issues like that and left a backup plan in the form of some protection off the net. You are at the mercy of someone else's security as far as servers and such, but generally it's safe, unlike other cloud usage where personal/business data is stored in the cloud and not just AV signatures.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? A choice filled with caveats and assumptions. Internet connection; computer use; HIPS; behavior blocker; being the first infected with a 0day; etc. Not necessary but very nice to have. SourMilk out
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? A security app that's tied to and dependent on cloud servers, and has full access to everything on your system could be used to take "calling home" to an unprecedented level. Given todays political climate, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the NSA was already looking into cloud dependent security apps as potential spying software. IMO, any improvement in performance and/or detection ability due to its being tied to the cloud is offset by the loss of control over the traffic in and out of your system via that application. What assurance would the user have that the only thing being looked for is malicious code? It could just as easily look for pirated software, personal files, and anything that they want to call a security issue. This has too much potential to be abused for me to even consider using such apps. I'll stay with a package that connects out only when I tell it to.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Cloud should never be the basis of a security program... that would be silly. However, using the cloud for unknown files/ other functions outside of the default is fine and should be encouraged.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? No I don't think that Cloud is necessary In the sense that it is essential for keeping a good protection of your system. You have to have something else, if the connections to the cloud fails. If the Cloud is used in a fusion with HIPS or a behavior blocker to evaluate a files credibility/reputation then I can see a purpose wiht the cloud. But a solid crafted behavior blocker or HIPS shall still be somewhat functional even if the connection to the cloud fails.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? Cloud technology is becoming absolutely necessary. With how many threats there are out there, giving updates every few hours just does not cut it anymore. There are also very many types of cloud-based technologies out there. A few examples would be Norton; It utilizes the cloud for Insight and Sonar. And those are the two key features of its protection that keep users from infection. Another one is Comodo, its white listing feature is cloudbased, along with its behaviour analyzing module. Can you imagine what it would be like if you downloaded signatures constantly for things like insight or comodo's white list? It would take up too much space on your hard drive and make things more clunky than it really needs to be.
Re: Do you think "Cloud" is neccesary for security aspect? You're only considering blacklisting, the weakest form of security. Whitelisting, virtualization, and backup are very different.
To some extent, "cloud" (although the term has been lately abused to refer to almost all sorts of things) may be useful for some users/companies (space, costs, time etc) but it may also present as a risk (security/privacy) for others. One has to estimate the value and trust one can put in the company providing the 'cloud' service before making any judgment/choice for oneself. As for asking whether is it 'necessary for security aspect', let's just say I'd treat this as a short-ended question and answer it with a simple "No".
No, to backup to a cloud or store vital files on a storage server that someone else owns and you rent is Lucretius specially with website getting hacked losing peoples info, Credit Card Numbers
About the only use I would have for the cloud would be as an additional storage for partition backups, provided those backups are well encrypted before being sent to their servers. For actual security purposes, I don't see the internet or the cloud as an ally. Not including those with physical access to your PC, the greatest threat to your PC is the internet. That same internet would also be a threat to the cloud servers of security apps, which will be a very tempting target. I will concede that it could enhance detections for default-permit based security apps, but IMO, that's just another step in an unending game of catch up. Like adding "reputation" it's still a reactive response to a problem that changes too fast for anything but a proactive response to be truly effective. If I understand it correctly, integrating security apps with the cloud (already hate this term) servers could substantially increase traffic for that user, not good for those with bandwidth caps. IMO, integrating security apps with "cloud" servers is a big step in the wrong direction. It makes your system more dependent on the same internet it's trying to defend you from. If I understand their operation correctly, a security apps that already has nearly unlimited access and control over your PC has to be allowed to connect in and out as it or its vendor chooses, transferring any file it wants to see. That also describes an remote access and control trojan. There's no application or company that I'll trust that far.
