Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="danb" data-source="post: 867259" data-attributes="member: 62850">Here is an analogy… think about emergency room doctors or people in the environmental field cleaning up environmental disasters.&nbsp; When they go to work, they are subject to serious exposure to viruses and chemicals so they wear a face mask, gloves and an entire array of other personal protective equipment.&nbsp; But when they are home with their families that level of PPE is not required, but they certainly still wash their hands and take other reasonable precautions.Could you imagine if they were only afforded one security posture?&nbsp; That would mean that they would not be able to wear full PPE at work, because then that would mean that they would have to wear it at home as well, which would not only be a serious inconvenience at home, but it would also increase their exposure to viruses and chemicals at work.For the same reason, when you are driving your car you should wear your seat belt.&nbsp; But when you are at the McDonald&#039;s drive through and you need to get your wallet out of your back pocket, you might need to undo your seat belt temporarily.&nbsp; But for the most part it is safe to not wear your seat belt at the drive through.&nbsp; If you had a seat belt that allowed you to access your wallet, then the seat belt by design would not be as effective.The absolute vast majority of malware comes from the user browsing the web or checking email, but for the malware that does come from other sources, there are still protections in place when VS’s locking mechanism is OFF.The one size fits all security posture model simply does not work for cybersecurity because it means that at any given time, the protections are either significantly more aggressive than they need to be or not aggressive enough.&nbsp; This also allows the locking mechanism to be even tighter than it would be able to be otherwise.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="danb, post: 867259, member: 62850"] Here is an analogy… think about emergency room doctors or people in the environmental field cleaning up environmental disasters. When they go to work, they are subject to serious exposure to viruses and chemicals so they wear a face mask, gloves and an entire array of other personal protective equipment. But when they are home with their families that level of PPE is not required, but they certainly still wash their hands and take other reasonable precautions. Could you imagine if they were only afforded one security posture? That would mean that they would not be able to wear full PPE at work, because then that would mean that they would have to wear it at home as well, which would not only be a serious inconvenience at home, but it would also increase their exposure to viruses and chemicals at work. For the same reason, when you are driving your car you should wear your seat belt. But when you are at the McDonald's drive through and you need to get your wallet out of your back pocket, you might need to undo your seat belt temporarily. But for the most part it is safe to not wear your seat belt at the drive through. If you had a seat belt that allowed you to access your wallet, then the seat belt by design would not be as effective. The absolute vast majority of malware comes from the user browsing the web or checking email, but for the malware that does come from other sources, there are still protections in place when VS’s locking mechanism is OFF. The one size fits all security posture model simply does not work for cybersecurity because it means that at any given time, the protections are either significantly more aggressive than they need to be or not aggressive enough. This also allows the locking mechanism to be even tighter than it would be able to be otherwise. [/QUOTE]

Verification