The majority of problems with this incident weren't due to lack of security tools, it was down to legacy systems needing to be run on Windows XP boxes that can't be patched against these vulnerabilities (mostly ancient Samba vulns).
No matter what you do to prevent the initial infection (virus scanning emails, firewall protection, etc) someone is going to double click the attachment from their personal email, visit the dodgy website or just be a victim of malvertising. But once it has the initial in it's going to spread like wildfire if the machines on your internal network are just not up to date.
There's plenty of legacy software in use in companies (and behemoths like the NHS) that can't run on anything newer.
The question is whether the cost of an incident like this is more expensive than getting everything updated and/or paying vendors to write stuff that will work on the latest OSes.
The majority of problems with this incident weren't due to lack of security tools, it was down to legacy systems needing to be run on Windows XP boxes that can't be patched against these vulnerabilities (mostly ancient Samba vulns).
No matter what you do to prevent the initial infection (virus scanning emails, firewall protection, etc) someone is going to double click the attachment from their personal email, visit the dodgy website or just be a victim of malvertising. But once it has the initial in it's going to spread like wildfire if the machines on your internal network are just not up to date.
There's plenty of legacy software in use in companies (and behemoths like the NHS) that can't run on anything newer.
The question is whether the cost of an incident like this is more expensive than getting everything updated and/or paying vendors to write stuff that will work on the latest OSes.