Slashdot Mirror
Most Users Think They Have AntiVirus Protection, While Only Half Do
SkiifGeek writes "A survey carried out by McAfee and the NCSA found that while more than 90% of users believed that they were protected by antivirus or antimalware products that were updated at least once a week, only 51% actually were. 'Even with significantly growing awareness by everyday users of the need for efficient and effective antivirus / antimalware software, and the increasing market penetration achieved by the security industry, the nature of rapidly evolving Information Security threats means that the baseline of protection is outstripping the ability of users to keep up (without some form of extra help).' The study is available online in PDF format. What sort of an effect does this sort of thinking, and practice, have on the overall security of your systems, networks, and efforts to educate?"
New computer users forget to update antivirus. In other news water is wet, and fire is hot. Film at 11...
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
Every anti-virus program I've used in years defaults to auto-updating with zero configuration. How can that many people screw that up?
I've been travelling around the world for the last six months, usually staying with people from hospitality associations. I've connected my iPod to a lot of computers to update Rockbox, and I'm amazed at how often autorun files from some virus or another are left on the iPod. Sure enough, these people have rarely installed antivirus, and don't even realize the need to run Windows Update. Indeed, most couldn't even get much from running Windows Update, since in much of the world legitimate Windows installations are difficult to achieve.
I downloaded this antivirus from this webpage that told me "YOUR COMPUTER IS INFECTED! DOWNLOAD FREE ANTIVIRUS!". :(
Why do I keep getting popups?
It's the antivirus/computer companies fault, since they switched to giving people with new computers only 30-60 days of protection when they would give you a full year or even software that never expired... People think they still get full service when they buy a computer that they did 2-3 years ago.
I run Windows. If I don't have anti-virus or the definitions are out of date (last time this summer when I was away for a few weeks) it'll nag. Same if I disable my firewall just to see if the reason an application isn't working is because I've blocked something I shouldn't have. It really doesn't get any easier than that, if they're not running updates they must have disabled everything themselves, and there's really nothing you can do with users that insist on shooting themselves in the foot because the safety is annoying.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
people thinking that a anti-virus program that requires people to update manually, updates automatically, and they therefore don't have to do anything.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Etch-A-Sketch doesn't actually need anti-virus.
In the very early 2000s, when I started my business, most of my "problems" involved dealing with Windows 98 crapping out or computers just grinding to a halt from overbloatedness and installation of a few too many Bonzi Buddies. Often I was asked to help install antivirus software. But they almost never had viruses.
A few years later, almost all the computers I worked on had antivirus and/or antispyware software... yet almost every single one had some sort of virus, usually a botnet-style worm, or at least loads of spyware. In my opinion this is proof that viruses are something one can only avoid through overall system security and, most importantly, knowledge about computers--no antivirus will protect you if you cannot protect yourself.
While doing tech support for some family and friends I have come across this. I would ask them what AV program they were using, and they would state, "Whatever my ISP is giving me" I ask for more info and they tell me that their ISP told them they get free antivirus with their service. I asked what program they installed, and they would respond with a blank stare.
From what I have gathered, half believe the ISP installed and updates their AV in the same way Microsoft works. They believed that the ISP installed AV when they set up service and that the AV program gets updated the same way MS updates their system. The other half believe the ISP runs antivirus for them on the line so they do not need anything installed.
When I inform them that they need their own, they ask how much. I inform them of AVG and ClamAv* and that those two are at no cost. They then state they cannot be any good if they are free and they go buy either Norton or McAfee.
*I am now Linux only, so I am not familiar with current Windows AV programs. I have Clam on a few systems and AVG on a few others.
Apparently they are used to test new virii before they are released, that's why they perform that poor.
I'm no anti-virus expert--but does anyone need anti-virus software anymore? Gone are the days when viruses are spread by floppy. (Mostly) gone are the days when email clients were so brain-dead that they would automatically execute attachments. But most importantly, gone are the days when the main type of infection is viruses (which spread via some sort of user action). These days, worms (which require no user action) are the dominant threat. And anti-virus software, which relies on signatures, is nearly useless against worms which (by their automatic nature) spread far too quickly for even automatic signature updates to catch. Furthermore, worms generally cause most of their havoc just by spreading (and clogging the network), and by infecting PCs to use as bot-farms.
Perhaps I'm just isolated from the sort of users who are so stupid as to get viruses on their PCs...but are there any left? And does anti-virus software help these people?
I can't get that stuff to run under WINE.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
What impact does this have on systems and networks we run?
None.
If it's desktop systems we run, I assume those systems are locked down, antivirus and firewall running, and the users don't have admin rights.
If it's networks or servers, those systems are locked down every way possible to protect them from the compromised systems.
What impact does it have on my interactions with families and friend looking for free tech support?
Now there, there may be an impact.
The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
Solution #1: Linux.
Solution #2: Mac OS X.
Solution #3: No computer for you! Come back, one year!
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
I am using a cracked version of McAfee Security Center, mainly because my ancient copy of Symantec Antivirus stopped being able to update its definitions.
I STILL can't update my definitions with the cracked version, right now I'm looking into an FOSS antivirus.Could someone please recommend an option for the unprotected?
Same for me. Until I was given a free copy of Kaspersky from my provider. It's like looking at your own intestines after having spent a 6 year period in the rainforests of Borneo.
My wife's computer at work has a secretary account and an administrator account. She always runs in the secretary account. That's a good thing because malware can't install itself when the administrator isn't logged on. On the other hand, the virus update doesn't seem to work unless the administrator is logged on. There also seems to be a problem of the antivirus update getting past the firewall on the router.
It seems that the automatic virus updates don't work unless you're running in an inherently insecure mode.
I hate keeping up on it, but I dont use Anti Virus and I do just fine, I not a stupid porn-looking, spyware infested computer user, I know what to look for and what to stay away from.
Stop listing porn as a reason for viruses and spyware. You can get infected with either from almost anywhere.
I went 18 months without AV software on my Windows 2000 machine a few years back. I did not get infected with any viruses or malware. I was still using that system until March of this year when I moved to Debian Etch. I surfed many pornsites. However, I trusted the maintainers of those sites. I trusted them more than I would trust the maintainers of MSNBC.com and Ebay.com. There is a decent group of people out there who just want porn with no hassles. No viruses, no popups, and no malware. They took advantage of the situation and set up places to get porn without that stuff. Simple free market forces. Other sites were providing porn but with it they were messing with a person's computers. Someone else stepped up and provided porn without messing with a person's computers.
If this was seven years ago your statement might have more merit, but things have changed a lot. People don't like popups, viruses and malware. Those same people know how to run a webserver. They merely extended some courtesy to others and those others kept returning. Some basic Google text ads and they had a nice little income rolling in. All without infecting a person's computers.
By they way, it only takes one of your "what to stay away from." sites to get hit with a XSS or mis-configured item to infect you with something. Same as with any site I go to. And I bet that some of your sites are targeted more heavily than my sites.
Set up a fake video site like youtube and have a gif show up instead of a actual video player. Tell the user they must install the plugin (some exe file) to watch the video. Anyone with limited html skill should be able to pull that off.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Almost every morning after I switch on my computer at work it's unusable for about half an hour because it has to check for viruses. Why does it have to be like that? Why can't that #&%#&@ program just be niced so I can do my work?
-- Cheers!
I used to believe in virus protection but with the advent of all these rootkits that are undetectable by virus scanners, whats the point of having a virus scanner installed? If someone really wants to get into your computer, they can. If I don't click on everything I get emailed and I keep my windows installation up to date with updates from microsoft, I don't see what added value a virus scanner offers besides slowing down my computer.
On the other hand, the virus update doesn't seem to work unless the administrator is logged on.
The you have a crappy antivirus program. Even AVG Free does this in Limited User. I used Limited User everywhere on my computers, I rarely log in as Admin. Of course, I do have the knowledge to set up a machine that way. Something most -normal- people cannot...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
The fact that there really isn't an antivirus solution out there that protects against rootkits by default is also quite scary, because I have a fair knowledge of things computery, and it took me half an hour to find a rootkit detector that would run on Windows x64. It's not that much better for regular XP users, since 'rootkit' isn't (for whatever reason) yet lumped in with 'virus'.
Anyone know why that is?
It's free and open-source, but doesn't have an on-access scanner. AVG and Avast are commercial, but have free versions.
I have attempted to run as a limited user on my home PC, but almost every program I use (mainly PC games) requires admin rights for some stupid reason; if people would make there programs use user spaces instead of system spaces then this would be much more feasible for more people.
But I've never gotten a virus, not once.
Sorry but how do you know, if you haven't used anti-virus software in years? Do you expect a little flag to come up saying "help help I'm infected, get an anti-virus program!"? You could be infected and not even know it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The survey results are probably bogus. A lot of people who don't have antivirus software will lie and say "of course i do", either out of embarrassment or avoid a sales pitch.
People think that a Firewall is going to protect them and because Windows ships with a (low security) firewall they think they are protected. Also, it seems that the people who are unprotected aren't those that have low risk systems,I have had people on Dial-up pay for an anti-virus for checking their e-mails. And people who go online a ton seem to be unprotected. Ill admit, when I was on Windows all I had was ad-aware (free) to check for spyware every now and then. It only got really infected once. Then I switched to a Linux system and am very happy that the security risks are minimal all I really have to do is put chkrootkit on cron, install the updates, and set up iptables and Im mostly fine save I don't run unknown binaries or shellscripts. And because the code is open, I don't have to worry about installing software from the package manager because I know that someone has looked at the code and If I really want to I can look at the code and compile it from source. Unix security owns Windows insecurity
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
As said, it requires "special knowledge". Often you need to go into the registry editor and adapt security settings for certain registry keys ("Edit"-"Permissions..."). The same for filesystems: games that write savegames in their own directoy will need write access for limited users. You can do this with cacls on a XP Home system, XP Pro has the appropriate tabs in the properties of the file/directory.
There are some other caveats, like the "User"/"All Users" separation in the Start menu that you have to adapt in some cases. In the end it's all a matter of experience.
I learnt this over the years, and every new game will be trial and error all over again. It's login to admin mode, change keys, login to user, try game, rinse repeat lather.... It's hard, but not impossible. Some games require patches: for example The Sims 2 doesn't work without Admin rights out of the box, but bring it to a certain patch level and it will work. This was one of the most asked features for the game, IIRC.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Presumably, his computer behaves as responsively and well as a clean computer should, thus, he concludes he has no virus. I mean, for all you know, you have some super-stealthy virus that your AV doesn't catch. You would rightly conclude you don't, because your computer is running fine. And on the off chance you have a virus that doesn't affect your computer, and can't be detected... can it really be called a virus any more?
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
As the saying goes "lies, damn lies, and statistics". I am particularly interested in two things. The "once a week" statement which seems somehow suspicious, and the fact that MacFee sells pay-for anti-virus products.
Once a week:
How many people use their computers online less than once a week? If you're not online you can't update (nor should you need to)
How many people don't use their computers online at all?
How many people set their computers to "update only when I tell you to" to keep the anti-virus auto updater from twiddling with their open applications when they are working?
MacFee:
How often have you seen a study that was spontaneously initiated and payed for by a company turn out to be against the company's best interests?
My wife's computer at work has a secretary account and an administrator account.
So tell, me what will happen the day you catch the secretary account in bed with the administrator account??? This sounds better than a soap opera!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
can it really be called a virus any more?
:)
If it's sending v14gR4 emails on the sly, sure it can!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
A study carried out by McAfee and North Carolina School of the Arts says users need to buy more virus scanners. I'd have been amazed if a McAfee study had reached another conclusion.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
AntiVirus programs seem to be largely useless, and McAfee is particularly awful because of its horrendous implementation that sits there just sucking.
http://www.cnet.com/internet-security-and-firewall/mcafee-virusscan-plus-2007/4505-3667_7-31995275.html?tag=prod.txt.2
I recently had to fix my parents' machine, because it got massively infected. This turned out to be a blessing in disguise, because I ended up flattening it and reinstalling XP from Microsoft's disks rather than the crappy OEM version that was preinstalled on it, but that's another story.
My father had a subscription to Norton. So, why didn't Norton protect him against the virus? Well, a quick install and run of AVG later, I figured out why: Norton had been lobotomised by the virus. Half of its files were corrupted beyond repair. Most of the Javascript that its crappy UI was written in had been replaced by binaries. It was like one of those caterpillars whose brain gets eaten by wasp larvae, and the caterpillar never notices. It was horrific.
Unfortunately I still can't persuade him that AVG (which is free, which gets good reviews, which actually seems to work, and which doesn't keep popping up crap in your face) might be a better choice on the new system; but hopefully the new improved installation will protect him. We'll see.
I think most people who say it's all easy and all that are ignorant. If you're connected to the internet you need protection like Avast, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, you'll also need to be sure they are enabled and you'll need to let them search your system now and then. Then you'll need to know that apparently inert files like wmv, mov and perhaps pdf and jpg can actually be used as exploits and shouldn't be opened in your browser. Then you should not log in as an administrator (did you ever bother to change that?). Then you should not have children that click OK to get rid of every popup they see. You should not use IE6. Not use anything before XP. Be sure XP is updated. Do you ever create a spreadsheet to find out what mix of programs you need to cover a large part of protection agains virii, worms, trojans, spyware, etc.? All programs have their key strengths and may be rated as very good or excellent, but is that still useful if that rating covers the category BIOS virii only? As I have read McAfee and Norton are used to test new virii before they are released. And that they perform so poor to catch new ones as a result of that.
I don't, and probably I've made some mistakes above. But then again. I don't bother to get very interested in it actually. Think of it this way. You buy a new car, but without brakes. Then you have buttons to press, gears to add, electrical connections to make, press your own oil out of raw seeds and do lots of other things before your brakes function. The manual mentions none of them. The only thing you have is a pdf by McAfee and the NCSA talking about the number of people without brakes.
Antivirus software isn't a solution. It might help in an MS-Blaster situation, but I've seen far too many computers loaded with spyware and trojans that have fully up-to-date antivirus software think that it will solve the problem.
/services, and run rootkit revealer once in a while.
It makes users more complacent, and more willing to run questionable stuff. It also tends to hurt performance. You're better off educating users to not visit porn sites and run random downloads. Maybe even install firefox, check startup items
/me is Ubuntu64 user :-)
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
As long as it still is able to infect other computers, yes, it's a virus.
Also note that the fact that it didn't affect your computer yet doesn't mean it will never affect it. But then, unless the virus writer's goal is to harm the host, it's the most logical thing to make the virus as stealth as possible, and that includes eating as little resources as possible for the goal of the virus. For example, a keylogger looking for your passwords could be very stealthy; after all, the only thing it would have to do is store your keys, and from time to time send them to some IRC network or similar. That's nothing which would need a lot of resources.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
...and I'm running a pirated...
Buddy, you're not at the top of the intelligence heap for running without AV and you're definitely downright stupid for admitting you run pirated software on a public forum. People from Microsoft browse here too you know. Jesus man, if you don't want to buy your software then show some integrity and completely switch to free alternatives.
Shh.
I think you are misinformed. Viruses and other nasties don't require the logged in user to be an administrator to infect every account on the machine. They use a wide variety of unpatched system vulnerabilities and can dig themselves in deep enough to be essentially impossible to remove.
Our pc tech here is constantly moaning about a machine that's got malware that has planted itself in the registry of every user on the system (admin and standard) and if he misses even ONE of those when cleaning, it'll just reinfect the entire system (all users) as soon as the missed user logs in.
The funny part is he can't scan the other registries without logging into the accounts, because of "windows security". (then how did they get infected to begin with?!)
I find it hilarious how viruses can run rings around windows security while the admins are restricted from doing the same thing the viruses and trojans do freely.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
well of course. There's a reason armies don't just hand over their plans to the enemy. If you are fighting an opponent and you have perfect knowledge of them, you win. every single time. Norton is such a ridiculously well known target that any virus or worm updated in the last two years has SOME active defense against it.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Maybe he's on a Mac?
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
if you want real anti-virus protection, invest in NOD32. ever since i deployed this at work recently after also getting rid of the dreaded PC Cillian, and we have destroyed any traces of viri infections and the best thing (other than it's awesome functionality) is it's ability to not take up so much freakin memory space!
"In the kingdom where everything dies, the sky is mortal."
I know I shouldn't have, but I read it. Did anyone else notice the huge difference between 87% and 88% in the graph?
Also, who here would allow a "survey group" have access to conduct a remote scan on their computer? Methinks this survey is skewed, even if (especially because) they used quotas.
Pfft! Like that would ever happen...
That is all.
that pretty much every study about viruses or computer security are paid for by the virus and computer security companies, and their conclusion is always more people need to buy their software?
I'm tired of those companies and their products. They overcharge for their products, force you to upgrade when the upgrade barely offers any additional coverage, and their products slow down computers (my biggest pet peeve).
A few preventive measures can make virus checking useless. Use firefox, not IE. Don't use outlook. Never open VBS files. And run something like this: http://www.mlin.net/StartupMonitor.shtml
Not only does startup monitor catch most viruses (who always place something in your startup registry), it keeps your computer lean from bloated software.
This is Windows. They aren't ever allowed to be in the same room at the same time.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Here, here. Confirmation of what I've been saying for a couple of years now. Windows forces you to know a whole lot more about computers than you should have to. Viruses? Updating your virus definitions? Why should you have to know about these things, hmm? And then people claim they use Windows 'cause it's easier. Yeah, right.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
It's better to seek forgiveness than ask permission. Go over sometime, and when they're not paying attention nuke NAV and install AVG. Install Spybot S&D and immunize while you're there, since it's a passive defense and is probably harder to dislodge.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Wow, a security company telling us we're not secure enough? Who'd ever have guessed.
Read this
Norton Internet security breaks so many apps it's not even funny.
Last time I installed Norton "Antivirus" I also got Norton Recycle Bin and a load of other stuff I didn't want (and had no option to not install).
No sig today...
Turn off ActiveX and scripting if using IE or use another browser. Put .microsoft as a trusted site in IE for updates. Use a router. Don't open attachments. If that's too hard, buy a Mac. Dump the AV software.
The administration learned to turn terror into a business by watching you sleazebags tout AV software. You are worse than lawyers and have no shame.
It is true, Windows XP SP2 can be "tuned" to be passively safe but even then You need something to immunize and check your system.
I ma using SpybotSD for a long time, without tea-timer feature, to immunize the system.
Using a browser that uses security ratings on sites, and can open unrated sites with disabled scripting can help a lot.
I use Netscape 8.1.3, as it can open sites in 3 different security levels, + one custom.
Common sense helps allot on the Internet ( downloading cracks anyone ? ) so little paranoia makes healthy Windoze. I guess that FireFox can be secured using noscript and similar plugins, but I have never tried it.
BTW I don't use IE / Outlook since 1998, and did my Windows install more than 2 years ago, so much for the security record.
I guess that a good many of the 'found no trace' part in this 'study' were either running Linux, Macintosh or using ClamAV. I always have to jump through hoops to convince Windoze to stop bugging me because the PC is running ClamAV, thank you very much...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
.......Our pc tech here is constantly moaning about a machine that's got malware that has planted itself in the registry of every user on the system.....
That's why its better in the long run to get a computer that doesn't need a registry and is more secure by design. For computer smart folks that are also poor, Linux is the way to go. For those who don't know beans about computers, they can pay time for some education or money for a Mac. Macs even run Windows nicely. The windows part may not need a network connection. Since HD space is cheap a clean copy of the virtual Windows machine can replace and infected one in seconds.
All theory is gray
The problem with modern antivirus software is that they relay mostly on definitions.
Definitions are by definition either obsolete, ether will be updated next time when user hits update button. In both cases antivirus software relays completely on heuristic detection, by default turned on to lightest level of detection to reduce resource hoging and nag-like behaviour.
I can remember the viruses of late 90s. Most of them were quite small, had exceptional hiding capabilities and had used BIOS functions directly, avoiding detection easily. They did nasty stuff, mike256, WinWierd32 anyone ?
The issue of a how many think they have vs. how many that have is not relevant because the threat is from adware/spyware. Viruses are not that big of a threat. Adware/Spyware is a monster threat. It is the likes of ad-aware, spybot search & Destroy, AVG Antispyware, Windows Defender, etc that catch and clean the vast majority of the malware on computers. Virus scanners detect and remove the relatively minor issues that affect computers.
I'm not saying that the antivirus programs should not be used. I'm saying instead that the adware/spyware are the real threats.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Isn't this an outright dup?
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/03/1916207
So tell, me what will happen the day you catch the secretary account in bed with the administrator account???
Answer: Unaccounted for, child processes
On an unrelated note, a survey carried out by McDonalds last week found 90% of Americans don't eat enough hamburgers.
Anti-virus programs are able to scan opened files in addition to sent and received e-mails 'on the fly' in a similar manner. This practice is known as "on-access scanning." Anti-virus software does not change the underlying capability of host software to transmit viruses. Users must update their software regularly to patch security holes. Anti-virus software also needs to be regularly updated in order to prevent the latest threats. For example, Linux requires specific software to write to NTFS partitions, so if one does not install such software and uses a separate installation of MS Windows to make the backups on an NTFS partition (and preferably only for that reason), the backup should remain safe from any Linux viruses. Likewise, MS Windows can not read file systems like ext3, so if one normally uses MS Windows, the backups can be made on an ext3 partition using a Linux installation.
You Virus Terror Mongers make me sick. With ActiveX and scripting disabled, a properly configured firewall in a router, and not opening attachments, the odds of me getting my first virus after 15 years online are less than getting hit by lightning. Neither have happened so far. You're disgraceful con artists and no better than common thieves.
Most users buy a computer with the antivirus already integrated into the system. They rely on the antivirus alone to protect their computer without realizing the types of attacks made toward their machine. Most of them do not know the actual function of the antivirus and assuming that as long as they have the antivirus installed in their computer, they are safe. A friend of mine had once installed two antiviruses in the same computer, thinking it would strengthen the security of his computer, when the reality of it is that it would only burdened his computer when the functionality of the two antiviruses were more or less the same. Others may suggest that having a firewall helps prevent their computer from attacks. Some even think to the extent that with firewall alone, they are safe. what they dont know is malicious codes can easily past through the firewall when the user initiated a contact with the site containing the malicious code. when the virus passes through the firewall and get into the computer system, there is nothing that firewall can do. The main point here is that people should at least have a knowledge about computer viruses so they know what they are up against. They need to keep in mind that some malicious codes can be prevented using antivirus while some cannot, such as rabbits (Denial of Service).
People click "Yes" to lots of things without actually reading. That includes applets, spyware and even surveys.
If an operating system would have a built-in antivirus program which is on by default, then the percentage of protected users would surely increase.
Microsoft was attempting to do this but too bad, it was not approved.
Most users are dumb.
They're using their grammar skills there.
"What sort of an effect does this sort of thinking, and practice, have on the overall security of your systems, networks, and efforts to educate?"
No effect, anti-virus/malware/adware etc. is useless. It creates a false sense of security while wasting your computing resources while being lots of extra code running with Admin privileges.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
do you think you have anti virus protection?
[X] Yes [ ] No
do you actually have anti virus protection?
[ ] Yes [X] No
Thank you for your help.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
i've heard a statement that practically all users on all OS do not need to use antivirus software at all if they use a modem/router with NAT technology?and do not try to click on any invited popup or website that could be from hackers?
Not sure if you mean that you have to click on stuff to get the entirely new antivirus engine, or just the definitions.
If it's necessary to mess around clicking on stuff then in many cases the thing won't get updated.
If it's the latter, Avast! is a free one which updates automatically, at least once a day. No clicky, no worries. You can even remove the notifications that it's been updated, if grandma can't handle those.
There are good and bad products from this POV. The interesting thing is that price dosn't appear to be a factor here. There are free products which can quietly update and there are expensive products which require manual intervention to do so.
Count me in with the people who don't use AV bloatware on Windows and get along just fine. This is the guidance I give to friends who are competent enough to understand it:
Those are in rough order of importance except maybe #5.
Never had a virus; I occasionally give myself the once-over with Trend Micro's web-based scanner and Sysinternals' RootkitRevealer and all is well.
pi = 2*|arg(God)|
Do you let other people use your pc?
No, I have a guest PC.
What about at a party where your not paying attention?
Shut computer down and have a password.
Do you trust every file that anyone EVER gives you?
No, I just trust the files I accept.
Based on, their word? Their knowledge of security?
Based on the fact that some file types can not contain viruses.
Do you have keyloggers running from some unscrupulous voyeur tech you took your pc to 4 years ago?
Hahaha, of course not. How many people on slashdot takes their computer to a tech?
The simple fact is you DO NOT KNOW if you have a virus or not.
And you do not know if the alarms given by your virus software are false or not. I have actually had anti virus software on my computer for years without them detecting anything (that wasn't a false alarm), so I just stopped using them. Sure, it is slightly safer to use them as a final layer of protection, but is it worth it? I don't think so. It slows my computer down and often costs money.
How about using a computer that don't get 'viruses' ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
if antivirus can't protected computer as what user expected ... why should we spent our money to buy it?
even register for trial antivirus, cost more than what user get. for me its worthless
No worries on Linux or Mac OS X.
No worries on Linux or Mac OS X or Commodore 64.
Anyway, my home systems of 3 Windows boxes are sitting fine without worry too. In fact, I've never had a virus on Windows.
Can anyone tell me why this shouldn't move people over to Mac, Linux, etc.?
...ah, they destroyed the shipment. Carry on...
...but then again, I've never found myself staying in a destructive relationship / bought anything expensive based on advertising instead of Consumer Reports reviews / voted for anyone based on looks, lawn-signs, catch-phrases / found myself asking 'friends' or family to repay the thousands of dollars they've owed me over the past x years either.
I know about malware that can be spread using MS Office, from infected PC to Mac to fresh PC, in the same manner the woman spread the Rage virus in the film '28 Weeks Later'. The Mac itself doesn't get affected by the virus / worm / trojan, even if it has it inside. Besides, I'm using NeoOffice at home without using macros so [raspberry]!![/raspberry]
I know about proof-of-concept 'viruses'. Someone says "you could, hypothetically, use this loophole to write malware" on a Monday, and the hole is usually closed on the Tuesday. It's like hearing that an infected batch of meat in Thailand could infect the world and
To me, it's just infuriating. Seeing people deliberately buying products that have gaping flaws, flaws that have been 'features' of the OS for years, and then spending all that time and money and effort to collectively try and polish the turd (as they defiantly defend their bad decisions, which is a bad decision in itself)? I've never understood it
Yes, I guess I'm calling a lot of people sheep, or gullible, or uninformed. In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning, details and analysis at 11...
Here's my thinking, please pull it apart. Computer fraud is a cash cow for organized crime. It's worth billions. If any one criminal group could cash into the untapped 5%(?) Mac sector, that would be worth an incredible amount of exclusive money. So you'd have thought there would have been a great push to own this Mac portion of the computer fraud market especially because Mac owners, and I'm one of them, have been lulled into a sense of security with the lack of OS X - related reports of identity theft. I'm like a country yokel in the big city for the first time. Never had to worry about concealing a wallet, so I have a big roll of fifties sticking out of my back pocket. DAMMIT, MUG ME! Yet my money is still secure after all these years.
I'm a practical and pragmatic person. And, taking KRS One's idea of being "criminally minded" to heart, I figure that someone would have cracked a way to get all this extra income off us Mac users using the same techniques in the PC world if they could, because 5% of a billion dollars is still fifty million bucks (if the same ratio of Mac users fall for it the way PC users do).
The fact that it hasn't happened yet, for an OS that has been out since 2001, tells me either that the criminals don't like easy money, or it's not easy at all.
So again, at the risk of a flame-war: can anyone tell me why this shouldn't move people over to Mac, Linux, etc.?
Shiny. Let's be bad guys...
the problem is the trial software. users aren't aware that after the subscription is up, it no longer works effectively. most users aren't aware of the subscription based model. they feel that if they pay for it once, it should work forever. whether or not you agree with the model, this is the standard model for security software (aside from the various free ones available). i think it'd be best to not put trial software, but instead a more annoying warning from the OS that no anti-virus is installed. anti-virus & anti-spyware are two software suites that not only benefit the user, but everybody else on the internet. i don't care how annoyed they are by the messages. installing those two things shouldn't really be a simple choice of "yes," or "no," but more like "yes," or "no, but i'm going to annoy the hell out of you." computers are catering too much to the computer illiterate. while business-wise, this makes sense, from an internet-safety point of view, its not. too many vulnerabilities are introduced when trying to make something easier to use. add on top of that, clueless users and you have problems. seeing as how computers pretty much come with a connection to the internet, you can no longer look at them as just isolated products. most of the time, they will connect to the internet and effect the overall effectiveness in a negative manner. Why are computers the only high-tech piece of equipment that EVERYBODY is allowed to use. Scientific instruments can cost a few thousand, yet they're treated like sacred objects (in places that care about their investments), yet the computer is not.
This doesn't surprise me at all. At our company I allow people to bring in laptops to use on our wireless network but only if they have up2date AV. I asked someone once if they have AV and they said, "yea, this thing is two days old." I double checked and found that yea they had AV, but it hadn't been activated.
The sad thing is that AV software today is so in your face (I'm looking at you Symantec) it's incredibly annoying and yet "normal users" still don't know if it's working right or if their computer is protected. Yet the same people aren't content with AV software that is free such as Grisoft. I tell people, if this icon is in color, you're good to go, if not make sure you update. These people will eventually come back to me asking to install the latest version of Norton. ??!??
Seriously, people.
Clamwin is NOT antivirus software.
As others have stated, Clamwin is not an On Access Scanner. So, as the virus enters and infects your computer, Clamwin sits idly by in your taskbar waiting to either update its database or perform a scheduled scan, but most certainly not warn you or block you from getting infected.
Clamwin is a Virus Scanner, and I seem to remember that the default behavior is to just Report problems, not delete or quarantine.
After you've already been infected and the damage has been done, Clamwin might be able to tell you that you have a virus, and it might not even clean the virus for you.
I know a couple people who install clamwin for their family members - telling them that Clamwin will keep you safe. Clamwin is not protection.
i did't think it can protect whole system or application in our computer because it only can protect from certain attact of malicios...but how about hackers?can we avoid them with antivirus from access our computer?
Although good prevention is necessary, it is impossible to completely prevent systems from becoming infected with a virus. With all the viruses around, everyone needs good anti-virus software. But here is not one perfect program that suits everyone's needs. For me, i have used BitDefender and Nod32 but it still cannot remove all the viruses resident in memory.
you can go to the link below to know a method to reduce antivirus false positive invention. http://www.freshpatents.com/System-and-method-for-reducing-antivirus-false-positives-dt20070802ptan20070180528.php
from article about.com
"The so-called "U.Z.A. O/S Eliminator" worm appears to have originated in Maldives sometime in late July or early August 2007. The worm exploits the autorun feature, enabling it to spread from removable USB/thumb drives to other computers. "
it said new worm appeared where the desktop wallpaper has been changed to a black graphic with white lettering that reads 'U.Z.A. Operating System'. mean while the clock in the tray will display 'UZA O/S' to the left of the time. we cannot access the task manager...then, all removable usb/thumb drives will have what appears to be a folder labeled My_Personal_Data on the root of the drive.
so where the antivirus that can prevent from any harm?...
and damm antivirus like norton that make my computer be slower than before..this proof that antivirus absolutely not work 100%...
as someone that i know said....antivirus isn't solution for all virus....it's up to user whether they are aware about it(virus) all the time, how to prevent it...etc... avoid viruses from root... NAT...maybe??
Dunbal, thats pretty funny "help help im infected, get an anti-virus!". Why bother using anti-virus? Always be ALERT of the incoming files to your system and a NAT(native address translation) device installed in between your own network and the outside world is brilliant. NAT was introduced as a consequence of address space shortage for IPv4 and it also has limitations to connectivity with other hosts. The limitations as in no full connectivity is not a disadvantage, but it adds to security as it disguises the internal network's structure where by, all traffic appears to outside parties as if it originates from the gateway machine. Thus it prevents worms, viruses, trojan horses initiated by outside hosts from reaching those local hosts. Fantastic indeed.
Most people think (include your father) that buying a well known antivirus software will make their PC safe, receive auto-update regularly and etc.. try to persuade this group of people into free antivirus software like AVG (which is good AV) is waste of time.. "getting something for free and letter you will get something (virus) for free too, nothing is for free" ..... So try to persuade them into kaspersky antivirus (better then NORTON even though it little bit slow - scanning everything that execute in background).
do you think your PC can survive without any antivirus installed in it? well, u might have ways to avoid any viruses from getting into your system or windows but just imagine if ur PC are infected with viruses n not just a common viruses. It is new viruses or worms that are unknown to everyone...just imagine it...i'm sure dat your life will go easier if this happen... why? because you just have to click n pick 'FORMAT', n in few seconds your PC is formated back as new when u buy it... it is nice... ^_^ i'm now currently using AVG antivirus, AVG spyware and zone alarm..Currently, everything go smooth... FYI, Kaspersky n AVG antivirus cannot be installed together. If you do so, your PC might end up going crazy if luckily or you cannot open your Windows...
RK075457
I'd used AVG before and found it too good to be true.Beside it is free antivirus,the installations are also much easier. But does it protect again spywares? so, i've used Spyware Terminator (which is free too) for 'better' protection.
I've used AVG as my anti virus before. but does AVG protect again spyware and adware? i believe that most of users did not realize that they have other programs install together with the softwares they downloaded..
But I've never gotten a virus, not once. hahaha...dun make me laugh...it's impossible not to get virus if u get your PC connected to internet... there are tons of virus spread out in the world of internet....
but if there are a flag as you said..it's wonderfull dont you think...
RK075457