I already faced several FPs with WSA. They were irritating, but I don't mind too much now, as I can always restore them. I still prefer WSA for the lightness.
Hey, I am the guy that blabbered for years about that .. issue here at that forum, so that's not news to me! - It got better over time and now it isn't bothering me at all, I just unchoose the desinfection and then do report the fp. It's lightness is worth everything else to me too. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS IN FACT!
anyway, the boos ask me the other day to check the computer in the reception because it was slow. first thing i try is to run a virus scan. AVAST license was expired so that thing was running with no protection whatsoever. it's a XP machine running with full admin privilege and i was expecting to find load of malware. it's also a kiosk computer that all the clients have accessed to. i was surprised to find not one malware on it. the only 'protection' it had is that Chrome was the default browser. so i was quite surprised.
too much effort? i restore Windows 8 in less that 2 minutes. Mint XFCE in 47 seconds. tnx, but you can all keep your real-time AVs. lol
Should that be the end of paranoia? I have the same experience with the systems I have to watch over. NO LEGIT MALWARE FOUND for years! - Okay, I keep them updated and have AV in use (some still Avira, all WSA) .. but they don't have any clue about fake AV's etc. and still those systems (even the ones with XP) are always CLEAN when I visit. That is exactly the reason why I prefer LIGHTNESS in an AV not "test"-results in detection. It would be overkill. Before you ask .. yes I counter check with all sorts of on-demand scanners the result stays always the same: besides false positives -> NO FINDINGS! That seems to be a good choice then in that regard. p.s.: Restoring backups when being in doubt would not be a preferred solution for me as I use SSD and don't like useless write operations on it! - Running a light realtime AV is my preferred solution, really.
Yes. I mean, for that to be my only strategy, I would have to keep my images very up-to-date, which consumes time. I'm always doing stuff, saving docs, etc. Or, I would have to let a program create such images automatically in the background - which would consume more resources than a light AV. I keep an image just in case, but I update it like 2 times a month..
well, i also have NoScript to fight the Barbarians at the gates. so i'm not totally naked. anyway, creating an image for Win 8 only takes about 4 minutes in my case. a lot less for Mint XFCE, less than 2 minutes.
NoScript can't protect from malwares in untrusted files that one deliberately executes. NoScript can't protect from exploits in domains that you put in the trusted list. Sandboxie free is nice, but it doesn't protect from distraction (I mean, I can forget to run something sandboxed). Really, AVs are a good solution for distraction and humans own faults.. I would never use one of them as my only line of defense, but it's nice to have one of them as well IMO.
personally, i'm allergic to run any real-time protection on my machine. i did not buy a computer to run security software and apps.
I didn't either! - So I run the fastest* AV existing .. and I really don't feel any drag! - Else I wouldn't use it, believe me! - I am a SPEEEED junkie!!! p.s.: *= if it isn't MONITORING unknown (to the cloud) things, that slows it down so I disable montoring if I know it's not malware!
LoL didn't you know "Don't drink and drive" it's same with "Don't drink and use the internet" can be dangerous you know Drunk = Staying offline until sober Luckily I don't have this problem since I don't drink alcohol at all
Well, I'm not much of a have-to-try software guy. I rarely try new software unless I really need its functions. Today I have 11 non-Windows software installed and about a dozen portable apps. But yeah, if you are inclined to try out various software just for the fun of it, I definitely agree it can get very cumbersome to do it "new2security way" :-D
I fully agree. The way I see it, the biggest point of entry for malware to infect my computer is through me, the admin. I really don't see drive-by-downloads etc as a big threat. The hardest thing is to decide whether a given software I attempt to install is clean or not.
The benefits of not using a real time antivirus are great but if anything ever got through my "Speak softly and carry a big stick" SBIE/NoScript setup, without hesitation, I would go back to using one. Bo
No. I consider them virtually useless. On-demand are fine for the rare untrusted download, but most of my downloads come from trusted sites, and not once in >16 years of personal computing have I been burned from obtaining downloads from trusted sites.
That used to be the case for me. I would occasionally have antivirus installed, even using paid products from time to time. Not really, because I felt the need for security software but mostly just to try out different security software. So I was not looking for the product with the best protection, but one I had never used before, or perhaps a new version of software I had used in the past. If I found the av had a noticeable impact on system performance, or had only limited options (e.g. no option to prompt for what action to take when a threat was detected) I would uninstall it at once. As of late, I have started using security software again, as I do get infected on occasion. However, I put lightness ahead of detection rates. I'm running Outpost Security Suite Pro right now, and have purchased a lifetime license for it. However, maybe I'll get sick of it in a few months and move on to something else. If I do change, then more than likely it will be due to wanting to try different software, than being unhappy with Outpost.
I tried WSA briefly (which I got free from Facebook) and it was very light until it start using over 80% CPU use (actually it may have been over 90%). Maybe it was a temporary glitch - I never found out as I uninstalled it immediately.
Why don't one of you guys try an experiment, run with no protection at all on your VM to see if/or how long it takes to get an infection.
I voted no. On all of my computers I have Sandboxie which I fully trust for my normal browsing and Shadow Defender when I plug in third party flash drives which have always been the major source of infections. Even flash drives at work, lately tend to be fairly clean compared to 5 years ago, a sign that free/paid antivirus are very useful for the average user, and people who rely exclusively on AVs. For me Avira and MBAM used on demand are more than adequate to check suspicious files before opening them. I should also mention that the Internet for normal browsing is quite safe. A lot of people believe that pornography is one of the channels more likely to push malware. Actually why would a website infect your computer when it is trying to sell you porn videos? It would be bad business and wouldn't make any sense if they are trying to get customers (perhaps watching pornography might have other undesirable effects...)
