New York Times Tells Readers to Uninstall Anti-Virus Programs :-O

New York Times blooper: Throw away your anti-virus software


In one of the worst pieces of technical advice ever issued, the New York Times today recommended that PC users delete and no longer use their anti-virus software. The reason? To speed up their PCs. The newspaper has some other whopper misguided recommendations as well.

More: http://blogs.computerworld.com/new_york_times_blooper_throw_away_your_anti_virus_software

 

erheheherooOO!

That's Daffy. hehoo, hooHOO!

 

I don't use AV software so should i start to worry yet?
Not really

 

Judging by your sig you're advanced user. Taken as general advice to general population, ditching AV is bad advice.

 

Poor article IMO. He recommands Vista Home Premium with Aero enabled for a good performance .

 

Rather poor advise for the general public.
What the hell was he thinking?

 

Hello,

The article is aptly named "Five Controversial Ways ..."

Furthermore, being radical sells

Lastly, AV is overrated overall, although the average user needs it, just as he needs earthquake insurance. You don't really need it, but you have it, just in case.

Mrk

 

Exactly.

 

Unfortunately, "being radical sells" appears to be true. Also unfortunate is that there will be some people with limited computer skills who will take this "advice", remove their AV, and get clobbered. And will the NYT be held accountable for misguiding them? No.

 

I think that advice is targeted at average users who probably should use an AV and so he there'll be no confusion for them.

 

I haven't used an antivirus in years. The old habit of an admin user account with an updated antivirus running in the background as the only method of security is obsolete.

 

I also haven't used an AV in about a year and a half, I like a combination of sandboxie and a HIPS program.

But like others said that article that said you should never run without an AV was most likely aimed at average users...still if an average user can get used to using an AV they should be able to get used to using LUA or some virtual/policy sandbox...
but anyway I've also been on other tech forums where people think the only protection is an AV and if I mention I don't use one they think that it's very dangerous and I would be getting infected,

Though I'm much more potected than if I were to only use an AV.

Still suggesting to remove the AV and not suggesting using any other security was bad.

 

Well the New York Times is arguably one of the best newspapers, if we consider the global village. It is obviously not concerned about technical aspects of computer security, and I doubt any editor would be in a position to judge what some of these "technology writers" concoct to draw attention to their articles.

Paul Boutin ("the technical writer") certainly knows how to write in English, but hasn't got a clue about basic computer knowledge. As Preston Gralla pointed out in his article, the guy was using Norton 360 (no mention of the version or the specifications of the Toshiba laptop) which as a suite could give all sorts of problems, if the user doesn't know how to fix them.

I also agree that any Windows OS should have an AV if no other security application is installed, especially for the average user.

 

Huh? Irresponsible journalism is not my definition of a decent newspaper, "global village" or not.

 

I'd like to see more debate about the usefulness of AV's and better debate than the "scary" virus news which often dominates any discussion of computer security.

But this guy didn't really help "the cause" by not giving any context as to why people should get rid of AV's , apart from PC slowdown , which is really not the case with newer suites.

A missed opportunity.

 

Part of the problem with a general debate on the effectiveness of AV's is that nuance doesn't seem to play very well in those types of discussions and the degree to which an AV is an aid really can hinge on the nuances of the situation.

Long story short - AV free is fine in many specific situations. Unfortunately, the cited column didn't provide some of the needed context and nuance for the advice to play out well. That's handled, in part, in a follow-up entitled Best responses to five controversial ways to speed your pc. I'd probably flesh out what was offered in the addendum further, but that would muddy the pithy prose.

For most users, an AV is useful, but there are plenty of alternate approaches which can work just as well. However, it is all too easy to go overboard and basically implement a simple cascade of all these alternate security protections, which isn't a good solution either. Of the recommendations that were provided, turning off Vista's UAC is probably a more critical issue at the end of the day. UAC can offer decent low footprint protection for the masses (with the understanding that if you're installing new software or mucking with the system all the time, it can seem a bit of a hassle...., but most casual users don't work that way)

Moderation in all things - just like mother used to say....

Blue

 

"all things" is a bit over encompassing for me. Overindulgence is gluttony manifest and moderation the beginning of the cure.

I don't think anyone can get away without ever running an AV scan, even if they don't have or use realtime protection. It's a part of security.

When there is never more a war then AV's also will be obsolete.