Why use an AV?

Not only "probably", I say definitively, that user is not ready to stop using real time antiviruses and should use one that is easy for him/her to understand how to use it properly.

Bo

 

RAM usage doesn't say if the AV is light on your system or not. Best is what you feel, how the system respond, and CPU and I/O usage. I don't feel like explainig this again right now so someone else will have to do that.

 

Absolutely... I don't feel like explaining it all again either, but what you see in Task Manager is NOT how much RAM an app is using. Much, even the majority, of RAM usage is hidden from Task Manager. Anyone interested can Google it and find out more..

 

Yup, a lot of people have that old xp styple misconception that RAM usage = how fast AV works or not.

 

Why indeed! When I saw this post it reminded me what I had been considering for some time – namely getting rid of my AVs!

Once upon a time, I thought an AV was the be all and end all of security! Now, I am confident enough of my security setup to 'cut the umbilical cord' and rid my systems of AVs. (well....OK, I still use ClamAV in LM 13KDE and Ubuntu – but its not real time anyway)
All I have gotten from AVs over the past few years (and I have used all the top free AVs) are weird and wacky issues, BSODs, and delays in startup (plus I was getting sick of constantly updating the damn things anyway)

I use a combo of tightly configured browsers\Sandboxie - and scan everything I download with both MBAM and HMP – I doubt there is much that will get past this lot. And if anything does – fine! I'm OK with that and ready for the consequences. I also don't mind trying new things – so I'm comfortable with my decision.

For those with the appropriate knowledge – whether an AV is used is likely an easy decision. For the rest of us - I guess it's about what one is comfortable with.

 

Finally!!

Someone else who is finally seen the light!

To be perfectly honest, aside from maybe my first year of desktop computing(AVG) on Windows 98, all I ever used an AV for afterwards was to compare results locally with theirs from a virus/malware standard of carrying out malware research.

To me AV's have always proved to be like installing another entirely other Operating System on top of Windows. And every single MS user from Tech Heads at the top down to the armchair desktop user is experienced all the headaches from the results when you smash 2 operating systems together just to flush out a few bugs.

Not only this, but from what I seen with most if not all of them, these same highly touted AV Vendors have had the nerve to flagrantly piggyback advertisements on their free versions and some have even went as far as employing nearly the same cruel tactics that malware (ransomware) makers are really good at, and that's suggesting (a threat) that to be fully protected you should UPGRADE now. Or fly in the users face constantly annoying reminders. Pfffft!

Otherwise what?

 

Interesting thread and one full of concern also.
Thankfully not all new computer users will read this thread as they will be under the belief that antivirus software is not needed at all.

I wonder if all the major global av companies will share this enthusiastic urge to ditch antivirus altogether and take their chances on a non av course of action.

It is a globally accepted fact that an av and firewall is needed when connecting to the internet.This is fact.
If the non av methods were so convincing and realistic then av companies would soon be out of business .

Primarily the users who wish to ditch their av are in a minority and thankfully the majority still respect the standard way of protecting our machines.

 

It doesn't sound like you installed an AV to me, not at all

 

You don't need a firewall to be safe online.

You don't need an av to be safe online.

You want these because they offer a decent amount of security with little investment of education or you just like them or want to use them. Its a personal preference only.

The more you invest in education, the less you need an av or firewall because you learn other ways to handle things.

You can become infected if you use them, you can become infected if you don't use them. There is no winner. There is no absolute.

A forum such as this is the ideal place to discuss such topics. People who are interested in computer security can have a place to share ideas and get new ideas. Branding such discussions as irresponsible because of what new users might think is just silly. Its a forum about security after all, not just about how to use a firewall and av to get security.

Lets leave the new users out of it, shall we, and get back to what we were doing, which was having a discussion about why we do or don't use an AV. There are usually some good ideas in topics such as these, usually something for everyone.

Sul.

 

And this more or less correlates with what I said earlier in my very first post in this thread:

 

When I bought AppGuard, I offered a relative one of the licenses and suggested he use the trial. When I told him him a little about it he seemed to get uncomfortable and felt he didn't need it because he was using MSE and that it seemed too difficult. I do think think the idea that having an AV being the best and only solution is very misleading and potentially quite dangerous for your computer. Most computer users just want to surf the net or play games etc and they don't think twice about their online security.

 

No sorry, I'll have to disagree. If someone doesn't feel comfortable about something then we can't blame him/her for that. Reverse it to the people who don't use an AV, it's equally the same, just different matters. Maybe someday s/he'll get comfortable to it, maybe won't. But just because someone doesn't feel comfortable to a certain tool doesn't mean s/he doesn't think twice about security. Seriously though, most people use this method because it's the easiest to use and maintain. You can still safe with only:

- A real-time AV.
- Turn on Windows firewall.
- Get behind a router.
- Set everything to automatic update.

That's probably the most basic and simplest method to secure your PC. If someone wants to use different method than this, then please do so. Only don't say that the people who only use an AV don't think twice about security. They just want to do it the easy way, and it worked. Not perfect, but worked.

If you offered AppGuard to me, I probably would decline it as well. It's because I don't like using it. Does that mean I don't think twice about security? I'm waiting for an answer.

 

[I use a combo of tightly configured browsers\Sandboxie - and scan everything I download with both MBAM and HMP – I doubt there is much that will get past this lot. And if anything does – fine! I'm OK with that and ready for the consequences. I also don't mind trying new things – so I'm comfortable with my decision.]

For me it is easier and less time consuming to use a top rated AV or KIS.
I have not had anything get past my set up either, which does include MBAM Pro, but I don't scan everything I download with it.

I don't see your gain in either time or security, but if you like it go for it.
Regards,
Jerry

 

Okay you say that a firewall and av do not need to be used for safety on the internet and other methods can be employed.
Nonsense.

Explain with clarity your reasons and then submit them to security companies like kaspersky and symantec etc.
You would be laughed off the stage.

I do not accept the advocation of not using standard globally accepted security measures.

Would microsoft accept such proposals.?
Of course not and the implication is hogwash.

If your suggestions were taken seriously then 70% of this forum would self destruct as people would uninstall their av,s and turn off the firewall.
Ludicrous.

 

Security companies like Kaspersky and Symantec are absolute failures, I have no idea why you think presenting ideas to them matters at all, or why their laughter should ever be taken to heart.

Stop worrying about what people do, and what companies think, and actually understand how the technology works, or rather, how it fails to work.

 

Security is not equal to AV companies. How hard is that to follow? If we're going to follow that line of thought, we might as well laugh upon ourselves 1st before they do. Go ahead and invite any AV reps to this thread. Most of them would acknowledge and clearly know wtf we're talking about here; even if they might disagree with some of the notion. None of them would say that they are THE "standard globally accepted security measures". No one has the authority to say as such.

As for 70% of this forum self-destructing, it wouldn't even happen. None of us would let it happen. These are not suggestions; these are people sharing their thoughts on the subject. By implying that people are going to 'follow blindly', we are underestimating and insulting people's intelligence. Even newbies would have the decent brains to to know that we're not 'suggesting' to anyone not to use an AV. The more anyone read into the lines without understanding the context, the more of a laughing stock one becomes.

Now, let's all fall of the stage for now. There's too much spotlight...on nothing.

 

[Security companies like Kaspersky and Symantec are absolute failures]

Nonsense.

Jerry

 

Perhaps you should read Sully's post not in absolute terms and especially not as in 'General advice for every newbie/general user/wsf reader' but more as in 'Does a knowledgeable user really need an AV'.
Starting from there, you could definitely argue an AV isn't strictly necessary.
For those 'In-the-know', there's a multitude of OS-based functionalities/3rd-party apps that negate the use of any AV.

 

Kaspersky and symantec are failures.??
Im sorry but THAT is just plain baloney and i think you know that.
Kaspersky has approximately 300million users.Would you please explain why that is a failure.

 

A good case of different needs for different deeds!

Of course you don't see my 'gain' - you run 2 real time programs – I don't run any. (I do have MBAM Pro, but only use it as on demand)

You mention 'time' – I don't do anything mission critical – so time is an irrelevance for me.

Sandboxie isolates what I download from my real system – but what I download I wish to use on my 'real' system – so before release onto my system - I scan what's in my Download folder just in case something nasty has hitched a ride. HMP is a second opinion scanner – it provides what I call extra 'insurance'!

 

Because they're incapable of keeping them secure. I think you should try to understand the concept that popularity and revenue have nothing to do with how good the product is.

 

If their uses were insecure then they would just ditch the AV.

 

Actually I think they wouldn't feel insecure because they don't care about their preventative solution as long as it's there to "protect" them.

 

They've been trained to believe that when they get infected it's their own fault.

 

Good AVs have kept millions of users free of malware for years. That includes me, as my AV has prevented attempts in several cases through the last 15 or so years.

To say that they are ineffective is pure nonsense. Few of us are so brilliant that we can depend upon our own expertise to identify an attempt at penetration from a signal in space. I do not really think anyone else is either. Maybe it is a case of self deception for those who are so brilliant.

Regards,
Jerry