AV Yes/No

I still use an antivirus at this time. I use avira free for on demand and i also use avast for realtime web/email/IM scanning.

 

Sorry, I meant safe hex
already corrected my post

 

Yup, Antivir

Lets me know if anything bad is happening

Alongside I got Superantispyware and Malwarebytes scanners. If all else fails,Returnil saves the day!

No need for 10+ security programs

 

No!
AV is like a shield with a big hole on it.

 

I use an antivirus that has heuristics, plus an integral behavior blocker, plus integral registry protection. It's a good AV with an excellent *twist* to it (if you get my drift).

 

I stopped using resident AVs about 3 years ago. Almost 2 years ago, I stopped updating my manual scanners. I still use VirusTotal to scan downloaded executable files but they get tried out on a test PC before they ever run on my primary unit.

I've received dozens of infected attachments in a webmail account that the sites AV found nothing wrong with. VirusTotal scans of the attachments showed some very poor detection rates. Every AV they have missed some of them. I'm not stupid enough to get infected by an e-mail attachment. There's no way I will open something like that on anything but my malware test box, but it did show me just how ineffective AV detection can be. If that same malware had been delivered via browser exploits on an AV protected system, the results would have been much different, no matter which AV was used. IMO, AVs are not reliable enough protection to be a frontline defense.

Instead of using security software that relies on ever growing lists of what you don't want running on your system, I implemented a default-deny policy and whitelisted the few processes that I will allow to run along with whitelisting their activities and parent-child permissions. This is primarily enforced by the configuration of the operating system, individual applications, and SSM. Combined with a good firewall and content filtering, it has protected me well. I maintain system backups in case my primary defenses prove inadequate but have never had to use them.

 

Why indeed!

From an article posted recently by ronjor:

Security Watch Revisiting the 10 Immutable Laws of Security, Part 3
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/dd228983.aspx?pr=blog

Those I know who help other people agree that the best ones to work with are beginners, who have no bad habits to unlearn! For example, I've never had any difficulty with people following basic email security policies, to use the example you give about attachments.

Another area: I've always felt that it's important to instill the idea of safe downloading. We all know how easy it is to get infected from screen savers and other such stuff. Yet, kids especially, like them. Hence, my question in an above post about a system infected by a screen saver.

Schools and libraries work to provide lists of safe sites, especially sites for educational material and learning games. They often include screen savers, photographs, music, etc.

Working from lists of trusted sites can be part of the "good judgment and common-sense attributes" Mr. Johansson refers to in his TechNet article.

Whether or not "judicious practices are sufficient alone" is an individual matter, as evidenced by comments in this thread. No one situation is applicable to everyone.


----
rich

 

I most certainly do. Changed over from Nod32 to Avast and am really satisfied with it.

 

Yes, because I like to scan from time to time

 

I second this.
Mrk

 

I voted Yes.
But just recently used one laptop with just the Windows firewall and Opera and Firefox and fully patched for four months and nothing else.
Downloaded files, browsed, opened emails, watched online pronos, played online games, installed programs like crazy. And all in the admin account. I never got infected.
Ran the HJT, checked with autoruns and process explorer, installed and ran an antivirus, did on line scans and the laptop is still clean.
So Yes, but a special Yes.
12fw.