AV or no AV

Hello computer geek,

Please see my signature below. DefenseWall(DW) has been the constant foundation of my desktop security for the past two years or so in WinXP SP2 or Vista 32. I have run DW + Windows firewall(WFW), DW + Linkscanner Pro(LSP) + WFW and DW + LSP + Primary Response SafeConnect(PRSC) + WFW and have yet to be infected with any malware despite visiting malicious web sites and testing malware samples. FYI, I test malware samples with the aid of Shadow Defender. Lastly, running a secure browser such as Opera with the proper settings and some system hardening will add an extra layer of insurance to a set-up without an AV.


Peace & Gratitude,

CogitoErgoSum

 

It looks like the malware is just checking for VM or sandbox and not actually breaking it.

 

Definitely no AV.

Using LUA w/ sudown, ProSecurity w/ extended file/registry rules, SandboxIE and Outpost Pro 4

I honestly believe there's not a single malware that could touch me...

Used to run KAV & BOClean but dropped them and have loved the performance boost :]

 

It's really not whether one uses these tools, but how one employs them that matters. In isolation, the general question really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. There are a multitude of complementary approaches available which nominally realize the same end goal of PC protection/security. Some rely heavily on an AV, some rely on an AV to a lesser extent, and some can dispense with an AV altogether. The same statements hold for virtualization tools.

Without having a sense of the entire puzzle, you really can't say whether one piece is needed or not. Many of the replies implicitly reflect this, I just wanted to make that point a tad more explicit.

Blue

 

Right. But if a malware sample doesn't exhibit malicious behaviour running inside the sandbox it may tempt the users to run it outside the sandbox. It's like the Trojan Horse.