Here in Wilders we have a wide range of opinions on pretty much everything. People disagree about anything and everything. Is KAV better than NOD32? Is heuristics more important than signatures? Is Online Armor better than Appdefend? Nevertheless, it is not unusual for certain opinions to become dominant and become close to universally believed with maybe a few holdouts. In time, they become unspoken assumptions or even dogma! Here's examples of beliefs that I suspect is pretty dominant in these forums. Some of the beliefs might even be true of course. 1. "You need several security layers to protect yourself". This usually is accompanied by. 2. "Hence Antivirus (or signature based approaches) alone are not enough." This in turn is normally paired with the 3rd belief 3. "HIPS are necessary" Of course this belief itself is not without its distractors, but the fact is I notice that practically every new member who comes into this forum starts talking and asking about HIPS, there is seldom even a discussion if it is necessary (compare to discussions about whether you need antitrojans) so this appears to be a widely held belief. The interesting thing is that you seldom see a post that says outright by itself that HIPS are necessary (with one notable exception which i will explain later) , more commonly you get that impression by 1) Seeing people 'rag' on antiviruses and the problems with how it misses things ( for some reason the antivirus sub forums tend to stress this less...) . The obvious implication is that antiviruses are not very good or not enough. Certain security vendors of HIPS products are 'expert' in this with oneliners that imply that antiviruses are not fool proof, which is true... But neither are HIPS products! 2) Seeing people talk about nothing but online armor, PG, Appdefend , Winpatrol, Starguard, Safe n sec, SSM, etc etc - Obviously it's necessary right? Why else would people talk about it? Still I believe that these assumptions should be examined , and it is precisely in cases where people start doubting the effectiveness of HIPS, that people try to justify HIPS and we get some chance of having the truth emerge Here is Mrvonic, doubting the effectivness of HIPS, which later draws a response. Are there any more of such beliefs that you think are held almost universally by members of this forum that you disagree with or suspect might be wrong? If so which are they? Here are some candiates 1. Beating leak tests are of primary importance in firewalls. Not as universally held as the HIPS one, but popular enough that when you mention a new firewall, the first question most people ask is how it performs on leak tests. 2. Antiviruses are necessary. This is a unique one. Some like Erikalbert would deny this is true because they have totally lost faith in antiviruses but puts his belief in something else. Some others however would say antiviruses are not necessary at all if you know what you are doing. 3. Payware is better than freeware. 4. You need at least 4-5 pieces of security software running active (no cheating with suites, which are equally heavy anyway) to be reasonable secure. 5. You need a personal firewall for outbound control even if you have inbound covered. 6. Opera , Firefox is more secure than IE, OR Opera is most secure because it has the least unpatched holes in Secunia.