Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by ocsi, Sep 21, 2011.
No its not enough for your average user. Just because you think it is doesn't mean its fact.
well, I like using a AV and will continue to. I really think most also feel the way I do. They have improved immensly and having to basically diable my computer as the other option, well, no thanks.
I want my antivirus, and I want it now.
In 20 years of computing, I have never been infected, and I don't have an AV installed.
I wonder why I use an AV sometimes.....5 years for me and all its done is use ram and cpu.....never a single infection detected, just a few bits and pieces found on scans with MalwareBytes a handful of times.
Exactly, the AV just chews up your RAM and resources and slows down your PC. Uninstall it, use common sense and never install programs from unknown websites (which you have obviously been doing for years anyway), and watch how much smoother and faster your PC will run. And on occasion run Hitman Pro and MalwareBytes or Emsisoft Free Emergency Kit, or run the free online virus scanners at times. That's all you need to do.
Good suggestion. I'd go with classical HIPS. And my vote goes to OA, coz when it provides good protection, it won't confuse me a lot.
That's why it's a discussion.
I didn't say the average user. I said it depends on the user. Some users can get away with very little protection, others can't. My only point is that depending on the user you may need a full suite of protection methods or you may be able to use something as simple as reputation.
I like Sandboxie. I already used it.
What is SSM?
i think System Safety Monitor... it is old unsupported HIPS
Oh, yes! I know of this software! But I do not like.
Lots of HIPS out there to try but the best ones IMO are MD, OA, Comodo FW. (The two last ones because they get updated frequently and all the 3 of them gives you extreme granularity if needed)
This thread has inspired me to make a couple of changes. I removed Mamutu and put MBAM to on-demand. I added Privatefirewall. So I am now running without any real-time anti-malware, relying on sandboxing, the firewall and hips in Privatefirewall, on-demand scans, good internet practices, and if all else fails, a system image.
And I am inspired to remain with my current set up... which includes a rapidly-declining-in-popularity-at-Wilders realtime antivirus.
I definitely like the idea of securing one's computer with other than an AV, but also I get an eerie sense that some folks around here (and I am not talking about YOU justenough!) are scrambling to keep up with or join the ranks of the avante-garde security corps who are basically now saying that running an AV is "old school" and really, well, not too cool. So, for illustration's sake, I see a bunch of lemmings rushing towards "no AV nirvana", and denouncing the merits of traditional AVs as they go, leaping over the cliff.
It's quite a dichotomy I am sensing. I know for sure that many folks here at Wilders are proficient at securing their machines and seriously have no need for an AV, yet there is a larger contingent of not-ready-for-prime-time players who could be tossing out the baby with the bathwater (as the saying goes), as they mistakenly declare their AVs to be non-essential dinosaurs.
As long as my computers run fast and are not infected, I am in no rush to hasta la vista the AV.
Absolutely, I've been happily running AV free for some time now.
HIPS (Policy based or classical), AntiExecutable ,Sandboxing, Virtualization.
An antivirus can give a user something that very few other programs can - a definitive answer. When an antivirus scans a file it doesn't necessarily say "This is a suspicious behavior" but it can say "This file is blacklisted and malicious." That's a great thing and it's why AV's have always been so popular.
Just seen this thread. Oh no, not yet another diatribe suggesting that an AV is unnecessary ? That makes two active threads on this subject.
This kind of irresponsible discussion attempts to destroy all the basic safety rules long established and observed by the security industry and responsible users alike worldwide.
Why tear up the rule book just for fun or mischief ? Every intelligent PC user on this very Forum and elsewhere knows that is is pure rubbish to go against the flow of proven procedures.
If anybody wishes to pump up their adrenaline until their cork pops by not using an AV program and taking on all the worlds threats single handed Rambo style, then enjoy yourself, but PLEASE refrain from trying to persuade others to become Kamikaze crazy.
Like John McEnroe said in his immortal phrase "You cannot be serious".
You think you can do better than a multi-million dollar industry globally devoted to protecting users from infection ? Then I wish you a bug-free nice day, but let others drive the correct way up the Freeway, it is much safer.
Your supposed insight into what the industry really believes is pretty funny.
The "rule book" as you put it has nothing to do with an antivirus. If anything the "rule book" wouldn't suggest it at all. Security through strong policy is far more reliable and common when someone wants legitimate security.
Yes, we're all very vulnerable by removing attack surface and relying on protection methods that are proven to be more effective and lighter on resources.
Users should understand that an antivirus is not always the best solution.
tl;dr: Your entire post is based on presuppositions that are completely baseless. While antiviruses are a legitimate form of protection to say that they're irreplaceable is more irresponsible than to say there are other methods for protection.
Yet another outstanding post of misinformation to confuse the poor unfortunate reader. I don`t accept a single one of your points, but we all have opinions, that`s the way the cookie crumbles.
You have your opinion and I have mine, looks like a kind of total mismatch eh ? Still, so long as we are both happy chappies, that is all that really matters. You invite the bugs in for a nice get together and I`ll kill `em when they come into my parlour.
I just hope that the serious reader digests my post and not yours.
No, these really aren't opinions. These actually ARE security industry accepted ideas, unlike whatever it is you think you're posting.
Your blatant lack of understanding of even the most basic security concepts is only going to confuse people, it's doing a number on you. The idea that an antivirus is not necessary (though AV's have their place) is fairly common on Wilders, plenty of users see that a user can see far more beneficial results from other security methods (and again, this depends on the user.) Do AV's have their place? Sure, but not on every setup.
Please feel free to actually make a legitimate argument in your next post. I'd love to tear it down with facts and sources.
EDIT: Or better yet, when a mod inevitably comes in, you can shoot me a PM and I'll educate you 1 on 1.
I digested it, but it came back up again. AV's are not necessary for all users John Bull. Tell me why I need a realtime AV if I run default-deny in a limited user account, fully patched with internet facing apps sandboxed, for example? If you can make a good case then maybe us non-AV users would reconsider it again.
He can't. That much as been evident for the time he's posted here.
Writing long winded speeches is entertaining to read but it's all empty calories.
It's been discussed plenty on Wilders in the past. AV's are very useful tools and for many users they're the answer, but definitely not for every user.
Has to be the best offer he has ever received around here.