I think it is a good idea. It helps to know about various security programs and strategies Is it right to say open source software are vulnerable as the source code is out in the open? Malware writers will target common computer users and not the members at wilders
+ 1 A good point sm1, when looking on others signatures one can be inspired to reconsider your own security approach, and thereby find better more flexible/ secure ways for your own system setup.
It can be both a bad idea and good idea. Bad because some members are here just to advertise their favorite products (fanboys) and it doesn't help advanced members who have already tried those setups before or the novice users who are looking for good setups. Good because it can actually help some members looking for good setups and is informative to know what some members are using. For myself, I don't add my security setup to my signature because it would make me look like a fanboy, but if someone was to ask, I will tell them. Thanks.
I like the points that you make, noone_particular. To focus a bit more on the potential "bad" side of posting our setups, it occurs to me that if a member were to decide to adhere to that train of thought and keep his or her setup private, then it would follow too that the member would have to likewise be careful about everything they wrote. For example, if I decided that I didn't want to make life easier for an attacker, wouldn't it then be prudent to refrain from posting questions and comments about the security applications I use, lest the attacker might gain useful knowledge about my setup, just from reading my posts? It seems like in order to be consistent and diligent along those (paranoid?) lines, a member's experience here at Wilders could turn out to be quite limited, and even clandestine. Imagine every now and then, a false question or two getting mixed in with the rest... just to throw the attacker off the trail.
That's pretty much the point I'm making. If one thinks it's a bad idea to post setups because it could give an attacker an advantage, what about all the things we say every day here? Aren't those things as revealing as the posted setup?
I don't think it's a bad idea either ... as commented on by others, if you're looking for assistance with almost any kind of problem, it's much easier for others to help if they can see in your sig what you've got running, especially in the cases where there are known conflicts or incompatibilities. One point that hasn't been mentioned (or maybe I missed it): the vast majority of home users can go an entire lifetime without ever encountering any malware specifically targeting them. Targeted attacks almost invariably are directed at government offices, corporations (particularly financial institutions), and other large organizations, not at non-descript individuals. If we at home ever do encounter malware, it's almost certainly a broad-scale attack on whoever/whatever "gets in the way", in the sense of having relatively insecure setups.
i think it's a good idea to at least have your OS on your signature. so when people ask for help you don't have to ask "what OS are you using".
Whether it is a bad or good idea, I don't know. Given the fact that Wilders is a security forum it is almost natural to state how you protect your computer. I often wonder what Bill Gates uses in his own personal machine! I agree with luciddream that having a product in your signature automatically rules you out as having an objective judgement (particularly true for antivirus applications, I don't include them anymore in my signature). On the other hand how can you "objectively" talk about a product if you don't have it?
Signatures can change though. I myself have had Norton, Eset, and now Avira (over an almost 6 year period) and that isn't uncommon here.
Personally I think the signature doesn't matter a hoot. Some people are just inclined to be strongly opinionated. That doesn't always mean they aren't objective, it just means they are confident in thier beliefs and can be a little over-agressive in trying to convice others of thier views. I believe the term for this these days is "fanboy". I have never understood that term really. We all have a preference for something, whether it is pepperoni vs supreme or sandbox vs LUA. It is how persistent we are that our opinion is the only "right" opinion that ruffles the feathers. Sul.
I dare you to ask that in the UNIX section. It's usually less vulnerable because of all the monitoring and patching done by contributors. That of course, depends on the number of contributors and attackers.
I voted no. The chances of one of the members here being specifically targetted would be very remote. I guess if it was revealed that a certain member was the big cheese in a major company or something it could be a bad idea.
Posting your security setup (or lack of) on a forum isn't going to make one bit of a difference in regards to security. If someone is coming directly after you, and they want you enough, they're going to get you whether you post your "Ft Knox"-like security setup or not. It can be said that we have no idea who is amongst us. For all we know Lulzsec members are here, CIA, NSA (those two are quite likely), so there definitely needs to be some caution in what is posted. But that goes for every forum/social site in existence. All posting security setups ever does at Wilders is start epeen contests and "I'm right, you're wrong" rants. That's about as dangerous as it gets.
I've posted mine several times, lol. The thing with me is I don't change much at all. Sandboxie always stays, MBAM always stays. Once in a great while I'll switch up browsers and my AV (usually a fight between Panda Cloud and Avast, Panda being currently used). That's it on my system minus the built-in stuff (UAC, DEP). I don't bank online or use social sites, and I don't post personal info about me just anywhere, so I honestly don't care that much, lol. The "malware hell", we're supposedly going through is overblown anyway.
I voted Yes (it's a bad idea). "Setup" threads are boring -- a form of onanism for those who post, IMO. But nobody forces me to read those threads so --- to each his own.
Well you drove me to the dictionary with that one, Bill, and when I got there, I was wishing I hadn't made the trip.
He's not wrong. I definitely agree on some level. It's similar to posts on other forums about peoples computer rigs. But that's not the point and there are definitely possible legitimate reasons to post your configurations. I personally have mine as a reference point, I've had users on other forums ask me what I run and I simply link them.
Point of clarification... I don't think he is wrong either. I simply regret learning that the definition of onanism is masturbation. So it's an apt depiction, but not one I was fully prepared to ponder.
It is not a bad idea because it allows more experienced people to help computer novices with a more effective security setup than they had before. Therefore I believe it is not a bad idea.
I change my security set up fairly often so it's a pain to edit my signature all the time. There are some programs I'll run regardless, like MBAM Pro. But I can just use my profile picture for that (at least for a while, until I change it).
Thanks for answering that question. You are one of a small handful who explained why they don't post their setup in their sig.
