Why I am also finished with a AV

Some of you may not agree with my logic, but Microsoft recommends computer security be maintained by having inbound firewall protection, keeping the system patched, and having an updated AV. I have to agree that these constitute best practices. Add LUA/SRP to that, and you have a very secure system without all the angst of hips, sandboxes, light virtualization, and firewalls with outbound filtering.

Failure to follow known best practices is viewed as gross negligence. If you lose a banking password your bank will want to examine your PC in connection with the claim. If there is no AV they would almost certainly deny the claim. A man in Florida lost $90,000 and was unable to recover because the virus on his machine had been in AV signature bases for over 3 years.

I have cleaned several machines. Every one of them had an AV that was months out of date. Usually, it was a 3 month free promotion that came with the machine, from one of the large AV vendors. When I get done, I install one of the better known free AV's and they don't have trouble after that.

 

Steve

and i think the safe habit in internet will away from the threats.av still do the effect on common threats.more often than not,avs are more smart and changes better than before,trust it.!

one good scan engine and one good monitor tool is the best thing when you go surf in internet.nothing best in av software!

kaspersky or nod32 with mcafee or avg.i think it is ..

 

I've seen that happen to some of my friends. FFS update that AV.

 

And may I know which of the better free AV's you use?

 

You've answered your own question with the proceeding paragraph. That's the point I'm making - if one takes care online in the same way they'd avoid dark alleys, most of the time they're unlikely to come across various kinds of malware.

 

I have to agree one million percent with you on this

 

OK fix for all Problems...


People that want AV's Use them.....

People that don't want AV's Don't use them... but don't cry to the people that have them when you try to find out how to get rid of a infection.

 

I am familiar with that case, and I think you have your facts flip-flopped;

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/08/e-banking_trojan_lawsuit/
http://www.theinternetpatrol.com/phishing-victim-sues-own-bank

I was not aware that the case had reached a conclusion as it was filed in 2005. If it has, and you know of it, I (as Pete has already asked) would like to read up on that also. Perhaps during arguments the bank put forth the proposition as you say that it was the user’s responsibility, but that means very little unless it was a winning argument.

As for "Gross Negligence", no way. Maybe, in theory, if a 'Warning' had been ignored (although with that there is also no precedent) - but a recommendation? Never. A recommendation contains the user choice of 'No'.

Looks like scare tactics to me. Are you saying that (despite there being multiple programs in this the year 2008, that would have stopped this attack cold in the first place) that an AV is required because in 2005, a baby-keylogger had been in a database since 2002?

The entire point is that it is outdated technology.

 

Years ago, and after finding VERY quickly how much hackers love 2000, XP, 2003 and Vista - this, no matter the "TruStealth" rating of the FW, I'm back to 9x with crontrolled DOS, script emulation, the Opera browser, an unusual boot sequence, Rising AV, and a weekly BitDefender scan. I am NOT sacrificing my semiconductors only to support Microsoft's new set of problems, poor patches, and flaked out OS's.

Dave

"Unto The Purity Of Essence Of Our Precious Bodily Fluids!"
Gen. Jack E. Ripper

 

Even if what you say regarding banks were true, how then would they or anyone decide which AV was adequate, and which was not? If I used AVG and it scores low on the tests, would I be grossly negligent? Or just dumb? I also find it rather hard to believe that any bank is expert in PC security, and that they could say that lack of AV is negligence while an even better and more secure solution was in place, say LUA with SRP for example. And what happens when you're a victim of phishing and you lose your bank password that way? Are you grossly negligent then? Your AV, or lack of, would not help you one bit in that situation.

I agree with Peter also in that what MS recommends is to be taken for what it's worth.

There are many fine solutions which can keep your PC secure, and many of them do NOT include an AV. Time for people to accept that notion. It is always a matter of personal choice and needs in the end. And btw, LUA with SRP AND an AV is actually pretty redundant....

As for banking, I don't do any banking or financial or purchasing transactions online. So I have no exposure there. Perhaps it's wisest to avoid online banking. But if you can't, then you're one of those who needs extra precautions, but that is just you, many others may not have the same needs.

 

I use AV+XP firewall and for some reason this is always where I end up after trying alternative solutions like hips, sandboxes or so. The "super secure" feeling when having multiple security software with different functions is only temporary for me. During my normal use I don't encounter malware and these programs only eat resources for nothing. The same happens if I have an outbound firewall, I always add the same programs to it's application control and then it just ends up residing there and never alerts for anything "real". This is how it has been for the last ~ten years.

.. And I do download stuff from the web, use email, play games, use instant messaging software, visit somewhat questionable sites and so on.

 

Hello,
it must of been around 6 years now since i learnt my lesson about spyware, yet some users still havent learned.
to me an av is the expert opinion.
if my secuirty suite didnt have a hips module i would of brought a hips program.

now that i have got virtualbox if i want to try out a new program i can test it in virtual and see what it does.
at this time i wouldnt concider using something like sandboxie since i find it to restrictive.

just think could your wife,girlfriend,mum dad etc etc be able to answer prompts from a hips program?
guessing the answe is no. so surely they would eiether ask you to uninstall it or answer yes to all the prompts.
i think in that case you could eiether inplement a restictive sandbox which if you user chooses to x.exe outside the sandbox its gameover.

most users run an out of date AV,so most likely also running out of date browser and plugins as well. that makes it even easier for malware to take hole.

most users just wanna use there pc. they dont want it slowed down and dont wanna have to answer prompts they dont understand. its a tough shoe to fill. if a user doesnt understand something then normally they get annoyed. hence the typical user ringing up a help desk and shouting.

 

I honestly do not understand the apparent reluctance on the part of Computer Fix-it guys to embrace and reccomend innovative ways of limiting malware. As far as I can read, if someone asks those types for an opinion, the answer is to install an Anti-Virus program? And folks actually pay you for that? I guess you do not guarantee your work also, lol.

 

Hello,
at the moment im still on courses. mainly self taught but needed to get some qualifications to proof i can do it.
i think you are prejudging me.
i have tryed most of the ways i have read on this forum which are designed to limit malware but end up going back to a suite with a hips. i tryed limited user account on vista and had issues with certain programs within day one. could be the programs not being written for that situation but i dont know.
i would run as a limited account if all my programs worked like that. i mean they should since all computers should run with limited user accounts 99percent of the time.
there is no way to block near 100percent of malware without some loss of functionality (with windows)
limited user accounts,sandboxies and hips would be daunting and hard for users to get to grips with. limited user accounts at least in xp would stop most users programs from working. sandboxies may also.
HIPS hard to understand popups.
im going to try some of these methods. gonna use my best friend as a guinapie XD. he is always getting infected and i think a sandboxie would solve the issue in his case.
boot to restore, could get infected inbetween and users would get annoyed there apps need installing again.

some of this might not make sence i am quite tired atm.
anyother methods to limit malware?

with linux i can run with standard user and get a prompt when i rarely need root rights.
i was hoping vista limited account with UAC would provide that but i was wrong.
with linux all the programs are updated in a few clicks. no need to update windows then adobe then quicktime etc seprately.
can use standard user account all the time and get a prompt when you need more rights.
even installing software in the first place is easier and fast in linux if you get a distro with a decent package manage for example opensuse. nothing is perfect but i think linux should become mainstream and show everyone how stable,reliable and with the right distro easy to use.

 

This setup makes computer life so much easy!

However, I did learn years ago when my Internet Explorer was hijacked with spyware/trojan installation when doing a Google search. This was the real eye-opener. Hence, DefenseWall takes care of this matter very simply now.

Keep it simple and enjoy.

 

I hope you enjoy the regular crashes (I remember my win98 experience.... what a god awful OS)

 

I appreciate that this is an AV thread and not a linux tread. But I do wish Linux would become mainstream. when I can run Paperport on Linux and Outlook and Roboform and Web research and Omniform and..........

Until then I can still happily run all of my programs and NOT use an AV or AS or Hips or, or, or. There are dangers out there but they are not great enough that I have to slow my windows xp down to 50% or load up a pretty distro that will allow me to run very little commercial software.

 

I thought the post was meant in jest ? the reference to years ago and vista for example. could anyone seriously want to go back to 98 ?

 

Sorry - that's ridiculous. Everybody who has seriously tried LUA will confirm that this statement is not true.

Here I agree. That's the reason why Linux has become my main OS.

 

LUA runs all my programs fine, no issues at all. Su Run brings running LUA quote close to Linux's sudo.

 

where do i get su run?

 

thanks Ron

 

The question is: what is an AV ?

Technically, a virus refers to the ability to replicate and spread.
Once you have a piece of malware on your computer, do you really care if it multiplies ?


Some AV software protects against spyware and trojans, but not all of them are good at that. And in that case, AV is technically a misnomer.

Generally, antispyware protection is what really counts. It can be part of an 'AV', or not. And besides, certain antivirus certificates don't guarantee good protection against trojans. And according to one source, some trojans are 'viruses', and others 'spyware'.

Besides, if you encounter a 'virus', there is a high chance that your AV product does not have that virus in its signature base.