anti virus

[Samuel Creshal]

AV is ineffective against more recent and increasing popular forms of attacks that generally don't rely on installing malicious software on your computer.

Or against installed software that, strictly speaking, isn't malicious. Most crapware installed by "enhanced" installers (I guess that's what happened to silenced) is deliberately not flagged by AVs, because for some reasons some people do voluntarily want to have their entire browsing history sent to Kazakhstan.

That is not mean you do not install AV.

Neither should you throw money after it – be it directly or indirectly (e.g. advertisements).

AV does very little more than giving you a warm fuzzy feeling that you surely must be protected… until you realize you're not. All this "AV x is better than y!" crap distracts from the fundamental issue that it doesn't matter. AV is dead. Stop caring. Secure your browser and any other internet-facing software instead.

The line in the final paragraph is about as close as the article comes to being correct: "antivirus is just one of many tools needed to keep your computer safe against increasingly savvy attackers".

"Please stop relying on our free products and upgrade to our premium software, this time we're really gonna save you we swear!" Yeah… I'm not that optimistic.

[Morkonan]

AV software is, IMO, a necessary step in protection. There are plenty of free packages out there, many of which do a decent job on their own.

Ancillary software, like on-demand scanners and such are a good supplement as well.

However, the most important AV defense is "The User." Most people become infected due to their own bad habits or their own questionable acts. (Yeah, looking at you, pirate-boys.)

Nothing is fullproof. But, just because something isn't fullproof, doesn't mean that it's not worth having installed. IF someone wants into YOUR computer, they'll eventually get in as long as it's turned on. One day, they may not even have to wait for that.

But, all this talk about AV proggies being useless is... useless and just not very smart talk... There is no reason to run without some sort of protection, just so long as you understand that there is always an ever-present risk.

[matthewfarmery]

I think this is interesting, considering its from a company that makes one of the worst AV's going, I know many people who wouldn't touch that rubbish with a ten foot bargepole, on top that, norton and quite a few AVs ) have serious trouble with steam games, detecting many exe/s as false positives.

AV's are very useful, I personally use NOD32 without any issues, but there is no way I would touch norton, besides, it also fails at detecting new viruses, there are way better AVs out there, norton is pretty much bottom of the list.

[pixel]

calm down peeps.

I used to use antivira which was great, but then they introduced pop up adverts so bye bye.

I now use Microsoft Security Essentials, it is free and has ZERO adverts, it is unobtrusive and updates several times a day. I genuinely think it is all you need on a regular basis.

I also use as a second line, malwarebytes antimalware, just run it on an adhoc basis once a week or so.

As front line defense I use Firefox with NoScript addon, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you get this. Also available for other browsers I believe.

[muppetts]

http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2014/08/06/th ... re-for-pc/

Interesting as Microsoft Security Essentials is listed as the worst for detection rate out of any free anti virus

[Patholos]

http://www.streetwisetech.com/2014/08/m ... indows-xp/

Apparently ended support for XP in april 2014.

[Chips]

Seeing this bumped reminded me of what Samuel has been saying, and an article I read a while ago. Unsure what i read, but a google found the following - which is more detailed, but the same.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/29 ... it_or_die/

Essentially, security products (against zero day attacks especially) can make your system even more vulnerable due to poor security of their own products.

However, apart from (hopefully) these issues being resolved, another reason to still use Anti Virus is that not all you encounter will, or do, use these vulnerabilities but existing (known) about vulnerabilities.

The counter argument he continues to bring about is that by using anti virus you are lulled into a false sense of security.

The problem is that for most users there is no sense to start with - so they're far far better off (safer) with the software than without...even if it has those vulnerabilities (imo).

But I am certainly no security expert Just think that telling everyone that anti virus is useless is a bad idea for the collective security of their machines. But certainly understand the points that were made.