28 ms·

Any AV software is better than having none but that's not the point of the article. It specifically recommends Microsoft's AV and to stay clear of all the other

Any AV software is better than having none but that's not the point of the article. It specifically recommends Microsoft's AV and to stay clear of all the others. I'm sure it's hard on all the AV vendors out there but with Microsoft Essentials and Windows Defender I don't see the need for a third party AV.

bad_user 10y ago
IMO, I think common sense, basic hygiene practices, a minimal education and a decent firewall goes a longer way, being much better than an AV could. For example the most common way people get infected is by installing software from unreliable sources and by not keeping their computer up to date. I'm pretty sure that learning to regularly update your OS and browser, learning to search, recognize and use the official sources for software, to stop doing software piracy for that matter, learning to not click on .exe files received in emails and to be suspicious of all attachments, learning to uninstall everything that infects your browser with useless plugins, I'm pretty sure such simple knowledge would cut 99.9% of all incidents. Most software vulnerabilities in the wild are not novel, "zero day" exploits are not that common. This is why even though I hate Microsoft's recent update policies, on the other hand I understand their newfound aggressiveness in pushing those updates, as it is really frustrating that users ignore update warnings. I also appreciate Chrome's fast updates, which encouraged Firefox to do the same.
AntivirusExpert 10y ago
Take a look at this collection of test results that MS security products received over the past 2 years, compared to the software at the top of the list: https://bestantivirus.reviews/tools/test-results-calculator?purposeId=1&groupId=1&startDate=2015-1-1&endDate=2017-1-1&companyId=16 https://bestantivirus.reviews/tools/test-results-calculator?... I mean, I get the attitude of "common sense is best" - users who know what they're doing will most likely avoid infection if they're not extremely unlucky. However, I still find it amazing that while people pay a lot more for insurance against less likely events, but the thought of paying few cents/day for an added layer of security for their machine (the same machine that in many cases stores a lot of personally and/or financially valuable information) riles them up. When you're online you're constantly exposed to threats, and while it's easy enough to ignore spam email and unsolicited messages on Skype and FB, a momentary lapse of reduced attention could get you infected. For example, here are some ransomware infection stats: https://blog.barkly.com/ransomware-statistics-2016 https://blog.barkly.com/ransomware-statistics-2016 /rant
floatboth 10y ago
Forget even Windows Defender. The one and only "AV" a normal user will ever need is… Google Safe Browsing. Seriously. Anything you download is already checked with Google, why waste CPU cycles on checking it again locally?
- tim333 10y ago
  I'd also recommend uBlock Origin or similar. The number of fake download links you see otherwise is scary.
- sp332 10y ago
  You need an antivirus that can watch running programs for bad behavior. Polymorphic viruses have been around for decades and will defeat any simple blacklist. And the halting problem means you can't possibly categorize every program as being harmful or not by static analysis.
- nugget 10y ago
  Google runs the largest advertising network in the world. Plenty of malware slips through the cracks every day, both downloadable apps/software/extensions as well as ads that lead to obvious scams. Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo etc all suffer the same problems. I think these problems are likely unavoidable at that kind of scale. But I would never rely on these companies as the only (or even primary) line of defense.
  - floatboth 10y ago
    Of course the primary line of defense is not running random crap executables.
Scea91 10y ago
One reason is that they simply do not perform as well on benchmarks. Other reason is that if there is only one AV vendor then it is a lot easier for developers of malware to penetrate systems than if there are dozens of vendors.

bad_user 10y ago

IMO, I think common sense, basic hygiene practices, a minimal education and a decent firewall goes a longer way, being much better than an AV could. For example the most common way people get infected is by installing software from unreliable sources and by not keeping their computer up to date. I'm pretty sure that learning to regularly update your OS and browser, learning to search, recognize and use the official sources for software, to stop doing software piracy for that matter, learning to not click on .exe files received in emails and to be suspicious of all attachments, learning to uninstall everything that infects your browser with useless plugins, I'm pretty sure such simple knowledge would cut 99.9% of all incidents. Most software vulnerabilities in the wild are not novel, "zero day" exploits are not that common. This is why even though I hate Microsoft's recent update policies, on the other hand I understand their newfound aggressiveness in pushing those updates, as it is really frustrating that users ignore update warnings. I also appreciate Chrome's fast updates, which encouraged Firefox to do the same.

AntivirusExpert 10y ago

Take a look at this collection of test results that MS security products received over the past 2 years, compared to the software at the top of the list: https://bestantivirus.reviews/tools/test-results-calculator?purposeId=1&groupId=1&startDate=2015-1-1&endDate=2017-1-1&companyId=16 https://bestantivirus.reviews/tools/test-results-calculator?... I mean, I get the attitude of "common sense is best" - users who know what they're doing will most likely avoid infection if they're not extremely unlucky. However, I still find it amazing that while people pay a lot more for insurance against less likely events, but the thought of paying few cents/day for an added layer of security for their machine (the same machine that in many cases stores a lot of personally and/or financially valuable information) riles them up. When you're online you're constantly exposed to threats, and while it's easy enough to ignore spam email and unsolicited messages on Skype and FB, a momentary lapse of reduced attention could get you infected. For example, here are some ransomware infection stats: https://blog.barkly.com/ransomware-statistics-2016 https://blog.barkly.com/ransomware-statistics-2016 /rant

floatboth 10y ago

Forget even Windows Defender. The one and only "AV" a normal user will ever need is… Google Safe Browsing. Seriously. Anything you download is already checked with Google, why waste CPU cycles on checking it again locally?

tim333 10y ago
I'd also recommend uBlock Origin or similar. The number of fake download links you see otherwise is scary.
sp332 10y ago
You need an antivirus that can watch running programs for bad behavior. Polymorphic viruses have been around for decades and will defeat any simple blacklist. And the halting problem means you can't possibly categorize every program as being harmful or not by static analysis.
nugget 10y ago
Google runs the largest advertising network in the world. Plenty of malware slips through the cracks every day, both downloadable apps/software/extensions as well as ads that lead to obvious scams. Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo etc all suffer the same problems. I think these problems are likely unavoidable at that kind of scale. But I would never rely on these companies as the only (or even primary) line of defense.
- floatboth 10y ago
  Of course the primary line of defense is not running random crap executables.

Scea91 10y ago

One reason is that they simply do not perform as well on benchmarks. Other reason is that if there is only one AV vendor then it is a lot easier for developers of malware to penetrate systems than if there are dozens of vendors.