3 ms·

Just another way in which the cure (anti-malware software) is worse than the disease (the malware). Slows down every file access and program launch, high false

Just another way in which the cure (anti-malware software) is worse than the disease (the malware). Slows down every file access and program launch, high false positive rate, is itself a vector for exploitation... why did we ever think this was a good idea?

timbit42 5y ago
It seemed like a good idea because back then the OS wasn't multi-tasking.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > It seemed like a good idea because back then the OS wasn't multi-tasking. Of course virus scanners have been around in some form forever, but I believe always-on virus scanners didn't really take off until the multi-tasking age (and indeed couldn't—"always on" doesn't mean much without some sort of multi-tasking). For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#2000%E2%80%932005_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#2000%E2%80%... tells me that ClamAV wasn't released until 2001. Optional, "on-call" virus scanners are highly unobtrusive (though, like manual backup, only as reliable as their operators), and I can't imagine this sort of outcry against them.
allo37 5y ago
I'm convinced most of this anti-malware software is largely security theatre, but it helps IT departments sleep better at night I guess.
kragen 5y ago
I imagine that what happened was that, if the same muggles came back to you every week to uninstall the same malware from their computers, you'd get pretty tired of it after a few months and install some kind of malware blocker. It's not a solution to the problem, but it's a painkiller.
alerighi 5y ago
Anti malware software is worse than malware in itself. By the way the reason we have malware in Windows is for how Windows works: unlike Linux distributions Windows doesn't have a package manager (yes, now there is the Windows store, but practically no one uses it, even Microsoft itself since you don't find Office on it!), and thus users need to download executables from the internet. But users are stupid and will probably download the first link they find on Google that probably contain malware. In Linux that is not possible, not because Linux is more secure (it's not), but for the simple fact that downloading executables from the internet is not something you commonly do, you install software from trusted sources. To run a file you downloaded you even need to add a permission that is not enabled by default. That is enough to avoid people executing by mistake with a double click a file they received by email named invoice.pdf.exe (where of course Windows hides the .exe extension by default...). Microsoft is addressing a problem the wrong way around, instead of establishing a trusted source of software, they are still developing antivirus software that not only slows down the computer, but they don't even work so well with modern malwares, that are so sophisticated to bypass easily an antivirus protection.

timbit42 5y ago

It seemed like a good idea because back then the OS wasn't multi-tasking.

JadeNB 5y ago
> It seemed like a good idea because back then the OS wasn't multi-tasking. Of course virus scanners have been around in some form forever, but I believe always-on virus scanners didn't really take off until the multi-tasking age (and indeed couldn't—"always on" doesn't mean much without some sort of multi-tasking). For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#2000%E2%80%932005_period https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#2000%E2%80%... tells me that ClamAV wasn't released until 2001. Optional, "on-call" virus scanners are highly unobtrusive (though, like manual backup, only as reliable as their operators), and I can't imagine this sort of outcry against them.

allo37 5y ago

I'm convinced most of this anti-malware software is largely security theatre, but it helps IT departments sleep better at night I guess.

kragen 5y ago

I imagine that what happened was that, if the same muggles came back to you every week to uninstall the same malware from their computers, you'd get pretty tired of it after a few months and install some kind of malware blocker. It's not a solution to the problem, but it's a painkiller.

alerighi 5y ago

Anti malware software is worse than malware in itself. By the way the reason we have malware in Windows is for how Windows works: unlike Linux distributions Windows doesn't have a package manager (yes, now there is the Windows store, but practically no one uses it, even Microsoft itself since you don't find Office on it!), and thus users need to download executables from the internet. But users are stupid and will probably download the first link they find on Google that probably contain malware. In Linux that is not possible, not because Linux is more secure (it's not), but for the simple fact that downloading executables from the internet is not something you commonly do, you install software from trusted sources. To run a file you downloaded you even need to add a permission that is not enabled by default. That is enough to avoid people executing by mistake with a double click a file they received by email named invoice.pdf.exe (where of course Windows hides the .exe extension by default...). Microsoft is addressing a problem the wrong way around, instead of establishing a trusted source of software, they are still developing antivirus software that not only slows down the computer, but they don't even work so well with modern malwares, that are so sophisticated to bypass easily an antivirus protection.