4 ms·

Here's the thing, A/V software is just one more thing to work around. There's no inherent aspect of an operating system that should require A/V, and there's not

Here's the thing, A/V software is just one more thing to work around. There's no inherent aspect of an operating system that should require A/V, and there's nothing about A/V that suddenly makes a system invulnerable to exploit. Yes, security should be managed in layers, but the management of those layers should be trusted to the "right" person. A/V companies believe that they are the right person. Apple believes that they are the right person. If you're going to levy the "security theather" attack at Apple, we could just as easily fire that shot in the direction of A/V companies. When "malware" came on the scene, A/V companies were completely unprepared. Their response was that "malware isn't a virus". From a technical perspective, they're correct, but from the user's perspective, it was a huge failing. Virtually everyone I know who has been affected by malware said the same thing: "But I pay for Kaspersky/McAfee/Avast/Whatever anti-virus, how did I get infected!?" I'm supposed to believe that these are the "right" people with whom to entrust the security of my computer?

tjoff 14y ago
There's no inherent aspect of an operating system that should require A/V... Most operating systems allow you to install software. If the user installs software from untrustworthy sources an A/V is the only thing that can protect him/her. No it isn't perfect but few claim it to be.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  > If the user installs software from untrustworthy sources This has never been an inherent possibility on mobile operating systems.
  - cantankerous 14y ago
    Well, you can do it on Android, but they make it hard enough that you really have to know that you want to. There have been isolated instances of this being a source of malicious problem for users, though.
- bradleyland 14y ago
  And yet, A/V hasn't been -- by any reasonable measure -- succesful in stopping malicious software. Maybe the solution is to stop installing software from untrustworthy sources? My statement can't be taken without context. Stated with more context: "there is no inherent aspect of an operating system that favors A/V as protection from malicious software over any other (like code signing)." In practice, quite the opposite is true. We've proven, through practice, that A/V is a poor solution.

tjoff 14y ago

There's no inherent aspect of an operating system that should require A/V... Most operating systems allow you to install software. If the user installs software from untrustworthy sources an A/V is the only thing that can protect him/her. No it isn't perfect but few claim it to be.

gurkendoktor 14y ago
> If the user installs software from untrustworthy sources This has never been an inherent possibility on mobile operating systems.
- cantankerous 14y ago
  Well, you can do it on Android, but they make it hard enough that you really have to know that you want to. There have been isolated instances of this being a source of malicious problem for users, though.
bradleyland 14y ago
And yet, A/V hasn't been -- by any reasonable measure -- succesful in stopping malicious software. Maybe the solution is to stop installing software from untrustworthy sources? My statement can't be taken without context. Stated with more context: "there is no inherent aspect of an operating system that favors A/V as protection from malicious software over any other (like code signing)." In practice, quite the opposite is true. We've proven, through practice, that A/V is a poor solution.