7 ms·
Poll: Do you use antivirus software?
- nicholassmith 13y agoOS X since 10.4, and I've never even considered installing one. I'm aware that there's been trojans for OS X, but I don't open strange attachments, and I make sure I know where all my software is coming from. Although OS X does actually have a file scanner built in, it's not a full anti-virus suite though.
- Raphmedia 13y agoNope. It's always off. I turn it on and scan about once a month or so. At most, I have some spywares. From experience, all the viruses that managed to infect me couldn't be fixed by the antivirus software and I had to do it manually, which is a pain.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- esonderegger 13y agoI have a HTPC running Windows 7 that has Microsoft Security Essentials installed (mostly to stop it from bugging me). My audio/video editing machine is a Mac without any antivirus software installed. And my development machine is running Ubuntu LTS without any antivirus. What's awkward is I don't even know which option to upvote.
- OSButler 13y agoOne option that's missing is self-monitoring. I don't run any antivirus software on my PC, but I do keep a very close eye on my running processes and network traffic. The same goes for applications/code downloaded from the internet or email attachments. My internet connection is also very slow, especially the upload speed, so you do notice right away if a program is uploading data. Also, at least on my Windows PC, I do clean reinstalls every now and then, so my OS install is usually less than a year old. I know this isn't foolproof and there are always ways to get around this, but the same goes when you're running antivirus software. There is no 100% safe option, the tricky part is finding a solution that works for you in both performance and convenience.
- gmuslera 13y agoProperly named antivirus have little sense in Linux, something runs as user and have the ability to modify system executables and spread to other systems probably are only experimental at best. But that don't take out following the by default security practices in distributions (install only from the distribution, be root only for the essentials, don't have by default enabled remote services, firewalls with everything denied by default, updating, etc). Trojans, vulnerabilities in enabled services, or even in browsers/plugins/etc are still a concern, but those kinds of attack are not the ones that antivirus usually spot. Checking for rootkits (i.e. with rkhunter), browsers with improved security, and portknocking to make visible private services only to the people/computers that will use them are examples of measure that you can take. And, of course, you can always install clamav in your linux mail/file server if your users use windows.
- rogerthis 13y agoI never used anti-virus in Windows. Once I was happily searching the web for a solution to programming problem and a windows-like very good looking dialog popped up asking me something I could not answer no. All of a sudden my computer became unusable and, as fast as I could, I turned my router off. Then started a two hours fight to find what happened and solve the problem. Some Java code installed some things when I clicked yes in the dialog. I was using a vulnerable Java runtime, which had been recently exploited. I still don't use anti-virus in Windows. But I turned the Java plugin off. And now I use more Linux to do web development.
- Spittie 13y agoI user to use MSE under windows, and did the occasionally scan with MBAM. Then I ditched Windows for Linux, and never saw an AV again :) Anyway, Windows has got considerably more secure than the past. I feel that I used to run an antivirus "just because", and not because I felt the need for it. The "trick" is to always keep your system update (which mean, always install the latest patches as soon as they come out), always use an up-to-date browser, remove/disable (with click2play) any browser plugins, block ads (unblock them on sites that you feel secure/trustable, but ads are one of the main vector of diffusion for viruses), and obviously don't run any "sketchy" software you might find on the net (VirusTotal and similiar help with that, but for one-time/few uses, it's better to run a virtual machine and then restore it).
- mathenk2 13y agoWhile no system is 100% safe from viruses and malware, on my Linux machine I am guilty of not installing any AV. In the last decade or more, I have had no reason to -- although times may be changing. My web browser does not have flash, pdf readers are disabled, I'm always prompted on downloads, and Java can only run under user 'ohgodno' (and yes, it does have a passwd.) In most cases if there is an issue with a Linux machine, you can wipe out a user and their files to remedy the problem -- the core system is very rarely impacted.
- xenophonf 13y agoI assume that for the purposes of your survey, running ClamAV as part of a junk mail filter (all hosted on FreeBSD or Linux) counts as a "yes".
- emandelbrot 13y agoit is a waste of resources, my files are stored on the cloud and my dev env is a softlayer instance, so if my computer have a virus or someone steals it, I won't give a s..t
- pinkskip 13y agoWhat's that?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- erikig 13y agoMay I suggest: [mobile] yes [mobile] no
- bmaeser 13y agoplease use [other] yes/no and specify in comments.
- bearbin 13y agoIs there any good real-time AV for desktop linux available?
- marcosdumay 13y agoIs there any good real-time AV available? For any kind of system?
- acadien 13y agoI'm guessing they mean AV software for removal of windows viruses on thumb-drives? AV software for linux is 100% unnecessary AFAIK. Maybe a sysadmin could chime in?
- Derpdiherp 13y agoDidn't they say the same thing about iMacs? Can't comment though, I personally don't run an AV on linux.
- dlitz 13y agoAV software is effectively a really complicated blacklist-based form of access control, which is a terrible way to do security in the first place. There's no reason for antivirus software of this kind of exist on desktop Linux, because the whole operating system is free software, so if we want to fix some vulnerability that malware exploits, we can just do it (for example, by sandboxing applications), rather than implementing kludgy workarounds that turn users' machines into battlegrounds. From what I hear, Wayland should help a lot with this, since it's much simpler and provides better isolation than X11.
- onli 13y agoNo. My knowledge might be a bit dated, but as far as I know, there is nothing good. But you also don't need realtime Antivirus software for Linux, there still are no real active viruses for Linux. The scanner for detecting windows-virus while using Linux were said to be ok (ClamAV, I think).
- teach 13y agoAt work I'm required to use a locked-down Windows 7 machine, which has antivirus software I can't disable. (I would disable it if I could.) At home I use Linux and do not use antivirus software. I also always log in as root. I like to live dangerously. :)
- dlitz 13y agoIf you read about the technical implementation of the AV software that's been analyzed, you might not think it's that dangerous after all: http://www.cso.com.au/article/441070/google_security_researcher_keep_sophos_away_from_high_value_systems/ http://www.cso.com.au/article/441070/google_security_researc...
- pwnna 13y ago> I also always log in as root. I like to live dangerously. :) Man... I cannot even begin to express how bad this is. Especially if there are drive-by attacks.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoRunning as a privileged user protects other users and the OS, not you. If code runs as you, it has access to your data, your cookies, your cache, etc.
- state_machine 13y agoProtecting the OS does protect you: stealing my data/cookies today is different than installing OS level backdoor / keylogger and stealing my bank password, tax prep, etc next month/year/etc.
- Vektorweg 13y agoSo, installing a backdoor / keylogger in user level isn't that bad? why?
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
- frigg 13y agoI use windows defender because it comes with windows 8 and it's enabled by default (if that counts). I don't remember the last time I was infected by malware though.
- niuzeta 13y agoOn Windows machine it's pretty much impossible not to. Try installing Windows XP on a virtual box without any firewall setup, and within a day(or even hour) you will get infected. Windows Defender is fairly reliable as far as I've heard, but I'd be happier knowing that someone more qualified who specifically does that for a living is looking over. Also, when you have non-tech-savvy families you generally want to just get a cover-multiple-pc-at-a-license deals, just because it saves you a lot of hassles.
- bcoates 13y agoWhat, like the original release of XP from 2001? I'm trying to find a worm that uses a vulnerability that works on an out of the box, unpatched XP SP3 and the closest I can find is Conflicker and related MS08-067 worms, but even that requires turning off the on-by-default firewall or enabling non-default sharing settings.
- cpncrunch 13y agoEven if you're tech savvy it's still fairly easy to get infected by a trojan on a hijacked site. I use ff/chrome and avast! on Windows, which seems to be sufficient protection.
- ceejayoz 13y agoI'm a Mac guy, but come on. Windows XP is 12 years old. That's hardly a fair test. I haven't seen reports of Windows 7/8 machines getting rapidly infected like XP did. I think you can be assured that the Windows Defender team does antivirus stuff for a living, just as much as AV vendors do.
- codegeek 13y agoWindows, I use the free microsoft security essentials. Linux, none.
- YeahKIA 13y agoMicrosoft security essentials is what I use. Primarily because I have been using it on my older windows 7 machine.
- josefresco 13y agoMy existing Windows machines run ESET but I'm considering not for my new Win8 machine. I love ESET and have found it finds and stops viruses missed by others. However I found that the built in AV with Win8 was finding things that ESET missed. This leads me to believe that the stock AV is sufficient, and running an additional malware scanner periodically will give me the best results.
- lukio 13y agoMicrosoft security essentials. I was using Avast for years before that but then they started showing ads and other BS so I decided to let it go.
- nevinera 13y agoMy chromebook doesn't appear to need one.
- josefresco 13y agoYou know what they say about security through obscurity...
- fishercs 13y agoI have sophos on all my home systems, it works well and has a pretty small memory footprint.
- Jhsto 13y agoBeing part of AV beta programs is a great way to have reliable AV without the need of purchasing licenses every year. I'am myself part of F-Secure beta programme, which I use to protect my Windows. Despite of few crashes with their banking protection, I feel safe to say that beta programs are as protective as any stable builds.
- adamb_ 13y agoBy [other] I assume they mean [Android], since that's the 4th biggest mainstream OS to sport modern antivirus software.
- Romoku 13y agoI use Windows 8 which has built in MSE. I also have Malwarebytes Pro which does active monitoring.
- eof 13y agosurprised at how close total number of mac/win/linux are. also wonder what the 3% of people on 'other' are usiing.. just ios or android?
- asdasf 13y agoI'm under both windows and other. My others are openbsd and dragonflybsd.
- marcosdumay 13y agoI answered no for Windows, Linux and other (Android). (Yes, I assume "Linux" == "GNU/Linux".)
- tbirdz 13y agoThey might be running one of the BSDs.
- iaskwhy 13y agoI have Microsoft Security Essentials installed but I only run it on-demand.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- actionscripted 13y agoUnder OS X 10.9: No, Under Win 8.1: No When I'm in Windows I'm only playing games or casually browsing the web so attacks aren't a concern and if I do get infected I'll just wipe it and let Steam re-sync things. On my Mac I've got Time Machine just in case things get weird but, while I know OS X isn't virus-proof, I'm really not worried about catching something.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- elorant 13y agoIf you don't download warez you don't need an antivirus. Just follow good old fashioned policies, like not opening executable attachments in emails, don't install codecs from companies you don't know etc., and install a firewall to monitor outgoing traffic. I have a Windows 7 desktop and occasionally I might run a scan from an antimalware software. That's as far as I'm willing to go, I don't install special av software because they consume a lot of resources especially with real time analysis. EDIT: Furthermore, if you’re a tad paranoid you can enable AppLocker in Windows to eliminate any chance of an unwanted program wreaking havoc on your machine. Anything that’s not signed by a company you approve doesn’t run.
- wentkenko 13y agoTrying to give out this type of help is counter productive, visiting a website could get you infected. Antiviruses won't tell you when you have been infected with a zero-day but they will help you out later. It's best to have or to run files in a sandbox before you use them on a production system.
- mariuolo 13y ago> If you don't download warez you don't need an antivirus. That works most of the time, but it's not the only attack vector around: browser exploits (e.g. via ads), malevolous attachments sent by known contacts, direct attacks over networks and so on. In any case, it only takes once if you lower your guard; I'd run at least a lightweight one if I were you.
- thekiwi99 13y agoI'm going to say that's not true, because that opens you up to being exploited through methods you trust. You might not think a PDF can hurt you, but without AV you don't even stand a chance.
- wonderyak 13y agoThat might have been true a few years ago but it just isnt these days. Malware is being injected into ad networks on a semi-regular basis (I see Adblock as a defensive mechanism morese than something to get rid of ads). Sites also get hacked and can infect you that way. Its like saying people only care about NSA spying because they have something to hide -- its faulty logic.
- gabeio 13y agoonly basic users on mac would need antivirus because they can't tell what software is trust-worth and which is not.
- gabeio 13y agofigures some noob would flag my comment.
- Ellipsis753 13y agoI use Gentoo Linux and do not have any antivirus software. There doesn't really seem to be any for Linux systems. If someone knows of one please recommend it so I can take a look. Then again, there's fairly few viruses targeted at Linux systems and I'm sure even fewer I'd be likely to get on my Gentoo system.
- bediger4000 13y agoeven fewer I'd be likely to get on my Gentoo system I think you've just pointed out exactly why even though Linux viruses exist, they don't get a foothold (go "epidemic"). There's huge software diversity. I run Arch, you run Gentoo, others run Debian... The same goes for any given piece of software that's regularly infected in the Windows culture: email clients, web servers, web browsers. So, why was the Dan Geer "against monoculture" thing suppressed so enthusiastically a few years ago?
- latortuga 13y agoThe only one I've heard of is http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/ http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/ I installed it once on a mailserver due to the guide I was using recommending it but I do not use it on any systems I use day-to-day.
- kunai 13y agohttp://xkcd.com/272/ http://xkcd.com/272/
- pwnna 13y agoMy question for AV is... what's the actual detection rate for viruses and malware? As far as I understand, most of AV detection is still based around hash matching. Someone should correct me if I am wrong, though.
- marcosdumay 13y ago> what's the actual detection rate for viruses and malware? It's a surprizingly hard to answer that. The set of virus change every day, and is always unknown. > most of AV detection is still based around hash matching. Things are not that clear cut here either. The most usefull matching is hash based. Anti-virus also use other algos, they are just less reliable.
- AlexMax 13y agoI wonder how many Windows users who voted no are running Windows Defender without realizing it.
- thirsteh 13y agoProbably just about all of the Windows 8 users.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- wnevets 13y agoI run MSE. I dont have adobe or java products exposed by the browser nor do I download random binarys from the internet.
- abhididdigi 13y agoI've tried almost every Antivirus out there. After I started earning, I started buying Antivirus software. I started with Norton, which crashed my hard disk one day because of a virus, I tried McAfee, which wasn't very good taking large amounts of memory, and finally I had to settle to E-Set NOD 32. I'm not trying to promote the product, But that is one top notch Software. But the Customer Care at E-set is uh-oh, shit. On Linux, I never had the reason to use any Antivirus, because those who write viruses target Windows(mostly) because of its market share.
- romaniv 13y agoI started using an anti-virus on Windows a few years ago, but it never detected anything. There are other ways to stay secure. (Common sense when dealing with downloaded files, Sandboxy, JS blocked by default in the browser.) Overall, I feel that a truly secure system shouldn't need an anti-virus at all. Maybe some detection software like Tripwire, but not a scanning antivirus.
- tedivm 13y agoI am extremely bias, as I work for Malwarebytes, but it always amazes me how many smart people, who know a lot about computers, think that it's unnecessary to run some sort of protection software. Zero day exploits in browsers and their plugins (flash, java, even pdf readers) happen all the time, and malware authors love taking advantage of them. In a world where just browsing to a website can get you infected it's probably a good idea to have something to stop that. There is no set of "safe habits" that makes you immune to this- even going to reddit has gotten people infected when their ad network was compromised, and stuff like that happens constantly. My other favorite thing is all the people who say they've never run antivirus/antimalware, but then also claim to never have been infected. How would they even know? Modern malware tries to go undetected, it doesn't want to get detected and removed so it tried to remain as unobtrusive as possible. Those of you running linux or osx are exempt from this minirant ;-)
- dlitz 13y agoThe problem is that if you actually look at how this AV software works (and at how many AV companies behave), there are clear reasons not to trust them. For example: https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/sophailv2.pdf https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/sophailv2.pdf The problem of malware is systemic, and can't be solved by adding complex, poorly-constructed add-on software.
- thirsteh 13y agoThat doesn't mean you can't use AV that's not shitty, or Bit9 (application whitelisting, which a lot of AV products have built in now) like Tavis goes on to suggest at the end of the paper. Whitelisting is clearly superior to blacklisting if you have the patience and knowledge to whitelist the right applications.
- thirsteh 13y agoYou should qualify your last sentence by adding that the only real reasons that that is the case is that 1. Most Linux installations are headless, removing a humongous attack surface, and 2. Both have either not had a lot of market share historically, or they haven't had a lot of users that were easy to fool. Despite popular belief, neither platform is in some way inherently more secure than recent versions of Windows. The market share situation is changing now, and there's no reason to think that if Windows went away tomorrow the world would be malware-free.
- sksksk 13y agoI usually use a mac, but on my windows machine (which I use rarely) I run deepfreeze which resets my computer back to a predefined pint every time I restart it.
- edu 13y agoI use ClamXAv but it's not running all the time, just for certain files. Does it count as yes or not?