Who actually uses Antivirus?

[KeeperOfThePizza]

I never use anti virus at all, I dont feel it's necessary. I mean if you know what your doing and what your downloading I think your safe.

[Ricardo Gil]

You just said "Best Practices" was better than using any kind of AV on the market, yet you just claimed

Maybe I'm too confused by your flip-flopping to understand the point you are trying to illustrate.

"But I can tell you that using a good set of "Best Practices" is better than using any kind of AV on the market."

Yes, I said that. Your point? I didn't say it was better not to use one.

Then you say "Maybe I'm too confused by your flip-flopping to understand the point you are trying to illustrate."

That's because your are simply not reading.

/sigh. Using AV is simply responsible and anyone who says otherwise I have little interest in their opinion if I'm trying to keep my environment protected, period. I can quote myself above, but I won't waste my time. If your model was so great, it would be employed by businesses all over the place today and everywhere else. And then you know what would happen? It would be compromised. And then you'd have to think of another strategy to stop it from being compromised and then...wait a minute...that almost sounds exactly like what most AV companies do today? Oh my goodness! Even firewall companies seem to have a similar defense. And some of them are really even proactive and try to prevent this kind of stuff from happening to begin with. Wait a minute, I'm on a roll here, don't stop me! :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're on a roll, missing the point twice. I'll just say it again: IF YOU DON'T USE AN AV. See this? IF YOU DON'T USE AN AV, THERE ARE BEST PRACTICES YOU CAN TAKE TO AVOID VIRUSES.

Your line of thinking on best practices seems to fail to include AV, so I'm not a fan of your best practices guide.

See that? You missed the point again.

And to echo what I said before, I'll be willing to bet that if you walked into 100 businesses and told them about your best practices and how they didn't include using AV, every single one of them would simply stop paying attention. Maybe your wording is what I take the most issue with.

And again...

Talk ignorance all you want. I'm not interested on how you dance around the "logic" you posted. Bottom line is that it's more responsible to run AV on your system than to not run AV on your system.

Stating the obvious again...

I understand what the OP stated and his question. I've re-read what you have posted and have issued my replies to your statements. I don't take offense to any of this, nor did I feel it was a personal attack, but if you're gonna debate this with me, personally, you better bring your A game because I'm all about debating.

Look, if we're gonna debate this, let's at least get straight about the issue. Maybe I'll be redundant but I'm willing to take the chance, just so you understand what I'm talking about:

I currently don't use an AV. Is it risky? Yeah, comparing to just simply not having one.

Why do I do it? It lags my computer. The one used at the office randomly chooses an app during the day and just jams it. Why it does that I'll never know. I just decided to remove it. Things went smoothly since then.

A few years back I got burned on my home pc, even with an updated AV (norton at the time). Some exe was infected and hell broke loose.

So I thought to myself "I have this thing lagging my pc, and it's useless. Why bother?". I've decided to take another route.

No more unknown executables, no admin accounts, no funky emails, no autorun, etc, etc, etc...

I do have to compromise alot, there are many things I just can't do because they're not safe to do without an AV backing me up, but hey, I chose to. And it's been a few good years working like that.

But I'm not saying people shouldn't use one if they can.

I'll say it again, it's risky. But between having just one of them, either the AV or being responsible, I'll chose responsibility. If you have both, the better.

If you're talking security best practices, then of course using an AV should be there. But, in case you don't have one, for whatever reason that is, you can still protect yourself, using your head and common sense.

I hope you understand it now, 'cause I won't bother replying again. I'd just be repeating myself.

[+orgitnized Subscriber¹]

I'm still going to go over a few things you've already written, just for the cheap seats.

Being responsible and updated is more than enough for everyone I guess.

Like I said, keep updated and you'll be just fine.

I think you're twisting what I said. I never said it's 100% secure, nothing is. But I can tell you that using a good set of "Best Practices" is better than using any kind of AV on the market.

That would create a paradox... having the AV as part of "best practices" for not needing an AV.

But I get your point, it should be used as an added security. It's just that for me in specific, that added security doesn't make up for the downside of having one installed.

Ricardo, if I wanted to waste my time, I'd use one of my friends as an actor and make a YouTube video so people could see how John Kerry your comments are. Look at everything you've said that I've bolded. Not to mention, you just said

I didn't say it was better not to use one

and I can look at the previous bolded quotes.

Now, I've read the responses to what everyone has wrote that your comments have stirred up. When you walked in this forums and started making your comments, I think that most people would say that you were the kind of guy that had the virus makers outsmarted - or at least you think you do. You talk about ... how bout I just quote you again:

Being responsible and updated is more than enough for everyone I guess.

Like I said, keep updated and you'll be just fine.

It's more than enough you say. If it's more than enough, you wouldn't need an AV, yet you still say

I didn't say it was better not to use one.

Do you even understand what you wrote, or are you now confused because you have done so much back-peddling? I'm seriously interested to know.

Yeah, we get it. You personally don't use an AV - great, you answered the OP's question. But you are also giving everyone the impression that it's simply not necessary because of what I again quoted above. I still fail to see the logic in your postings. It's not because I didn't read them - I paid plenty of attention to what you wrote, as did others who had opposing statements to what you wrote.

I love how you write how I state the obvious when I write about it being more responsible to use an AV product. Yet, just because I love your posts, I'm going to quote it again:

Being responsible and updated is more than enough for everyone I guess.

Like I said, keep updated and you'll be just fine.

...But I can tell you that using a good set of "Best Practices" is better than using any kind of AV on the market.

That would create a paradox... having the AV as part of "best practices" for not needing an AV.

I know what you wrote, I'm looking right at it. I see what you wrote every single time I quote you. There is no misunderstanding on my part that I'm aware of. And please, if there is someone else in this thread that simply thinks that I absolutely missed some point, feel free to chime in and let me know. Furthermore

Mock all you want but back in the day I actually used AV's the perfomance hit was HUGE, and still I got burned.

Why buy a new computer and have it perform like it's 2+ years old? I'll take higher level security anyday.

Let me wipe the tears from my eyes before replying here. Buying a new computer and installing and properly configuring an AV doesn't make it perform like the type of 2+ year old machine you illustrate. I'm sorry, did you say I'll take the higher level security anyday but this still fails to include AV? Poll Neowin (for the sake of this discussion) and ask them whether or not your machine is more or less secure by using a properly configured AV product than without. Oh wait, you just wrote

But I'm not saying people shouldn't use one if they can.

I'll say it again, it's risky. But between having just one of them, either the AV or being responsible, I'll chose responsibility. If you have both, the better.

If you're talking security best practices, then of course using an AV should be there. But, in case you don't have one, for whatever reason that is, you can still protect yourself, using your head and common sense.

I hope you understand it now, 'cause I won't bother replying again. I'd just be repeating myself.

I still laugh as I read the quotes at the top of this reply and how much you try and blur the meanings of what you previously wrote, yet the quotes say it all. At the end of this discussion you make it seem like you are "pro both" and always have been, yet your previous quotes illustrate a different opinion. You are trying to now make it so that it's too hard to argue the points because you are saying that a combination is good, even though you came off as saying that it wasn't necessary. There's a job in politics for you somewhere, I can just feel it. :laugh:

[theyarecomingforyou]

How can people possibly justify using "best practices" to avoid genuine websites being compromised? If a site specialising in anti-virus software can be compromised then any can. The point is that having a decent anti-virus (and Norton doesn't really count) allows you to use your computer how you want, instead of having to restrict websites, flash drives and emailed documents. It does have an impact upon system performance but if you pick a decent one then the impact is minimal.

When you have free anti-virus software available, and when genuine websites and documents from trusted friends can become compromised, it really doesn't make much sense to go without. Using "common sense" simply reduces a serious risk to a considerable risk - using a decent anti-virus (like NOD32 or Kaspersky) virtually eliminates the risk. Obviously it's up to the individual but I'd rather pay a small amount for NOD32 than risk losing some of my most valued documents.

@Ricardo Gil - I respect that you don't want the performance hit but simply limiting what you access does not protect you. The only way that would work is if the computer wasn't connected to the internet, you didn't install anything but the most trusted software (Office, etc - even then there is the possibility of a pirated copy that otherwise looks genuine) and you never accessed any file not created on your computer (flash drives, CD-Rs/DVD-Rs, etc). Then your computer is effectively so crippled there is little point even having it. I'm all for a reasonable debate but the damage from a virus should you get infected is infinitely worse than the small performance hit from using anti-virus software - I have not seen any compelling reason to not use one. Word starting up 0.4 seconds faster is not reason enough. I wish that Windows was secure enough to not need it but that is unfortunately not the case - even Apple is pushing out considerable security updates every months.

[Xenomorph]

I say you should all go without anti-virus!!!

But make sure to always keep the phone numbers of tech support on hand.

We techs love making money off fools that think they don't need protection.

I get to pull in $125 an hour cleaning up systems because someone didn't think they needed antivirus... So please, by all means, don't take the time to install one of the dozens of free and effective antivirus scanners out there.

Techs like me are standing by ready to take your money when you can't use your system any more because of ignorance and/or arrogance (that is, if we're not all too busy fixing systems already brought down by lack of protection).

[markwolfe Veteran]

...

We techs love making money off fools that think they don't need protection.

...

In their defense, many of the people posting here that they don't use AV are both

a) willing to accept the responsibility of the chance of infection

and

b) capable of fixing it themselves, should it happen.

I still think it is a bad idea, but if an informed and capable user chooses to not use this "safety belt" as was described earlier in this thread, than so be it. It's their computer.

[jamend]

If a site specialising in anti-virus software can be compromised then any can. The point is that having a decent anti-virus (and Norton doesn't really count) allows you to use your computer how you want, instead of having to restrict websites, flash drives and emailed documents.

This is what I meant by "false sense of security". If a site specializing in anti-virus software can be compromised, then what makes you think having anti-virus software would protect you from the same thing happening to you? Things like anti-virus software and firewalls can increase security, but they can't be relied on, and you're not inherently insecure without them.

PS I used to be a computer technician... I didn't use antivirus on my computer then and I still don't now.

[Jock Horror]

no AV here -- running gutsy though... :-))

[theyarecomingforyou]

Things like anti-virus software and firewalls can increase security, but they can't be relied on, and you're not inherently insecure without them.

You're not inherently insecure without a seatbelt on but the vast majority of people still choose them (despite laws governing them being effectively unenforceable) - not only that but there's even extra protection offered by crumple zones and airbags. The risk here is not to your life but instead to personal documents, files, photos, etc - files that people value incredibly highly. The problem with compromised websites is that sites you visit regularly are assumed to be safe. Getting infected from them would be as expected as walking down town and being hit by a landmine - it's not something you can predict. Not having anti-virus means that you basically cannot open attachments on emails and do other things - if you do you're at risk from compound idiocy (your friend might be trustworthy and not run anti-virus but he may trust a slightly less trustworthy person, who in turn trusts a slightly less trustworthy person, who in turn trusts their grandparents who are happily infected by 376 different virus and spyware combinations). So people trade a slight performance hit for restricted computer usage and a vastly increased risk of infection.

I think it's worrying that many people advocating not using anti-virus are supposedly knowledgeable with computers. It's like a fireman not using fire alarms or fire extinguishers - sure their house may not catch fire but if it does they're just as likely to die as the next person. It's like a doctor not wearing gloves in surgery because they washed their hands real good. Still, I couldn't care less if you get infected with a virus... it's not my problem.

[+orgitnized Subscriber¹]

This is what I meant by "false sense of security". If a site specializing in anti-virus software can be compromised, then what makes you think having anti-virus software would protect you from the same thing happening to you? Things like anti-virus software and firewalls can increase security, but they can't be relied on, and you're not inherently insecure without them.

So a Fortune 500 company shouldn't use any type of firewalled protection or AV because they can't be relied on? Seriously, I don't understand what some of you guys type. You guys leave too many statements open for interpretation :rolleyes:

I rely on a firewall to assist me in keeping my perimeter secure.

I rely on an anti-virus product to assist in keeping me safe from viruses.

It's 2 simple statements, with plenty of examples.

Also, the previous example is still a good one, in regards to the web exploits. Seeing as not every single web exploit is based on a virus sneaking in, but rather a code snippet or exploit - how, exactly does that fall on the hands of blaming the AV; or the firewall for that matter? If it falls within a set of rules, it's got a better chance of beating the system. But to not have the protection on at all leaves you open to a wider range of attacks instead of one that targets a specific and/or known/unknown/0-day exploit.

I read the comment and then read how people used to be computer technicians and have no doubts about why that is. And, of course, what I'm thinking isn't the reason why they aren't anymore - but when I see it, it adds fuel to the fire instead of making it seem like you are supposed to be more credible. :rolleyes:

[+Warwagon MVC]

I'm in the computer repair business and about once or twice a day I go to someones home and format and reinstall a windows machine that got compromised by some kind of infection. to decide whether or not to clean a machine or format and start over by asking myself even if I got this machine as clean as I possibly could, would I ever enter my banking information in this computer? My answer is always HELL NO! All of these individuals are usually running up to date antivirus.

[x-byte]

We got a computer in at work today.. The owner didn't have an antivirus program installed. There was viruses in the thousands... never seen it this bad before. And even worse.. he didn't even care about it. People know to little what a simple virus can do these days. No wonder people have their personal information and identity stolen.

[That Guy Veteran]

There's no single way to approach this; we all have different needs.

In some situations, anti-virus and firewall may not be needed, for example, many of you people have secured your systems, visit the same websites each day, and never open attatchments etc. You would be aware that viruses can spread by pen drives, and so would be careful regarding external media sources. In such a case, there would be very little benefit of having anti-virus software.

Equally however, there are many situations in which anti-virus and firewalls would be needed. For example, servers left without firewalls and anti-virus would be reduced to nothing within weeks, if not less. Also, parents would undoubtedly want anti-virus in order to stop their kids from downloading virual hell (even if they were perfectly careful, security-cautious people themselves). And of course, there will always be people who are ignorant regarding computer security - not necessarily in a negative way, just perhaps they have never been educated regarding such issues.

So, to conclude, it is unfair to say that nobody needs anti-virus, but it is equally unfair to say that everybody needs anti-virus. Of course, there will always be people who don't use anti-virus and actually need it, and vice versa, but the point is clear: there's no single way to approach the answer.

[+allan MVC]

There's no single way to approach this; we all have different needs.

In some situations, anti-virus and firewall may not be needed, for example, many of you people have secured your systems, visit the same websites each day, and never open attatchments etc.

So, to conclude, it is unfair to say that nobody needs anti-virus, but it is equally unfair to say that everybody needs anti-virus. Of course, there will always be people who don't use anti-virus and actually need it, and vice versa, but the point is clear: there's no single way to approach the answer.

You really should read through some of the posts in this thread (though I know there are quite a few and some aren't easy to get through ;) ). Bottom line, your assumption is incorrect. There's no such thing as someone who doesn't need an anti-virus or fireawall (unless they do not have an internet connection - then the firewall is clearly not needed). As has been pointed out time and again in this thread and elsewhere - it is possible for your system to be infected simply by going online. You need not visit any specific website or open an email attachment. I have personally seen systems pick up a virus 30 seconds after booting to a brand new OS installation and before opening the web browser.

As I said earlier - if someone chooses not to install an AV utility on his own system and doesn't ask my opinion, it's absolutely none of my business. But when that person starts telling others on a public forum that they don't need to install an anti-virus, well, then we all have an obligation to set the record straight. Then everyone can make an informed decision for themselves.

[abcdefg]

As I said earlier - if someone chooses not to install an AV utility on his own system and doesn't ask my opinion, it's absolutely none of my business. But when that person starts telling others on a public forum that they don't need to install an anti-virus, well, then we all have an obligation to set the record straight.

O'RLY?

How many of AV advocates are running XP with admin account?

It's like driving a car without using safety belt. ;)

Oh please all you admins, don't come here telling me to run AV when your own safety belt lies there unused.

There's no such thing as someone who doesn't need an anti-virus

You need luck to be able to sell AV to OS X users.

I have personally seen systems pick up a virus 30 seconds after booting to a brand new OS installation

Has that ever happened to anyone else but M$ product users?

[+allan MVC]

I've been reading your posts. Clearly a lot of thought went into selecting your avatar - seems to be quite appropriate ;)

[abcdefg]

I've been reading your posts. The name on your avatar seems to be an apt fit ;)

Oh, thanks. I've always thought that Zune sounds great. Like a dry fart or something.

Too bad I haven't really read your posts.

[ViperAFK]

Holy flamebait batman!

[Jaybonaut]

I use OneCare - does so much stuff all automatically and gives me a report. Pretty sweet little package for cheap.

[Unholy Moley!]

I don't use any antivirus software and haven't for years. I do use a software firewall (outpost). Using that, keeping up-to-date and not installing programs that I can't fully trust has kept me clean so far. Is antivirus bad? As long as you go for the right ones, no. It's an extra layer of protection that works well against viruses. (Again, provided you don't go for ones like Norton.) However by using antivirus you pay the cost in system resources. I don't think its worth the cost, being that I don't personally need antivirus, but if you do then by all means, use it.

[anonymous_user]

I stopped using a realtime AV (I still run ondemand scans though) and instead I use System Safety Monitor on one computer and Prevx on the other.

My computers run faster but theyre still protected :cool:

[IceDogg]

So, I'm just wondering how do you defend against attacks like the SEO poisoning attacks growing? I'm not saying AV is THE answer, I'm just wondering because safe browsing does not stop the risk of av infections from what I understand. Maybe you could teach me something and others as well.

These attacks are happening now, at Google, wired.com cnet..and even here at Neowin there has been attacks via the website being hacked in the past. So, how do you defend against those without any av or other security programs? Or do you use something other then av software..and that's what you mean?

I hear all the time just don't go to crack sites or porn sites and you are ok, but that's not true.

I looked, but didn't see ANY reply to my post above. I just read where a popular AV company's site was serving up malware. I know this could be said 'see av doesn't protect you' but my point is no site is 'safe'. Safe surfing is a myth.

Trend-Micro site hacked

[hotdog666al]

No A/V here! Keeping them running all the time slows your system down too much, and I'd never bother running a scan.

If I got a big problem, I'd just wipe!

I use Adaware and Spybot now and then.

[Hum]

I just spay the inside of my case with Lysol -- no viruses ! :woot:

(Really, I just run free AVG)

[+allan MVC]

I just spay the inside of my case with Lysol -- no viruses !

.

Just about as clever as the post immediately above yours.

[Jovaras]

I don't. Firstly, I know what I'm doing and what I'm opening. Secondly AV's takes memory and runs several proccesses, I just hate additional proccesses.