Gaming Stop Paying for Windows Security

[Urza]

http://gbatemp.net/t229377-recommended-ant...t&p=2865030

 

[Matthew]

this article is over a year old

I already get free 3rd party anti-virus/spyware/firewall/ect.. protection from symantec endpoint from my school

while it may be old, it is still relevant and all of the programs mentioned are still alive

also, my dad gets free Norton from work, and he makes me use it so... yeah kinda sucks

Your not FORCED to use it though are you?

 

[Terminator02]

http://gbatemp.net/t229377-recommended-ant...t&p=2865030
how does the article use anecdotal evidence? and it is not from random people

also, i checked the website and Microsoft scored well

Spoiler

QUOTE(Joe88 @ Nov 28 2010, 11:36 PM) this article is over a year old

I already get free 3rd party anti-virus/spyware/firewall/ect.. protection from symantec endpoint from my school

while it may be old, it is still relevant and all of the programs mentioned are still alive

also, my dad gets free Norton from work, and he makes me use it so... yeah kinda sucks

Your not FORCED to use it though are you?

im not really gonna get anything started with my dad, we've always used his works antivirus (used to be mcafee)

 

[Urza]

http://gbatemp.net/t229377-recommended-ant...t&p=2865030

how does the article use anecdotal evidence? and it is not from random people

It was directed at the thread in general, not your particular post.

That being said, Heddings' article in the OP doesn't offer any useful information (and actually contains several inaccuracies) aside from the AV-Comparatives link also present in my above post.

 

[Terminator02]

Heddings' article in the OP doesn't offer any useful information (and actually contains several inaccuracies)

and they are...

dont just say some things are wrong and not explain

 

[Urza]

Heddings' article in the OP doesn't offer any useful information (and actually contains several inaccuracies)

and they are...

dont just say some things are wrong and not explain

First of all, he claims that MSSE doesn't ship with behavior-based detection, when it does (and had at the time the article was written). This entire article is essentially extolling software-based security, yet when he (falsely) identifies a huge flaw in the software, he brushes it under the rug and tells you to act safer.

Next up is the dismissal of outbound firewalls. Not all broadcasting malware is comprehensive enough to alter the host's firewall rules. "If the malware has made its way onto your computer, you have already lost the war." This also being untrue, as the infection can spread to other machines (both on and off your local network) in addition to getting you on various blacklists depending on the quantity and content of what's being sent out.

Up comes the testy subject of UAC. Instead of reinforcing the mindset that UAC was designed to convey (which is that you should not use an admin account in your day-to-day usage), he actually suggests that you use the admin account as a potential solution.

I could keep going, but I think that's sufficient. The lesson here is that "random blogger on the internet" != reputable security expert.

 

[Infinite Zero]

.....And I'm still sticking to Kaspersky.

 

[Originality]

Kaspersky on every computer/laptop in my network + regular scans + having the websense to treat every link on the internet with a shade of paranoia + knowledge of how to use google = all the security I will ever need.

 

[Thoob]

I agree with this article, actually. Although, I'm like the author of the article - I haven't been infected by a virus in years. You just have to use common sense when downloading files and clicking on links!

 

[sprogurt]

First rule of anti viruses, is none are perfect.

Not as vital as putting on a condom maybe, but pretending one anti virus solution is ever perfect is like assuming you can use 1 condom indefinitely.

This. For a full virus scan you use multiple AVs until they scan clean or pick up quarantined viruses by other AVs.

The only Free Anti-Virus, with great Heuristic and DB Engine, Monitoring http and FTP Traffic, is Avast. For even more Security I use ThreatFire with it.

MSE is bullshit, never get high rankings in independent Tests.

By this logic Norton must be one of the most amazing AVs because this link says so. It may have avast as the top free one, but seeing as they completely bullshitted their way through the Norton review no one in their right mind would consider them trustworthy.

Spoiler

That one is more trustworthy as it doesn't list a single AV as the best. Like it was said earlier you need to use multiple virus scanners to make your machine the most virus free you can.

QUOTE(RupeeClock @ Nov 29 2010, 10:40 AM) Point is never use Norton, ever. Three big offenses are that its virus scan actually doesn't pick up shit, it slows the system down to hell, and worst of you, you have to PAY for that.
Why do you think they give Norton away free with computer systems? It's the only way they can move their shit, onto unsuspecting customers!

They put it onto machines so that when unsuspecting customers renew their subscription the company that it was bought from (pcworld, currys, etc) will get money for bundling it with their machines. Think of it more as a referral link but they sign you up under their address.


QUOTE(ecko @ Nov 29 2010, 05:14 PM)

Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enough

UNIX systems still get viruses. I could say stay with windows so you don't get a UNIX based virus, it's just the risk is lowered on a UNIX based machine. It's still possible.


For a windows machine I'd say use MSE, MBAM, Spyware Doctor, Combo fix and a few more (can't remember them off the top of my head).

 

[Rydian]

Websites get payed by advertising companies to let the ad companies stick random ads in the website when it's viewed. The ad companies get payed by people that want to advertise. The people that want to advertise pay the ad company, and give the ad company the code/image/file for the ad, which is then randomly given out to any sites that display it.

Normally that works fine, but if some lowlife uses a trick or three to stick an infection in an ad, it can show up in multiple sites for hours before it's caught and removed, since it has to be traced backwards by multiple companies. As a result, almost any site that displays advertisements could possibly give an infection. The chances are slim, but it's possible, even more on sites that deal in shady things, like ROMs or Warez or free porn. This is partially why it's so important to keep some protection that's always on.

You can even get infected by good sites like The New York Times.

 

[Urza]

Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enough

UNIX systems still get viruses. I could say stay with windows so you don't get a UNIX based virus, it's just the risk is lowered on a UNIX based machine. It's still possible.

The difference in chance of coming across a POSIX-compliant virus that can actually do damage within the limitations of the permissions system, and coming across a virus that absolutely rapes Windows' monolithic kernel is akin to the chance of getting AIDS from sitting on a park bench, and by having unprotected sex with a hooker holding a "FREE AIDS" sign.

 

[Rydian]

UAC says hi.

"Well a Windows user could just disable UAC or give the permission anyways."
Well a Linux user could just run as root or sudo the command anyways.

 

[ecko]

Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enough

UNIX systems still get viruses. I could say stay with windows so you don't get a UNIX based virus, it's just the risk is lowered on a UNIX based machine. It's still possible.


For a windows machine I'd say use MSE, MBAM, Spyware Doctor, Combo fix and a few more (can't remember them off the top of my head).

you're correct, *nix also has some viruses in the wild, however, it's by a magnitude less then windows machines.

 

[Urza]

UAC says hi.

"Well a Windows user could just disable UAC or give the permission anyways."
Well a Linux user could just run as root or sudo the command anyways.

Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.

 

[Rydian]

Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.

Sources plz.

 

[Urza]

Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.

Sources plz.

The most recent:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010...ypasses-uac.ars

 

[Rydian]

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/08/13/2...l-Linux-Kernels

Shit happens on all three major OSes that can bypass the normal security features.

 

[nando]

i wouldn't be surprised if anti virus companies spread viruses so they can sell even more anti virus software

anyway. i hope macs stay in the low user percentage for as long as i live.

 

[Necoconeco]

I'm my own anti-virus software.

While its true I never install security updates or updates in general, I also don't bother with anti-virus programs, even the free wares. I spot viruses myself and force quit/end them before they have chances to download completely. If Anyone knows how to spot and stop a virus, then they don't need protection from them. I've only received one virus since the day I stopped using anti-virus softwares (It was around 2003,2004ish).