Re: Is AV software necessary?

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

From: MS (nobody_at_spamcop.net)
Date: 05/26/04 

Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 16:20:39 -0400

That's a good synopsis, and I agree. Might I also add the
common possibility of spam viruses sent in dictionary
attacks? Even the most immune systems have been targetted
and caught by them, unfortunately.
   Unfortunately, these discussions are with a closed minded
person who asked a question full well knowing it was stupid
and who will not listen to any advice since that wasn't its
intent. IMO, anyway. Seems like it's troll-feeding season.

Pop

"D.Currie" <dmbcurrie.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hk282Fdmup1U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV
software. I work in IT
> > support and I really couldn't count the number of
perfectly good Windows
> > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of
the other bloated
> > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
things with
> > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of
boot up time and the
> > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> >
> > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies
could hope to
> > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical
length of time, AV
> > software is completely powerless to protect your system
when any
> > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> >
> > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
what? - no viruses.
> > This is because
> >
> > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
administrator
> > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > (3) I don't download, install or run software from
disreputable websites
> > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
distribution clients
> > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> >
> > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common
sense couldn't
> > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
doesn't turn my
> > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
grinding hard disk.
> >
> > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the
endless problems
> > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple
nice, clean
> > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still
have to mess around
> > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even
though essentially
> > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> >
> > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided
like the plague.
> >
>
> AV software may not be necessary IF you can operate your
computer in a
> completely risk-free manner. But some people can't (or
won't).
>
> For instance, I know better than to open attachments from
strangers, but it
> wasn't that long ago that I found a Word macro virus
embedded in a document
> I was expecting from a known source. Without AV software,
I wouldn't have
> known about the virus. There's no way I can get around
opening those sorts
> of files unless I have people mail the documents to me,
and I retype them,
> or scan and OCR them, and I'm not about to start doing
that.
>
> That's an example that might apply to common users. But
even more critical
> for me is that I repair other people's computers, and
there are plenty of
> times when I have to attach their hard drive to my test
machine (to copy
> files off of a non-booting drive, for instance) and there
have been plenty
> of times that my AV software has alerted to viruses on
their drive.
>
> And although plenty of people claim that they never open
attachments, etc.,
> I clean off a lot of viruses, and I can pretty much
guarantee that the
> majority of those computers either don't have AV software
or they have
> expired AV software. The rare one with up-to-date software
usually comes in
> with the complaint that they know they have a virus, but
they just can't get
> rid of it, and those will usually have one virus as
opposed to the multitude
> that are on the unprotected computers.
>
> If you know enough about computers, you'll know what
processes are supposed
> to be running, what seems suspicious, and how to protect
your computer. But
> most users don't know any of that. They install "free"
software that's laden
> with spyware, they click on attachments because it came
from a friend, and
> they have no interest in learning any better. So AV
software provides a
> necessary layer of protection.
>
> Oh yeah...and you probably have your files backed up so
that if something
> sneaks in, you can reformat your drive and start over
without much pain.
> Most people have no idea what they'd do if they had to
start over.
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is AV software necessary?
    ... viruses spread faster than the AV companies ... >> spread updated virus definitions. ... >> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common ... > majority of those computers either don't have AV software ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • Re: So, windows doesnt get viruses and worms eh?
    ... Computers will get attacked often if you have a constant ... Viruses and worms ... Show me one virus or worm for UNIX. ... this, how many of that 114,000 are worms instead of viruses? ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: So, windows doesnt get viruses and worms eh?
    ... Computers will get attacked often if you have a constant connection to the Internet. ... Viruses and worms are a fact of life. ... Show me one virus or worm for UNIX. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: So, windows doesnt get viruses and worms eh?
    ... Computers will get attacked often if you have a constant ... Viruses and worms are a fact of life. ... Show me one virus or worm for UNIX. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Mail Deliver Subsystem responses.
    ... This is pretty common. ... Often those viruses will spoof the From ... As long as you have a full-featured av installed using updated virus ...
    (microsoft.public.security)