| Yes | 87% | 87% - 71 | ||||
| No | 12% | 12% - 10 | ||||
| Total: 81 | ||||||
And All you people claiming to "not need it", I suggest you download avast! and Spybot S&D and do a full system scan.. Then you will see why you should allways have an AV and scan regularly for Spyware and Bots...Steel wrote:
Best freeware AV
Last edited by FloppY_ (2008-02-26 09:30:15)
ok, and if it comes back clean do i win?FloppY_ wrote:
And All you people claiming to "not need it", I suggest you download avast! and Spybot S&D and do a full system scan.. Then you will see why you should allways have an AV and scan regularly for Spyware and Bots...Steel wrote:
Best freeware AV
exactly my pointmikkel wrote:
I don't use AV software. Never have, and I won't do so until I have reason to use it. Seven years without a virus on Windows is the result of common sense and PAT. I don't need an intrusive application hogging my resources.
Last edited by steelie34 (2008-02-26 09:50:52)
especially now that vista has defender built in, its even more protected than ever.kylef wrote:
I run Ad-Aware once every few months to remove any nasty cookies, that's about it. I haven't had a computer-attack 'virus' in a long time.
lol.steelie34 wrote:
I consider myself tech-savvy enough to not require it
New thread title: "I am savy, agree?"=Karma-Kills= wrote:
lol.steelie34 wrote:
I consider myself tech-savvy enough to not require it
So when Blaster v2 comes along you'll be safe right? Even though it requires no user intervention to install, im sure your savvy-ness will scare it off.
lol... i didnt mean it like that. haha... but when blaster v2 comes out, no AV software will stop it, let alone my savvy, so AV is still worthlessjsnipy wrote:
New thread title: "I am savy, agree?"=Karma-Kills= wrote:
lol.steelie34 wrote:
I consider myself tech-savvy enough to not require it
So when Blaster v2 comes along you'll be safe right? Even though it requires no user intervention to install, im sure your savvy-ness will scare it off.
Actually, it will. No one with the knowledge and in their right mind would expose any traffic not destined for an outside network, let alone NetBIOS/NetBEUI/SMB, to WAN links.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
lol.steelie34 wrote:
I consider myself tech-savvy enough to not require it
So when Blaster v2 comes along you'll be safe right? Even though it requires no user intervention to install, im sure your savvy-ness will scare it off.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-02-26 10:47:08)
sergeriver wrote:
Who doesn't use AV?
someone gets it. kudos to your savvy!mikkel wrote:
Actually, it will. No one with the knowledge and in their right mind would expose any traffic not destined for an outside network, let alone NetBIOS/NetBEUI/SMB, to WAN links.=Karma-Kills= wrote:
lol.steelie34 wrote:
I consider myself tech-savvy enough to not require it
So when Blaster v2 comes along you'll be safe right? Even though it requires no user intervention to install, im sure your savvy-ness will scare it off.
Last edited by steelie34 (2008-02-26 10:51:55)
Same hereRDMC wrote:
CA Anti Virus
To reaffirm my position, I just installed Avast! and did a full system scan. Four hits, all false positives. That's a year of wholly unnecessary, obtrusive bloat avoided on this installation.FloppY_ wrote:
And All you people claiming to "not need it", I suggest you download avast! and Spybot S&D and do a full system scan.. Then you will see why you should allways have an AV and scan regularly for Spyware and Bots...Steel wrote:
Best freeware AV
i didn't you meant it that, you aren't being totally unrational in your thinking.steelie34 wrote:
lol... i didnt mean it like that. haha... but when blaster v2 comes out, no AV software will stop it, let alone my savvy, so AV is still worthlessjsnipy wrote:
New thread title: "I am savy, agree?"=Karma-Kills= wrote:
lol.
So when Blaster v2 comes along you'll be safe right? Even though it requires no user intervention to install, im sure your savvy-ness will scare it off.
Yes, there are security holes. I haven't said there aren't. But I'm saying that, as opposed to the thousands of people currently creating, using and modifying worms, viruses and exploits for Windows, there are very, very few people currently working on creating those things for Linux, Mac and other platforms. As you said yourself; "if mac was the dominant OS, im sure it would be the same way". Over 90% of computer users use some version of Windows. With over 90% of PC users using Windows, a vast majority of hackers are aiming for that one, major platform. People simply can't be arsed hacking Linux and Mac systems, because there's really no gain in it.steelie34 wrote:
well, freezer, and jsnipy, i could use AV software to do all the things i do myself, but really my whole point was to say that i dont want all of the resource hogging bs of an anti-virus solution! i'd much rather do my own protection. and also, don't be so quick to think linux is invulnerable to attack. do some research on linux exploits and vulnerabilites here: http://www.cert.org/ i think you will be surprised. it may not be a "virus" per se, but still security holes nonetheless. viruses are generally directed toward pc's because they are a biiiig target. if mac was the dominant OS, im sure it would be the same way...
I still don't see the downside of having an application which uses >20MB of RAM to keep an extra eye out for you. For example, my chatting computer has got the majority of scripts and such disabled, and yet it has, over the course half a year had almost 3500 pieces of spyware removed by the antivirus program I have on it.steelie34 wrote:
the very fact that u say, "there always will be security holes in Operating Systems, Browsers and every application ever invented by man," remember this most definitely includes anti-virus software. not even a few months ago, i had to deal with some bullshit exploit that was spreading by using the open ports needed by symantec's AV software.Titch2349 wrote:
The reason behind this isn't really related to OS's, holes, or anything.steelie34 wrote:
i call bullshit because i get a weekly mailing from the US-cert organization that lists just as many security vulnerabilites in the linux and mac OS as it does in the windows OS. so those of you who jump on the bandwagon and say "i use linux because it's secure," you really need to think twice and do you research because it has it's own set of security flaws as well.
The simple thing is why create a virus for Linux, and get 1000 people infected, when you can develop a virus for Microsoft, and infect 1000000 people?
IMO, anyone tech-savvy enough to not use any anti virus software isn't tech-savvy at all.
I know very little about how virus's infect machines, so I quite happily take everything you say to be true and object to none of it, however, there always will be security holes in Operating Systems, Browsers and every application ever invented by man, so I prefer to always be protected, no matter how "tech-savvy" I think I am.
Kaspersky running in the background, using 3mb of memory, and scanning my computer once a week is much preffered to loosing my hard drive, identity, bank account, and everything else that can be got off my computer.
what i mean by saying tech-savvy, is having expert understanding of viruses, exploits, and the methods by which they attack. my job demands nothing less, so it's important that i am on the same curve as the hackers and security experts alike. i am not disupting the fact that there are exploits and holes all over software and OS's, i'm saying my technical knowledge has to keep pace with the invention, evolution, and spread of these threats. AV software, unfortunately, is painfully behind the curve.
the downside is you a have a low-level application intercepting all process calls to the system and inspecting them for viruses, malware etc. basically, whenever you click, run, install anything, the AV intercepts the call made from the shell to the sub-system, and inspects it for abnormal behavior.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I still don't see the downside of having an application which uses >20MB of RAM to keep an extra eye out for you. For example, my chatting computer has got the majority of scripts and such disabled, and yet it has, over the course half a year had almost 3500 pieces of spyware removed by the antivirus program I have on it.
from my post above:ghettoperson wrote:
I run AV, and frankly whilst I'm sure I'd be fine without it, it causes me no inconvenience whatsoever to run it, so why not? If you've got even a half decent PC, the performance decrease from keeping it running in the background is negligible.
try running your browser as just a user, instead of admin and see how much less crap gets on your system. it really does make a difference.Sgt. Sergio Bennet 3rd wrote:
spend half a day surfing through porno and warez sites and you will see how much crap can really pass into your pc or mac.
I have done all the things you said you have done and the crap still passes, i have tested kaspersky, ESET, norton, Mcafee and a lot more and they always get broken, at least for a few days until they indentify the virus, malware or whatever.
AV software wouldnt exist if Virus hadn´t appear. Everything is business.
Im so lazy,steelie34 wrote:
try running your browser as just a user, instead of admin and see how much less crap gets on your system. it really does make a difference.