Do we need Anit-VIrus?

Community Zone General Chat
21

I’m certainly not angry about something so trivial, so don’t worry about that. :slight_smile: I really disagree with you, but that’s primarily because of my experiences in IT for the last 9 years. However, that doesn’t mean I’m emotional about it in any way.

While ‘unsavory’ websites bear a heavier concentration of malware, it can be found in many, many places. This includes typo-squatter domains, banner ads, Microsoft Office documents, Skype, and even seemingly innocuous things like audio CDs and brand-new memory sticks. By the way, you can’t call a site “secure” unless you’ve had a hand in setting it up. :slight_smile: When you get complications like redirections to 3rd-party ads and Java code, you can’t even call it secure then.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple had virus and malware problems going forward, since they are more concerned about convenience then security. Many if not most Mac users run as the OS X equivalent of root full-time without realizing it, therefore malware has the opportunity to flourish in such a Windows-like security environment. Additionally, many people are pirating OS X since it’s fairly pricey software. Who knows what’s in torrented versions of OS discs? However, even with these things in mind, I believe the 500k figure to be seriously overblown, and I have never personally known anyone who picked up malware on a Mac.

As for myself, I run Debian Linux, where 99.9% of the software you run in a given day is completely open-source, updates are digitally signed, users never run with root-like privileges except for very specific tasks, and even that requires a password to be entered. This highly secure environment still feels extremely usable and just stays out of my way, in sharp contrast with Vista, which somehow manages to be insecure and still feel irritatingly restrictive at the same time.

P.S. to Pimp739: 127.0.0.1 is a computer’s loopback address, and is not a real routable IP address that can be used on the internet. If you don’t know that, then you probably shouldn’t be talking about security-related topics at all until you do some homework, eh? :slight_smile: BTW, you can get my real address with the “visit my server” link in my sig.

-AT

22

Your still angry at me ain’t you lol

anyways yes i am a noob on this subject but thats why I’m on here to learn and thank you for enlightening me on this matter.

23

I already told you, I’m not angry. Not even a little. I just happen to disagree with you. :smiley: Surely we can disagree and still be civil with one another?

Being a n00b is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. It’s staying a n00b that is worthy of reproach. :smiley: You’re welcome for the info by the way. That’s what these forums are here for, right?

24

Yes i agree with you on that and thank you again for the info i would give you a thanks for being helpful but i can’t seem to find the thanks button lol i guess because it’s not my thread.

25

lol…that kind of sadism belongs on a programming forum …hahaha :stuck_out_tongue:

Thanks for all the opinions everybody, although I am slightly puzzled. From what you’re saying Windows security measures like its groups, user accounts, user/group policies and bloated file permissions are, for want of a better word, crap!!

I’ve always believed Microsoft had the attitude that they didn’t really care whether their product /service was any good ( mainly influenced by the Sony - rootkit scandal ). From what you’re saying its not a matter of poor attitude just blatant incompetence!! :doh:

26

Just one question to you guys

Because i have vista it comes with windows defender maybe that stop me from getting virus but i never used it and is it any good i heard that its rubbish but why would Microsoft bother with it if its crap. (because i get regular updates for it)

27

That’s not rated very high. Kaspersky is one of the best out there, especially if you’re going to plunk down cash for one. If not, Avast! or AVG.

28

Windows in it’s default configuration is insecure. No doubt about it. The default user in Windows XP is granted administrative priviledges. The default user in Windows Vista is granted administrative priviledges with an annoying User Access Control! People will click OK to it without thinking about it because they are sick of seeing it!
That being said though, it is possible to make Windows secure with a bit of thought. All that’s needed is a good antivirus, normal user priviledges, strong local policy (or group policy), common sense and a firewall / NAT router.

29

Sorry, wrong. :slight_smile: Windows was only able to pass it’s government security certs with the network cables unplugged for a reason. There are certain things you simply cannot lock down in Windows without breaking the OS. You can make it more secure than it is out of the box, certainly. But to lock it down completely is to render it unusable.

30

Yeah i heard that Kaspersky is good but does it work on Vista 64Bit?

31

I’m 127.138.218.163, go and have a look… I’m running the same OS as you and I’ve already copied all your files :stuck_out_tongue:

32

I don’t know about past versions, but 7.0 does support Vista 64.

33

[ot]wow, i kinda just realized how Pro Linux all the regs are, but in the same sense i can’t really knock you guys. I’ve used AVG for as long as i can remember and haven’t had any problems. I also am a witness of a Microsoft OS without any virus protection, and its a normal user, doesn’t really pay to much attention to were he’s surfing, downloading ect. Its pretty much a train wreck, but its still funny to me.[/ot]

34

[ot]

Well, knowing the limitations of Windows and being pro-Linux are totally separate issues. For instance, I’m pro-Linux, and don’t even use Windows anymore. Big B however is primarily a Windows user, and we more than agree on this topic. So I guess you can chalk this particular sentiment up to experience with Windows more than bias towards a different OS. :)[/ot]

35

While I’m not necessarily pro-Windows, I’m much more familiar with it than Linux, and if I get to the place where I’m about on equal terms in terms of my knowledge in *nix, I’ll probably run it. Right now, I’m not to the place where it’s do-able. I’ve played around with Linux since about Mandrake 6.x, so I have dabbled for years. Versus the old 9x code, Linux is vastly superior in terms of stability, but not so much versus the NT code. The NT code, while revised, is over 10 years old, and Microsoft hasn’t done a massive overhaul like it should’ve. Vista was supposed to be that, but dropped so much it’s a joke. If Microsoft will come out and start with new code, they would have a much better opportunity to create an OS that’s more secure. They need to come out with a new OS based on a new code. While I may have to end up getting Vista for review purposes, I look at it as the WinME of the NT family: lots of crap, less stability, not to mention all the features dropped along the way. Vista is very slick, but I just can’t shake the feeling there’s the DX10 carrot attached to a bloated NT code.

XP wasn’t as big of a change from Win2k, because Microsoft prettied it up a little, increased compatibility and released it. XP is a refined 2k; think of it as “Windows 2000 Home Edition”. It’s something akin to Windows 95 and 98.

Most of the issues with Linux have been addressed, and at this point, aren’t really even with the OS itself internally. Companies need to have Linux support right off the bat when a program or game is released. While it’s happening, it’s not where it needs to be for Linux to be an alternative. I don’t see it as being an anti-Linux attitude so much as a business move. What OS is run on the majority of computers? Windows.

36

I may be showing my terrible knowledge of linux by saying that how can hardware/software manufacturers give linux support out of the box when there are sooo many different versions that an end user could be using?

I agree fully with Big B’s vista comments, I do have it installed but only for testing.

37

My guess would be based on the kernel version and what distros run off that particular one or newer.