Sign In
Register
Help
Post your comments for Security Software: Protection or Extortion? here
Security Software: Protection or Extortion?
MultiQuote
#2
jomasecu 
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 11-April 09
Posted 13 April 2009 - 05:35 PM
I don't use any of the major anti-virus programs. I have had several encounters with viruses (mostly from actively downloading something and thinking, "I really shouldn't be downloading this), and I've cleaned up after them. I have a couple of the freeware cleaners on hand for such tasks (but nothing that runs in the background), and twice I've even had to go into safe mode and do things like fix broken reg keys. I consider this very occasional hassle to be far less of an inconvenience than Norton, MacAffee, or any other background virus scanner I've seen.
That said, I always recommend them for less tech-savvy folks. Those who don't know when to be suspiscious of downloads and such will be far better off with an anti-virus than having to call in a techy every time they get a nasty email.
That said, I always recommend them for less tech-savvy folks. Those who don't know when to be suspiscious of downloads and such will be far better off with an anti-virus than having to call in a techy every time they get a nasty email.
#3
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,151
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:03 PM
I believe it is protection.
As for the extortion part:
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200,000 for free antivirus. (0.18 seconds)
Simply try them out, including the non-freeware, since they almost all have evaluation periods of a month more or less.
I recommend and use Avast, Malwarebytes and CCleaner, simultaneously.
And have never, ever been infected with any malware. Period. Since the days of MS-DOS to now. But I've seen plenty warnings...
As for the extortion part:
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 32,200,000 for free antivirus. (0.18 seconds)
Simply try them out, including the non-freeware, since they almost all have evaluation periods of a month more or less.
I recommend and use Avast, Malwarebytes and CCleaner, simultaneously.
And have never, ever been infected with any malware. Period. Since the days of MS-DOS to now. But I've seen plenty warnings...
#4
rixware
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 16
- Joined: 11-April 07
Posted 13 April 2009 - 07:30 PM
I'm routinely called by clients because a system has slowed to a crawl. Inevitably, uninstalling the security software is what it takes to get things moving again.
Don't talk to me about "major strides" toward reducing the system resources which are used. Until that falls to zero, it's a trade-off that is simply not worth it.
To protect my clients, I install Firefox and Thunderbird (deleting or hiding all shortcuts to IE and Outlook). Then I talk to them about "staying on the beaten path" while browsing, and teach them what not to do with email messages. (I do NOT run Windows Update unless I know there is something which is dangerously out of date. Sorry Microsoft, but your updates generally slow things down, introduce unwelcome functionality, and frequently cause real-world trouble for the average user.)
The truth about security software is that it can't protect anyone from zero-day exploits, and that is realistically the biggest threat we all face. Worse, it gives people a sense of invulnerability so that they stop thinking about whether what they are doing might cause damage.
Simply put, education and behavioral changes are the most effective way to avoid malware infestation. Security suites unwittingly undermine the most effective tool at the user's disposal by giving a false sense of protection.
If you doubt me, just visit any random malware discussion board. Everybody there is running some security app, still got something ugly (like a browser hijacker, a category of malware which is hardly touched by any of the major security suites), and has no clue how to get rid of it.
But the pattern is easy to detect: most are either using out-of-date versions of IE or clicked on something they immediately regretted.
Every couple of years I try installing a security suite to see if things have improved. In most cases, not even a few hours go buy before the drag on my system is unbearable. As a result, other than the periodic scan with an online service, I haven't ever used any security software. I've never been infected.
But I know that I'm not invulnerable. In fact, I warn all my clients that it's possible to catch something without doing anything wrong. As such, there's no software on earth that you can run which can protect you from everything. With viruses morphing from day to day, not even signature-based solutions have a prayer. Heuristics have a better chance, but require more resources. Again, the trade-off just isn't worth it.
One day everyone will see that security suites belong in the same category with extended warranties and undercoating: sucker bets.
Don't talk to me about "major strides" toward reducing the system resources which are used. Until that falls to zero, it's a trade-off that is simply not worth it.
To protect my clients, I install Firefox and Thunderbird (deleting or hiding all shortcuts to IE and Outlook). Then I talk to them about "staying on the beaten path" while browsing, and teach them what not to do with email messages. (I do NOT run Windows Update unless I know there is something which is dangerously out of date. Sorry Microsoft, but your updates generally slow things down, introduce unwelcome functionality, and frequently cause real-world trouble for the average user.)
The truth about security software is that it can't protect anyone from zero-day exploits, and that is realistically the biggest threat we all face. Worse, it gives people a sense of invulnerability so that they stop thinking about whether what they are doing might cause damage.
Simply put, education and behavioral changes are the most effective way to avoid malware infestation. Security suites unwittingly undermine the most effective tool at the user's disposal by giving a false sense of protection.
If you doubt me, just visit any random malware discussion board. Everybody there is running some security app, still got something ugly (like a browser hijacker, a category of malware which is hardly touched by any of the major security suites), and has no clue how to get rid of it.
But the pattern is easy to detect: most are either using out-of-date versions of IE or clicked on something they immediately regretted.
Every couple of years I try installing a security suite to see if things have improved. In most cases, not even a few hours go buy before the drag on my system is unbearable. As a result, other than the periodic scan with an online service, I haven't ever used any security software. I've never been infected.
But I know that I'm not invulnerable. In fact, I warn all my clients that it's possible to catch something without doing anything wrong. As such, there's no software on earth that you can run which can protect you from everything. With viruses morphing from day to day, not even signature-based solutions have a prayer. Heuristics have a better chance, but require more resources. Again, the trade-off just isn't worth it.
One day everyone will see that security suites belong in the same category with extended warranties and undercoating: sucker bets.
#5
Elijah
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 25
- Joined: 01-July 07
Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:40 PM
Well, here is my experience. I have spent a long time downloading and trying security software.
I like speed, I would take speed over security. That is why I use Avast! Home edition, SpywareBlater, and Malwarebytes Anti-malware(Free version) (Don't forget CCleaner)
That is all. I run Win XP Pro, SP3, with only 1GB of RAM, and my computer runs very well. Avast! has saved me from allot of viruses. Avast! takes up very little memory, SpywareBlaster does not take any, and Malwarebytes only takes up memory when you use it!
So, that is my advice, Avast! Home Edition, Windows Firewall, SpywareBlaster, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, and CCleaner. I bet your computer will run smooth.
I like speed, I would take speed over security. That is why I use Avast! Home edition, SpywareBlater, and Malwarebytes Anti-malware(Free version) (Don't forget CCleaner)
That is all. I run Win XP Pro, SP3, with only 1GB of RAM, and my computer runs very well. Avast! has saved me from allot of viruses. Avast! takes up very little memory, SpywareBlaster does not take any, and Malwarebytes only takes up memory when you use it!
So, that is my advice, Avast! Home Edition, Windows Firewall, SpywareBlaster, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, and CCleaner. I bet your computer will run smooth.
#6
ClaudeD
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 144
- Joined: 01-January 07
Posted 14 April 2009 - 07:24 AM
Individuals whom are knowledgeable probably do not need to run security software as bad as most users. Anyone in the pc business or a support position knows users open everything. Users typically have no idea what might be safe to open or view. They usually have no idea what the ramifications may be. These people need something to help enhance their experience on the pc and protect them from issues they neither understand nor are aware of. Security software for them makes sense for them. As to the system resources for security software several manufacturers’ products have little impact on performance while others can use 15+% of the cpu to operate. One of the most popular and highly regarded software suites will slow the fastest pc to nearly a crawl. All one can say truthfully about security software is some need it some don’t.
#7
savior
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 02-February 09
Posted 14 April 2009 - 08:05 AM
Good article, I didnt have anything until my wife got paranoid. Though just this week i got a nasty little virus from downloading a game patch. if it wasn't for the virus software, i would be screwed.
Then the conversation with the wife started, do you think these anti-virus company's create the virus's so people pay for them to remove it? Police radar gun company's make the the radar detectors...
Then the conversation with the wife started, do you think these anti-virus company's create the virus's so people pay for them to remove it? Police radar gun company's make the the radar detectors...
#8
RHE09
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 14-April 09
Posted 14 April 2009 - 03:29 PM
What I find really funny:
1. People who "have never had an infection" - even thought there are ways to go in, steal, get out and leave no trace, so how do they even know?
Can't be done? http://www.microsoft...spx?videoid=351
2. On the other hand, saying Windows firewall fails on the outbound side blah blah blah... http://www.microsoft...spx?videoid=352
So the truth as Mark Russinovich very aptly stated it, to be safe disconnect your computer and never put in a CD, disk, or connect an external drive :-)
http://remotehelpexpert.com/blog/?p=79
1. People who "have never had an infection" - even thought there are ways to go in, steal, get out and leave no trace, so how do they even know?
Can't be done? http://www.microsoft...spx?videoid=351
2. On the other hand, saying Windows firewall fails on the outbound side blah blah blah... http://www.microsoft...spx?videoid=352
So the truth as Mark Russinovich very aptly stated it, to be safe disconnect your computer and never put in a CD, disk, or connect an external drive :-)
http://remotehelpexpert.com/blog/?p=79
#9
HeroofAvalon
- Advanced Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 20-November 07
Posted 14 April 2009 - 03:39 PM
What's this article worth, anyway? Unless you're bringing something other than opinions (try, cold-hard facts next time) to the table, then don't even bother. This belongs as a discussion, not a News piece.
#10
shardsofmetal
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 14-April 09
Posted 14 April 2009 - 05:04 PM
Rick Broida says "For the past several years, I've run Windows (first XP, and now Vista) without a single byte of third-party security software." However, he also says "That's why I occasionally run a system scan using Ad-Aware or Malwarebytes Anti-Malware." Perhaps I'm crazy (and I'm not), but I believe that antispyware software is security software, and since those programs aren't part of Windows or made by Microsoft, I believe that would qualify as third party security software.
#12
jorgemt
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 16-April 09
Posted 16 April 2009 - 09:07 AM
Broida is full of it. I'm sorry but I can't put it in softer tones. Kudos to him that he is so proficient, but that's like advising people to jaywalk thru busy avenues because he has never been hit. To enumerate my grievances: (1) no system slows down to a crawl because of just AV software; but if any slowdown annnoys you, change it. I went from Norton to AVG to Avast in the last four years. (2) How can anyone trust security from a supplier who has to release a dozen patches a week to plug security holes? No wonder so many think Windows itself is malware (3) Not everybody is so knowledgeable; most people use computers as a tool to get their real job done; they can't keep studying their PCs, that's a job in itself. OUR job. And (4) it doesn't matter whether you feel safe in your glowing belief of immunity. When - not if - you finally get infected with something that won't affect your system but will attack other's, we'll be all thinking about you and your momma. If you wonder about my credentials, I've been around this field since before personal computers and I'm now administrator to a 450 desktops network and I do freelance consulting for non-technological small businesses.
#16
WinTard
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,151
- Joined: 16-January 09
- Location:Look behind you...
Posted 17 April 2009 - 04:13 PM
I completely agree with your wise statement! What follows isn't directed towards you, but those too cheap to protect themselves, either through avarice, or stupidity...
To amplify your statement: Only a FOOLISH corporation wouldn't update Critical Security Updates in a timely fashion! And also probably individual pirated copies of Windows users, they don't want WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) to come up and cripple their pirated OS... Bunch of cheapskates! Come on, XP has been released (in beta form) since year 2000. We're now in 2009. If Microsoft discontinues Windows XP this year, they are on the record, and corporate policy to have stated they will continue to support Windows XP for another five years after the product is officially retired. Thus a 14 year span of useful life for an Operating System that cost a mere $50 if pre-loaded by an OEM, like Dell. $50/14= $3.57 per year or less than $0.01 per day of use...
For one cent per day, would you value your time and convenience to have full and free support from Microsoft?
Thus my rationale for pirated users: Cheapskates! You deserve to be infected!
~~~~~~~~~~
Penny wise. Pound foolish
{British Proverb}
To amplify your statement: Only a FOOLISH corporation wouldn't update Critical Security Updates in a timely fashion! And also probably individual pirated copies of Windows users, they don't want WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) to come up and cripple their pirated OS... Bunch of cheapskates! Come on, XP has been released (in beta form) since year 2000. We're now in 2009. If Microsoft discontinues Windows XP this year, they are on the record, and corporate policy to have stated they will continue to support Windows XP for another five years after the product is officially retired. Thus a 14 year span of useful life for an Operating System that cost a mere $50 if pre-loaded by an OEM, like Dell. $50/14= $3.57 per year or less than $0.01 per day of use...
For one cent per day, would you value your time and convenience to have full and free support from Microsoft?
Thus my rationale for pirated users: Cheapskates! You deserve to be infected!
~~~~~~~~~~
Penny wise. Pound foolish
{British Proverb}
#18
techie4fun
- Expert
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,838
- Joined: 18-October 06
Posted 17 April 2009 - 05:49 PM
Wintard,
I love your boldness. :D Unfortunuately, I HAVE had virus infections, but blamely on myself.
I love your boldness. :D Unfortunuately, I HAVE had virus infections, but blamely on myself.
#19
mike65536
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 8
- Joined: 18-April 09
Posted 18 April 2009 - 03:28 PM
I have 2 computers connected to my broadband router - an old one running Ubuntu where I do all my secure (banking) stuff, and a new one running Vista where I do my gaming and surfing. The first one is mostly immune to malware and for the second, it doesn't matter - no personal info is on there!
