Antivirus Software

[Love4Boobies]

I recently got two new machines on which I installed Windows 8.1, which I haven't used before. For Windows, I've been using avast! for some years now but I thought this would be a good opportunity to give something else a shot. I tried installing BitDefender twice but the OS hanged the first time (no BSoD) and the whole installation bricked the second time. Then I tried avast! on the other machine and the OS hanged again when doing its first scan; however, it seems to have installed successfully.

I have no idea where the problem lies (perhaps these AV packages don't yet properly support Windows 8.1 or maybe it was Windows' fault). And, yes, I know Windows comes with AV software but it's supposed to be compatible with avast! and BitDefender, according to the developers.

What do you guys use?

[nerdguy]

I use Windows 7 with Linux 3.1, and OpenSUSE
Heard of AVG? I had that until I bought Norton,
Norton's good, I haven't caught any virus since 2010,
AVG was okay, but it slowed my PC.
I have also heard that Kaspersky provides nice protection never
used it really.
I guess Windows 8 has that app store, you may find some anti virus software there.
Also I use Panda Internet Security.

[Love4Boobies]

I tried all of those at some point during the past 15 years or so but things have probably changed since.

The reason I tired BitDefender is that it has pretty much the best reviews at the present time. I was disappointed by the experience, of course.

[iansjack]

Windows Defender does the job just fine for me. No need for third-party applications.

[Combuster]

I was happy with Avast, now it attempts to install new software without asking making it just as bad as the software it is supposed to combat. Even if the drive-by install is Chrome.

I also caught one of the paid ones several years back that did man-in-the-middle on HTML files and actually changed the content. That particular actually cost me several development hours before I found out why all the <img> tags were disappearing for certain people.

AVG went the way of the nuisance, Avira went the way of the nuisance. Basically, I have never seen AV software that wasn't messing things up in one way or another.


I'm happy with my Linux and a lack of need for AV.

[BMW]

IMO, you have to be reasonably stupid to get a virus on your computer. I don't run any realtime AV (except for ones that come with Windows maybe) and I've never had a problem. I do have Malwarebytes anti malware (quite good), but it doesn't run in the background, it's just for on-demand scans.

Or, as Combuster said, just use GNU/Linux, which I do 70% of the time.

EDIT: I saw that Combuster mentioned drive by installs of Chrome. Why does Chrome need to be packed into every second installer? If the browser is good enough, it shouldn't need to be forced down user's throats. IMO it just makes the browser look bad.

[Love4Boobies]

That's a very naïve view of security. Obviously, caution is recommended but it's not just a matter of what you do, it's a matter of how what you use is constructed (trust Web sites may be hacked, trusted software you use almost certainly has vulnerabilities, etc.). For example, try turning off any firewalls (esp. hardware ones) and leaving your computer connected to the Internet for a few minutes, without opening any programs. Chances are you will get a virus.

Also, there are viruses for Linux, too. Granted, not as many because Linux has a smaller user base so it's less rewarding to write viruses for.

[BMW]

If you are a lame computer user, who uses their computer for email, web browsing, watching movies and playing video games, I think it would be a good idea to have anti-virus software installed. Or if you deal with commercially sensitive information or something similar, sure, AV is a must. I'm not saying that anti-virus is a waste of time. But if you are a more advanced user such as myself, you should be able to keep safe as long as you keep firewalls enable and use your brain when using the computer.

For example, try turning off any firewalls (esp. hardware ones) and leaving your computer connected to the Internet for a few minutes, without opening any programs. Chances are you will get a virus.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that. Have you got any sources or proof for that claim? IMO the chance that a computer connected to the internet with no firewall, and not running any programs (i.e. no web browser visiting dangerous sites) would contract a virus within minutes would be extremely small. Is it even possible to contract a virus like that, with no vulnerable/malicious software running on the computer in question?

[iansjack]

If you are a lame computer user, who uses their computer for email, web browsing

Wow; you've just written off 99.99% of computer users. You don't use your computer for email or web browsing? I don't believe you.

I'm sorry, but I do not believe that.

Nevertheless, it is true. Several tests have been done. Install, say, XP on a computer and just let it run, with no firewall, connected to the Internet. I believe the average time is in the order of 15 minutes before it is infected. And a computer not running any programs is not a particularly useful tool. It's easier to leave it switched off.

If you do want to actually do something with it, but not email or web browsing, then just pull the Internet connection; you don't need it.

The really lame computer users are those who believe that they can run without a firewall and/or anti-malware software and that they are safe because they are running - say - OS X.

Is it even possible to contract a virus like that, with no vulnerable/malicious software running on the computer in question?

Do you actually understand how the Internet works?

[Kevin]

Also, there are viruses for Linux, too. Granted, not as many because Linux has a smaller user base so it's less rewarding to write viruses for.

Regarding the small user base and while we're talking about the internet, I've heard that a few web servers are running on Linux.

Is it even possible to contract a virus like that, with no vulnerable/malicious software running on the computer in question?

No. But the potentially vulnerable software includes the OS with its network stack, and you're rather likely to have it running, so you're asking the wrong question.

[iansjack]

Is it even possible to contract a virus like that, with no vulnerable/malicious software running on the computer in question?

No. But the potentially vulnerable software includes the OS with its network stack, and you're rather likely to have it running, so you're asking the wrong question.

Not just the OS. Most modern computers contain code embedded in the hardware that allows them to boot from a network. Once that is possible, never underestimate what someone who is clever enough, and has enough evil intent, can do.

[BMW]

Wow; you've just written off 99.99% of computer users. You don't use your computer for email or web browsing? I don't believe you.

Sorry I meant those who only use it for that. And how did I "write them off"? What I meant by lame was my opinion (sorry I should have said IMO), because if I used computers like that I would be bored to tears.

Several tests have been done. Install, say, XP on a computer and just let it run, with no firewall, connected to the Internet. I believe the average time is in the order of 15 minutes before it is infected. And a computer not running any programs is not a particularly useful tool. It's easier to leave it switched off.

Ok, have you got a link to an article(s) describing such occurences?
EDIT: Found one, I believe it now. http://blog.chron.com/techblog/2008/07/ ... 4-minutes/

The really lame computer users are those who believe that they can run without a firewall and/or anti-malware software and that they are safe because they are running - say - OS X.

If you are referring to me, I did not advocate the practice of disabling firewalls and I also do not believe that OS X is any more secure than Windows, if you are commenting on that.
EDIT: A common method of virus infection is via social engineering. So, a 'not-so-lame' (by your standards) computer user with AV could download a new virus which is yet to be detected by the AV.

Do you actually understand how the Internet works?

Yes, do you?

Regarding the small user base and while we're talking about the internet, I've heard that a few web servers are running on Linux.

Which would be an excellent target for malicious software.

[iansjack]

Wow; you've just written off 99.99% of computer users. You don't use your computer for email or web browsing? I don't believe you.

Sorry I meant those who only use it for that. And how did I "write them off"? What I meant by lame was my opinion (sorry I should have said IMO), because if I used computers like that I would be bored to tears.

Malware doesn't care if you use only vulnerable programs or if you use a mixture of vulnerable and safe.

The really lame computer users are those who believe that they can run without a firewall and/or anti-malware software and that they are safe because they are running - say - OS X.

If you are referring to me, I did not advocate the practice of disabling firewalls and I also do not believe that OS X is any more secure than Windows, if you are commenting on that.

I was commenting on the fact that you were saying it was safe to run a computer without firewall or antimalware. That you don't follow your beliefs is admirable.

Do you actually understand how the Internet works?

Yes, do you?

Yep. Now, it seems, as a result of your research you understand a little more.

Regarding the small user base and while we're talking about the internet, I've heard that a few web servers are running on Linux.

Which would be an excellent target for malicious software.

It would be a better target if it weren't for the fact that web servers tend to run on machines that are well protected and monitored, especially when running on Linux. The malware authors tend to go for the easy (and populous) targets.

[Love4Boobies]

But if you are a more advanced user such as myself, you should be able to keep safe as long as you keep firewalls enable and use your brain when using the computer.

To be fair, none of us here are as advanced as you are or have as much brainpower as you do. This very forum is a testimony to your greatness.

Also, there are viruses for Linux, too. Granted, not as many because Linux has a smaller user base so it's less rewarding to write viruses for.

Regarding the small user base and while we're talking about the internet, I've heard that a few web servers are running on Linux.

Right, I should have mentioned that I was talking about end users. While servers are often targeted too, many businesses rely on them being kept in check, as iansjack points out.

[BMW]

Malware doesn't care if you use only vulnerable programs or if you use a mixture of vulnerable and safe.

That was not the point at all, the point was that the average user who just uses their computer as described is unlikely to have as much knowledge about computers as someone who does more advanced things than those described earlier.

I was commenting on the fact that you were saying it was safe to run a computer without firewall or antimalware. That you don't follow your beliefs is admirable.

I never said it was safe to run a computer without a firewall. In fact, I promoted the use of firewalls:

you should be able to keep safe as long as you keep firewalls enable and use your brain when using the computer.

And I do follow my beliefs. My Windows install has no AV running in the background (I occasionally run on-demand scans with Malwarebytes), and it has been like that for years, and I have never had a problem.

To be fair, none of us here are as advanced as you are or have as much brainpower as you do. This very forum is a testimony to your greatness.

Nice diversion - get offtopic and be sarcastic. All I said was that I am a more advanced computer user (than e.g. the people who only use it for email, web browsing, video games etc). I said absolutely nothing about my skill relative to the people on OSDev.org forums.