What are you using for Win7 Internet Security Software?

[TechieSooner]

Even with automatic scans, why bother lowering the priority? If you've set a scan schedule that somehow gets in the way of your work, reschedule it for time you know you're away. That's both more convenient and better for your productivity. Lowering the priorities is only going to reduce the average CPU use per second when you're doing many other things (with higher priority).

Also, what is a:

?

By passive scan I meant something that's done without you having to do anything.
IE, if you download something off the internet, it gets scanned passively...

Do you find it necessary to scan archives? .cab .zip, etc.?

Yes.
For two reasons:
1) You can run still executables without having to unzip it in Windows
2) If in the case of a RAR file, which Windows cannot natively open, it's still a good idea to scan it so that in case there's anything bad inside: it gets cleaned.

I think a more appropriate analogy is "I've never accidentally eaten poison before, so why should I go through the bother of carrying around poison control's phone number?"

Wearing a seat belt is something PREVENTATIVE.
Eating poison is a decision.

What are you going to do when a legitimate website you visit becomes compromised?

Auto accidents cannot be avoided, as they depend on caution and responsibility on the part of other parties. You can do everything right and still get hit by someone doing something wrong.

Does that, you know... actually hurt your case?
Driving down the road and BAM, you get T-boned. Won't you be glad you had some safety measures in place?

I scan my machine for viruses with a scanner every once in a blue-moon to make sure I haven't gotten a virus

That right there is admission you acknowledge that crap, even with good computing habits, can get onto your PC.

You fail.

 

[rflcptr]

delete

 

[bigdogchris]

Yes.
For two reasons:
1) You can run still executables without having to unzip it in Windows
2) If in the case of a RAR file, which Windows cannot natively open, it's still a good idea to scan it so that in case there's anything bad inside: it gets cleaned.

Is it normal for an AV product to really bog down while scanning in a .cab?

 

[TechieSooner]

Is it normal for an AV product to really bog down while scanning in a .cab?

No, what AV and what CAB?

 

[rflcptr]

By passive scan I meant something that's done without you having to do anything.
IE, if you download something off the internet, it gets scanned passively...

Right, I know what you're saying, but was really trying to get input on why lowering the priority will make a difference.

 

[TechieSooner]

Right, I know what you're saying, but was really trying to get input on why lowering the priority will make a difference.

Well, I'd disagree with setting it on low priority all the time. I'd rather see some self-regulation than just setting it at low priority.

For instance, user-initiated stuff (like if you want to scan a file you just downloaded) needs to run as normal priority. The user initiated it, the user obviously wants it to get done.

 

[QwertyJuan]

Microsoft Security Essentials Beta

 

[Catweazle]

SPI on router w/NAT, Windows Firewall on, UAC default (for Windows 7), AVG Free enabled, Windows Defender enabled, Automatic Updates enabled. Browse w/Firefox, any website that asks me to install something that I wasn't expecting I walk away from.

Under Vista/Win7/UAC, protected mode IE browsing is actually safer/more secure than Firefox browsing. Firefox is one of the "no longer necessary" third-party programs I ditched along with ditching XP.

 

[guppy]

I generally do not download files from 'un-official' places.

One would think the OpenSource website would be safe place to download from and yet I downloaded a .dll plugin for foobar and every scanner I passed it through detected some trojan in it.

 

[guppy]

Do you find it necessary to scan archives? .cab .zip, etc.?

Yes, inside the archives are files that can be a trojan/virus.

 

[AbJ32]

Wearing a seat belt is something PREVENTATIVE.
Eating poison is a decision.

For starters, you've broken down those analogies wrong, because I compared wearing a seatbelt to carrying poison control's number, not eating the poison.

Second, a seat-belt is not a preventative. It does not prevent an accident, but rather decreases the damage done should an accident occur. Likewise, carrying around poison control's phone number doesn't prevent you from eating poison, but is quite useful in the event that does happen.

Third, the point of that analogy was that you were using an analogy where you don't have control of the situation. As far as computers go, you're in control of the situation, and generally if you eat poison that's your own fault, and something you have control over.

What are you going to do when a legitimate website you visit becomes compromised?

That's where things like no-script come in handy. And somehow, despite all these SQL injection attacks on websites and 'legitimate sites being compromised', I still haven't gotten a virus.

Does that, you know... actually hurt your case?
Driving down the road and BAM, you get T-boned. Won't you be glad you had some safety measures in place?

No, because getting T-boned in real-life driving is usually beyond your control. There is no parallel to 'getting T-boned' in the computer world, where you are responsible for almost everything which happens to your PC. If you get 'T-boned' in the computer world, it's because you ran a stop-sign at a busy intersection.

That right there is admission you acknowledge that crap, even with good computing habits, can get onto your PC.

More-so because I'm not the only person who uses my PC, and those 'other-people' don't fit the boot for 'computer-savy'. I don't know what email attachments might get opened or what Active-X controls might get installed when I'm not around. Were I the only person who used this PC, I would probably only scan for viruses if I were encountering any sort of unexpected issues.

You fail.

How tasteful.

 

[Joe Average]

... I still haven't gotten a virus yet.

Fixed that for ya...

 

[AbJ32]

Fixed that for ya...

That assumes I'll get one, ever.

 

[Joe Average]

If you have never ever run any AV software of any kind on the Windows installs you've had over the years, I absolutely 100% guarantee you that you have been and could potentially be infected right this moment and you simply wouldn't know it.

Just making the claim "I've never had a virus and I've never run AV software" automagically implies that yes, you have been infected and, yes, you most likely are by something. It's just a fact of life when using Windows.

It happens, nothing to be ashamed about...

 

[AbJ32]

If you have never ever run any AV software of any kind on the Windows installs you've had over the years, I absolutely 100% guarantee you that you have been and could potentially be infected right this moment and you simply wouldn't know it.

Remind me never to give much credit to your guarantees, since I most certainly would know it. As I mentioned above, I scan about every 2 months or so with either Avast or AVG (I alternate for thoroughness) then promptly uninstall the program when finished.

 

[Joe Average]

The funniest thing:

Every single person reading this thread knew what your reply would be, and could have basically said it themselves almost word for word, go figure. We've seen such statements hundreds if not thousands of times, so you go right on believing you're "clean"...

You're better off just running an online scan to save yourself the "hassles" of installing then uninstalling those apps, or get a portable version of 'em and run it off a USB stick as required.

 

[AbJ32]

You're better off just running an online scan to save yourself the "hassles" of installing then uninstalling those apps,

....as if the 2 minutes it'd take to install them and the reboot that would follow are 'hassles'. I could hardly make a sandwich in that amount of time.

or get a portable version of 'em and run it off a USB stick as required.

That would require me to have a spare USB stick handy, for one thing. It also would mean I'd have to bother with updating the definitions before I run the scanner. And since it's not really saving me any time, why bother wasting a USB stick?

 

[bigdogchris]

If it makes you feel any better, I don't run AV either and reguarly scan with MalwareBytes, Windows Online Virus scanner and Spybot. I've only had problems a few times when I took a chance on shady software a few years ago on XP, which I knew the risk going into that. Otherwise I've never been infected. I simply don't go to bad sites, open email attachments and otherwise install bad software. That's a much better method/policy to prevent virus/scumware than any product would provide. Hell at work we have full Virus and Malware protection and it simply is amazes me how much crap gets installed on the computers of people who don't know any better.

 

[TechieSooner]

Third, the point of that analogy was that you were using an analogy where you don't have control of the situation.

I wasn't aware you were in control of every single fucking website on the internet.
I guess you learn something new every day...

....as if the 2 minutes it'd take to install them and the reboot that would follow are 'hassles'. I could hardly make a sandwich in that amount of time.

I could make the same damned argument for installing a full blown AV to you.

That's a much better method/policy to prevent virus/scumware than any product would provide

My question still remains unanswered by anyone taking the "no anti-virus" stance: What are you going to when a legitimate website becomes compromised?

 

[Catweazle]

It's got me beat why, when these "Be buggered to Safe Sex - I'M riding bareback!" people show up occasionally, some of you seem to be compelled to argue and argue incessantly with them, as if you're somehow trying to prove them wrong or change their minds for them.

You KNOW that they're being dickheads, and that nobody in their right mind is being influenced by them, so why bother?




For the benefit of those few novices who might be reading this and, in their unfamiliarity with sensible computing practices, wondering what is or isn't 'right' to do, here's the only sensible approach to take:

• Be sure to install adequate AV/Malware protection programs.
• Be sure to have it configured for background resident/on-access scanning.
• For those occasions where you want or need to extract every last drop of performance from your system, such as gamings sessions etc., use the prgram's control interfaqce to disable the resident protection for the duration of the activity.
• If you find that resident protection makes your rig chug unbearably, face up to the fact that you're trying to do too much on too little hardware, and go get a better 'pooter!

It ain't hard

 

[Zero82z]

Not running anti-virus software because you've never gotten a virus is like not putting a lock on your front door because you've never been robbed before. All it takes is once and then you're fucked. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

[markt435]

Symantec Endpoint Protection...designed for Vista but it still works and I get it thru my university.

 

[dark_reign]

Remind me never to give much credit to your guarantees, since I most certainly would know it. As I mentioned above, I scan about every 2 months or so with either Avast or AVG (I alternate for thoroughness) then promptly uninstall the program when finished.

This is the dumbest thing I've read in awhile. Why bother uninstalling them? If you don't like the real-time protection measures then simply turn them off. But, then you risk getting malware. I've seen several instances where ads are infected with a trojan and NOD32 pops up a warning.

Just wait until you get infected and then come back here and tell us how safe it is running no AV.

 

[SR45]

I use Nortons Internet Security 2009. Fast and its considered one of the very best. The older versions were slow but Norton has gotten better with the newest version as has been benchmarked.

The individual that said why use a security software since its takes time and money.... Be advised noob, you can get one for free so the money part is a non issue

Edited: Reformatted again using beta windows 7 and got the " exceeded the number of installs " so I called Nortons and got the version will not work with Windows 7 but it has for over a couple of months now but could not get that through to them. So I uninstalled Nortons and now using AVG free version anti virus and using Microsofts firewall. All is well

 

[guppy]

You're better off just running an online scan to save yourself the "hassles" of installing then uninstalling those apps, or get a portable version of 'em and run it off a USB stick as required.

You know any of those that can do a boot time scan and not have to run in Windows? I miss my old F-Disk floppy disk that did a boot time scan.

 

[guppy]

• Be sure to install adequate AV/Malware protection programs.
• Be sure to have it configured for background resident/on-access scanning.
• For those occasions where you want or need to extract every last drop of performance from your system, such as gamings sessions etc., use the prgram's control interfaqce to disable the resident protection for the duration of the activity.
• If you find that resident protection makes your rig chug unbearably, face up to the fact that you're trying to do too much on too little hardware, and go get a better 'pooter!

It ain't hard

I would add: if on XP or Win2K then it is a must that you run in a limited user account when on the internet.

 

[ThreeDee]

I use XP Protector 2009

 

[AbJ32]

This is the dumbest thing I've read in awhile. Why bother uninstalling them? If you don't like the real-time protection measures then simply turn them off. But, then you risk getting malware.

I also risk getting shot, mugged or carjacked every time I go outside my house, but the likelihood of that happening is so small that I don't let it stop me.

I've seen several instances where ads are infected with a trojan and NOD32 pops up a warning.

Good for you. I usually avoid the parts of the internet where that's more common. Well maintained and secured websites are not immune to injections, but they're certainly secure enough that I don't have to worry about it.

Just wait until you get infected and then come back here and tell us how safe it is running no AV.

Okay, I'm waiting. But so far, nothings happened.

I wasn't aware you were in control of every single fucking website on the internet.
I guess you learn something new every day...

Anti-Virus software isn't the only way to secure your computer and prevent it from being exploited by websites.

I could make the same damned argument for installing a full blown AV to you.

But then I have to deal with the significant increase in start up time every single time I start up my PC, as well as the increase in system resource usage.

My question still remains unanswered by anyone taking the "no anti-virus" stance: What are you going to when a legitimate website becomes compromised?

Depends on how 'legit' the site is. Very well known, large, enterprise-owned sites are so secure that it's extremely difficult for hackers to gain enough control of the site to do damage to visitors. Plus, should something happen, the 'compromised content' is usually taken down pretty quickly. The window of opportunity for me to visit the site while it contains malicious content is pretty small.

Smaller sites, I don't visit as often, and would probably here about the attack before I even go there.

Aside from the low-likelihood of me even visiting a site while it has bad content up, the last time I went to a 'compromised legit site', I ended up with this warning and didn't proceed. Running things like no-script also greatly decrease the damage a website can do to your PC.

Look, nobody's criticizing your security practices, so why are you criticizing ours? Our setups, practices, routines and habits work for us and have been working for us for quite a while, or we wouldn't still be using them. If it's as insecure as you claim it to be, we probably would have had a problem before now.

 

[TechieSooner]

You keep wearing your tinfoil hat.

Even Apple shipped out a virus on their iPods awhile back.
That's one of your "Trusted and very secure" sources, and they got compromised. What then?

There's even been cases of a bank that uses flash getting infected before on their website.




You can try to talk circles around the fact all day long, but AV is a need.

 

[rflcptr]

You keep wearing your tinfoil hat.

lol. I thought the tinfoil hat was a poke at paranoia?

 

[Zero82z]

But then I have to deal with the significant increase in start up time every single time I start up my PC, as well as the increase in system resource usage.

Wow, Avira Anti-Vir is using a grand total of 7.5MB of RAM and 0% CPU time while running resident. What a burden on my system resources... Unless you have a really shitty PC, a decent anti-virus program won't have any noticeable system impact. Even my old P4 was able to run AVG without any difference at all in system performance. As for boot times, I haven't seen anything more than a difference of five or ten seconds. And if you have the time to argue about this topic on a forum, then you have five or ten extra seconds to spare when you boot up your PC.

 

[Archer75]

I don't use anything. Haven't found the need.

 

[AbJ32]

You keep wearing your tinfoil hat.

You've got that backwards.

Even Apple shipped out a virus on their iPods awhile back.
That's one of your "Trusted and very secure" sources, and they got compromised. What then?

Apple also quickly discovered the issue, and made it public, along with providing resources informing people of how to remove the virus. Had I purchased an iPod around that time frame, I would have scanned for the virus and removed it.

There's even been cases of a bank that uses flash getting infected before on their website.

And I'm sure the people who injected that site had better things to do than distribute viruses. They were probably going after data.

You can try to talk circles around the fact all day long, but AV is a need.

I've been fine without it for this long. It's going to take a pretty compelling arguement in your part to convince me otherwise.

 

[TechieSooner]

Apple also quickly discovered the issue, and made it public, along with providing resources informing people of how to remove the virus. Had I purchased an iPod around that time frame, I would have scanned for the virus and removed it.

How would you know? You do realize that, before Apple to make it public, people had to become infected first? Remember: You don't run AV.
You would've been infected.

And I'm sure the people who injected that site had better things to do than distribute viruses. They were probably going after data.

And how the hell do you think they can do that, smartass?
By placing malware on your PC, perhaps?



+1 Ignoramus to the iggy list.

 

[AbJ32]

And how the hell do you think they can do that, smartass?

If they can gain access to the bank's database from the web server....well, you do know that there's data in that, right? It would be difficult to do if the bank is smart about their IT, but then so would injecting the banks website.

By placing malware on your PC, perhaps?

So instead of attacking the bank's computer system and gaining data directly from the computer system, you're suggesting they'd be better off gaining access to the computer system to use the banks web-server to host a virus so they can distribute viruses?

Web-masters and administrators would be quick to remove any threats from the banks site pretty quick. And of the people they successfully infect, how many are they going to get useful data from?

+1 Ignoramus to the iggy list.

Hopefully this means I won't have to deal with your pointless and stubborn criticisms.

 

[dark_reign]

I also risk getting shot, mugged or carjacked every time I go outside my house, but the likelihood of that happening is so small that I don't let it stop me.

Yeah, but it happens to people everyday. It isn't unusual. It might be rare depending on where you live, but no one is 100% safe from it.

Good for you. I usually avoid the parts of the internet where that's more common. Well maintained and secured websites are not immune to injections, but they're certainly secure enough that I don't have to worry about it.

I've seen malicious ads served up on legit sites.

Okay, I'm waiting. But so far, nothings happened.

Keep living in your "it'll never happen to me" fantasy land then.

 

[Nenu]

Yeah, but it happens to people everyday. It isn't unusual. It might be rare depending on where you live, but no one is 100% safe from it.


I've seen malicious ads served up on legit sites.


Keep living in your "it'll never happen to me" fantasy land then.

+ 1

 

[AbJ32]

I've seen malicious ads served up on legit sites.

So have I. But it doesn't happen very often, and it usually gets fixed pretty quickly. Of the times it happens, I have to actually visit the site, while the malicious ad is up, and get served the malicious ad. The ad also has to make it past things like no-script and ad-block. When things like that happen, Google Advisory usually has the site listed as an attack site, too.

The potential for something to get through is always there, but it's very small. I'm not worried about it. Other people are, and so chose to use Anti-Virus software.

Keep living in your "it'll never happen to me" fantasy land then.

Gladly.

 

[DeaconFrost]

Gladly.

This debate goes back and forth each and everytime, but the facts still remain, There's no way you can logically argue against running free software that has no impact on your system. Futhermore, as long as you are sharing the same Internet as everyone else, it's quite ignorant to feel you don't need any software. You could possibly be infected and passing on that malicious code to others, like me, who are in charge of securing and monitoring a corporate network. So, when you claim you know the risk and aren't worried....you really don't understand the risk. Arguing against the risk is just a waste of time, to be honest, as well as arguing against even needing the software. By doing so, you are just announcing that you don't fully understand the threats that exist today.

 

[rflcptr]

There's no way you can logically argue against running free software that has no impact on your system.

That's the biggest point: his system. Whether or not you run AV is really of your own preference (business/educational systems are a different story, as you pointed out, obviously I agree) but the security model Vista, and subsequently 7, is based on, removes the possibility of getting anything system breaking (that is, anything finding its way into kernel mode) due to UAC, assuming the user is competent in their knowledge of what should and shouldn't be running. This isn't a hard thing, but requires you to be aware and actually read the UAC dialog thoroughly and understand the source of the software being elevated (was it because I clicked the shiny thing on the questionable website?). Compromised sites visited in IE7/8 in Protected Mode no chance of doing anything more than throwing a UAC prompt to install software; again, if the user is aware, they're fine. I've not run AV for personal security in a few years for these reasons. I've run it to test for anyone I'd like to recommend to who wants that extra security, but in the end, personal preference on personal systems.