Anti*-Anti-Anti-Virus Rant (me complaining about people saying you don't need anti-virus)

[SlackAssassin]

So I was looking at the comments on PC Gamer's "The Best Anti-Virus" guide, and I'm seeing a lot of people going on about how the only anti-virus you need is a brain, and that no-one needs them (anti-virus, not brains) at all. When I asked people on this very forum about what anti-virus software they use and what they'd recommend, I got a lot of the same responses, written in the most up-yourself way. Some people were helpful, though.

 

Before reading on, just know that you are entitled to your own opinion, and what's written below may make some people mad. Others might agree, and I invite everyone to contribute to this discussion. Just try to see reason and think rationally before commenting.

 

To firstly address those comments about how all you need is common-sense, that is partially true. A lot of teens and adults know not to click on suspicious ads, they know not to click on strange links, and they know not to install unknown programs they've never heard of. We learn these things from IT classes, videos or experience. But there are still FAR more people in the world who DON'T know these things. My sister, a very smart girl who didn't use any anti-virus, was downloading videos from what she thought was a trusted source. The other week, she came into my room with her laptop, infected with ad-ware. We had to reformat her laptop, but she lost a lot of pictures and work files. Anti-virus would have prevented this. Another example of people who don't know how to identify a possible virus source would be the elderly, or young children, or any person who isn't an Internet power-user. These people constantly benefit from using anti-virus software.

 

The argument "just don't transfer files from other people's computers" (which I've seen a lot of) is totally invalid in many cases. If you're a UNIVERSITY STUDENT, OFFICE WORKER, GAME DESIGNER, OR ANY OTHER PROFESSION WHICH *RELIES* ON TRANSFERRING FILES, then you need to be protected from viruses on other people's devices. I personally received 22 Trojan horses and 47 worms from a high school friend who was transferring their project files to my device. I had anti-virus, so I removed them before they did any damage. If I didn't have anti-virus, I would have been totally fucked.

 

There's also entire corporations which RELY on anti-virus to protect their files and their systems from attacks. Anyone who's seen The IT Crowd will know how one person can uninstall their anti-virus and fuck up an entire floor of systems. Schools use anti-virus on the staff's devices and lab computers as well.

 

Despite my dislike for people who just disregard the need for anti-virus completely without considering the situation of others, there are some things I can understand about their concerns. A lot of decent anti-virus software (Norton, BitDefender) is costly. But there are free solutions (Avast, Avira) which operate just as efficiently as the premium ones; minus the fancy features. There are also many options which have a minimal impact on a computer's performance.

 

In my opinion, it's perfectly fine for some people to not use anti-virus software. If that suits their situation and needs, then I don't have a problem with it. But I am sick and tired of seeing people make sweeping generalisations about whether or not people need anti-virus software. They need to know that some configurations suit different people and companies, instead of telling everyone "the best antivirus is your brain, dont be a dumb cunt and read what your clicking" (top comment on PC Gamer's Facebook post for "The Best Anti-Virus" guide).

[KuJoe]

Common sense is not very common these days. People who think they know everything or can outsmart hackers usually are the most vulnerable. I run 3 different kinds of AV software on my desktops, not to protect me from myself but because I can't guarantee everybody else on my networks are as careful as I am.

 

Also, people who think they can only get viruses when they are logged into their PC and actively using it are sadly mistaken. Your PC can easily get infected while you're sleeping if it's connected to the internet or a shared network.

[soup]

What you have to consider is it is "horses for cources". I do not need anti-virus (though I use defender as a 'run full time' and scan now and then with Malwarebytes also scan now and then with Panda as although Malwarebytes is good it doesn't get everything), but  those who give a blanket "an anti-virus is NEVER needed" are not considering others use cases.

[soup]

2 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

. I run 3 different kinds of AV software on my desktops,

Not full time hopefully.

[KuJoe]

Just now, soup said:

Not full time hopefully.

Yup. AVG, Webroot SecureAnywhere, and ClamWin are always in my taskbar. Since they have no impact on performance (even on my netbooks) I have no problem with them running 24x7.

[soup]

24 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

Yup. AVG, Webroot SecureAnywhere, and ClamWin are always in my taskbar. Since they have no impact on performance (even on my netbooks) I have no problem with them running 24x7.

You sure? Ah well good luck with that, personaly I would use one of them full time and run stand alone scans on the others say daily/weekly/monthly (depending on amount of use)

 

Kasperskie's take on multiple AVs.

https://blog.kaspersky.com/multiple-antivirus-programs-bad-idea/2670/

Information security stacks'.

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/52643/are-two-anti-virus-better-than-one-in-protecting-your-computer

 

Each to their own, I wouldn't dream of telling you you must do it this way rather give you the information and make your own decision.

A full search which you can peruse or ignore.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=why+not+run+multiple+anti-viruses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=TmdFV_HXDNHU8gfB87nQBw

[KuJoe]

14 minutes ago, soup said:

You sure? Ah well good luck with that, personaly I would use one of them full time and run stand alone scans on the others say daily/weekly/monthly (depending on amount of use)

 

Kasperskies take on multiple AVs.

https://blog.kaspersky.com/multiple-antivirus-programs-bad-idea/2670/

Information security stacks.

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/52643/are-two-anti-virus-better-than-one-in-protecting-your-computer

 

Each to their own, I wouldn't dream of telling you you must do it this way rather give you the information and make your own decision.

A full search which you can peruse or ignore.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=why+not+run+multiple+anti-viruses&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=TmdFV_HXDNHU8gfB87nQBw

Thanks for the info but I've taken precautions so those concerns don't apply to me.  Believe me, back in the day (15+ years ago) AV software was the bane of my existence, always bogging down my CPU and maxing out my RAM. In today's world of multi-core CPUs and gigabytes of RAM running multiple different AV software is less impactful than having a small number of tabs open in Chrome (I have 6 tabs open in Chrome and it is literally using over 10x more resources than all 3 combined).

 

[soup]

Obviouslly the hit in performance is not even registering for you.  But for no discernible (as against one full time the rest on-demand scans) gain why take any hit at all?

 

  Anyway each to their own.

 

As I used to say on CB:-

Biddy biddy bye-bye, out.

[flowalex]

On 25/05/2016 at 9:24 AM, SlackAssassin said:

Snip

I completely agree with you, I even have an antivirus on my linux os so that when I transfer files from it that I downloaded that there are no viruses on it, personally I run bitdefender free and do biweekly malwarebytes scans (take about 5 hours every internal drive and every flash drive I use) My philosophy is find a good free antivirus and don't pay for anything extra because it is not worth it.  I have only gotten a virus once, and it was on a netbook that only had space for the OS and Chrome since then not one virus on any computer I own.

[vanished]

Wait, if this is a post about being against the people who say you don't need anti-virus, wouldn't it be anti-anti-anti-virus?  

[SlackAssassin]

On 28/05/2016 at 1:37 PM, Ryan_Vickers said:

Wait, if this is a post about being against the people who say you don't need anti-virus, wouldn't it be anti-anti-anti-virus?  

I legitimately got confused when writing the title, so I just settled for anti-anti.