Kaspersky Making it's Anti-Virus Solution Free for all .

[Droidbot]

1 minute ago, manikyath said:

kaspersky is actually very light on your system (except when scanning offcourse )

 

in fact, i cant really think of any antivirus which fits the "bloated" status anymore, ignoring the odd free ones that suddenly decide to blast your system with "value add software"

but the problem is that it's still ALWAYS in memory

it's still ALWAYS using CPU cycles

it's still ALWAYS looking at files before execution 

it's ALWAYS fucking there

 

and this is why I haven't ran an antivirus in years, threw avast to the fucking kerb and smashed it with a baseball bat when they deployed an update that removed half my fucking steam library

[manikyath]

Just now, Droidbot said:

but the problem is that it's still ALWAYS in memory

it's still ALWAYS using CPU cycles

it's still ALWAYS looking at files before execution 

it's ALWAYS fucking there

 

and this is why I haven't ran an antivirus in years, threw avast to the fucking kerb and smashed it with a baseball bat when they deployed an update that removed half my fucking steam library

so are the hundreds of other services that arent technically necessary in windows.

 

dont see people disable font caching to have better gaming performance do we?

[Tech_Dreamer]

12 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Because windows defender is about as effective as a retarded knight with cardboard armour and a foam sword...

 

7 minutes ago, Denis Rakhmanov said:

But even that is good for some cases, right?  

Not Always

 

 

#Socks&SandalsIsNOTanArmor

[manikyath]

Just now, FriendlyNonMurderingSort said:

Unless proof is provided, I seriously doubt that. Stop fabricating stories to fuel your crusade.

avast has done some amazing derps trough the years, they're few and far in between, but it really is value for your money.. (having paid none)

[Droidbot]

Just now, manikyath said:

so are the hundreds of other services that arent technically necessary in windows.

 

dont see people disable font caching to have better gaming performance do we?

maybe using CPU cycles, but not analysing files. 

on a machine with a woefully slow hdd it's quite annoying

 

[manikyath]

Just now, Droidbot said:

maybe using CPU cycles, but not analysing files. 

on a machine with a woefully slow hdd it's quite annoying

 

as i said before.. netbook with a frikking E-450, 5400RPM HDD.. dont even notice norton 360 running.

[nerdv2]

And I am sitting here reading debates on a Linux based machine.

[desertcomputer]

6 minutes ago, FriendlyNonMurderingSort said:

Unless proof is provided, I seriously doubt that. Stop fabricating stories to fuel your crusade.

More like half his library are pirated, never happen to legit games from steam. 

1 minute ago, nerdv2 said:

And I am sitting here reading debates on a Linux based machine.

Still can be inflected, just like MACs/OX. 

[nerdv2]

Just now, MrUnknownEMC said:

Still can be inflected, just like MACs/OX. 

Yup, just not that often. That's why I had ClamAV standing by.

[Droidbot]

4 minutes ago, FriendlyNonMurderingSort said:

Unless proof is provided, I seriously doubt that. Stop fabricating stories to fuel your crusade.

24 steam games. 12 of them were Source-based. Avast, in the space of one morning, quarantined all of them. 

 

CSGO, CSS, HL2/E1/E2/tech demo, HL1-Source, GMod, L4D2, Insurgency, DoD Source, Fistful of Frags. All just gone. 

[tom_w141]

14 minutes ago, Denis Rakhmanov said:

But even that is good for some cases, right?  

Well yeah its better than no knight at all. But saying you should ignore a better free option like Kaspersky (widely regarded as the second best AV provider, second only to Bitdefender) is stupid.

[tom_w141]

5 minutes ago, nerdv2 said:

And I am sitting here reading debates on a Linux based machine.

You realise the only reason Linux is "safe" is because the user base is so small that its not worth developing exploits? Compared to the windows user base the pool of targets is so much richer and with more targets you are bound to get someone to slip up.

[nerdv2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

You realise the only reason Linux is "safe" is because the user base is so small that its not worth developing exploits? Compared to the windows user base the pool of targets is so much richer and with more targets you are bound to get someone to slip up.

Yup, that's another reason. There's no system completely safe.

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, nerdv2 said:

Yup, that's another reason. There's no system completely safe.

its not just a reason its the main reason. If Linux and windows swapped share sizes and Linux had an install base of 90+% then you'd see Linux exploits left right and centre and virtually none for windows. Linus/Mac OS are not magical they just aren't worth targeting.

[nerdv2]

Just now, tom_w141 said:

its not just a reason its the main reason. If Linux and windows swapped share sizes and Linux had an install base of 90+% then you'd see Linux exploits left right and centre and virtually none for windows. Linus/Mac OS are not magical they just aren't worth targeting.

I see your point, android is a linux based operating system and it gets attacked at all times because the user base. Well also that most exploits and malware are developed in linux for other OSes.

[SCHISCHKA]

9 hours ago, Droidbot said:

Why bloat your system with shitty AV like this when you can use Common Sense Pro 2017

 

i think many do not have the system requirements

[SCHISCHKA]

7 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

its not just a reason its the main reason. If Linux and windows swapped share sizes and Linux had an install base of 90+% then you'd see Linux exploits left right and centre and virtually none for windows. Linus/Mac OS are not magical they just aren't worth targeting.

there are exploits left right and center for linux

[tom_w141]

2 minutes ago, SCHISCHKA said:

there are exploits left right and center for linux

Yes but it'd on a grander scale and all the "windows virus" memes would suddenly all be about Linux if that's where the install base was, but that isn't the case because Linux across all distros has like 5% market share  

[LAwLz]

17 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

You realise the only reason Linux is "safe" is because the user base is so small that its not worth developing exploits? Compared to the windows user base the pool of targets is so much richer and with more targets you are bound to get someone to slip up.

13 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

its not just a reason its the main reason. If Linux and windows swapped share sizes and Linux had an install base of 90+% then you'd see Linux exploits left right and centre and virtually none for windows. Linus/Mac OS are not magical they just aren't worth targeting.

This is false.

I am willing to bet that most computers in the world runs GNU/Linux. Just think of all the embedded systems, and servers that runs it.

 

"Ohh but they are not PCs!". True, but what do you think would be the biggest target for an attacker:

1) Personal computers running Windows.

2) The majority of servers and embedded systems.

 

I think the answer is pretty easy.

 

Security through obscurity might play some role in why GNU/Linux isn't attacked as often, but generalizing it into that single reason shows a big lack of understanding for how the OSes are different in a lot of areas such as privilege handling and modular/non-modular design.

Windows has a fundamentally worse design from a security perspective in some crucial areas. 

 

 

Edit:

1 minute ago, tom_w141 said:

Yes but it'd on a grander scale and all the "windows virus" memes would suddenly all be about Linux if that's where the install base was, but that isn't the case because Linux across all distros has like 5% market share  

No it wouldn't. Android is Linux based but almost all of the exploits found for that are in Google's own libraries, OEMs' implementations of things, and/or drivers. They are very rarely found in the Linux kernel or the standard GNU libraries.

[Denis Rakhmanov]

9 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

its not just a reason its the main reason. If Linux and windows swapped share sizes and Linux had an install base of 90+% then you'd see Linux exploits left right and centre and virtually none for windows. Linus/Mac OS are not magical they just aren't worth targeting.

I may not compitely agree. Linux/Mac are unix based systems with defferent rights and application management systems. I believe its a bit harder to write a malicious software. Though if Linux had a large installment base human stupidity would negate every hypothetical improvements over Windows, and there will be more people looking for exploits within system and we still would have a lot of "viruses". They will be different though.

[Tech_Dreamer]

Regardless of OS platform , a basic free reliable Anti-Virus is necessary right ? , Common sense is a good thing , but it's not gonna stop people from plugging in an old random heavily used USB stick or portable HDD from a friend that might have a damaging trojan hidden inside , Downloading an email attachment that was send by a co worker/family/friend . this is where basic detection is key & the more integrity the AV software has in detecting these minor nuisance , the better secure ones PC can be.

[tom_w141]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This is false.

I am willing to bet that most computers in the world runs GNU/Linux. Just think of all the embedded systems, and servers that runs it.

 

"Ohh but they are not PCs!". True, but what do you think would be the biggest target for an attacker:

1) Personal computers running Windows.

2) The majority of servers and embedded systems.

 

I think the answer is pretty easy.

 

Security through obscurity might play some role in why GNU/Linux isn't attacked as often, but generalizing it into that single reason shows a big lack of understanding for how the OSes are different in a lot of areas such as privilege handling and modular/non-modular design.

Windows has a fundamentally worse design from a security perspective in some crucial areas. 

Thanks for the long but ultimately useless response as you missed the point completely. This entire thread is about desktop protection.

 

I'm sorry you wasted your time typing the above. My response is simply:

 

lol

[Denis Rakhmanov]

3 minutes ago, Tech_Dreamer said:

Regardless of OS platform , a basic free reliable Anti-Virus is necessary right ? , Common sense is a good thing , but it's not gonna stop people from plugging in an old random heavily used USB stick or portable HDD from a friend that might have a damaging trojan hidden inside , Downloading an email attachment that was send by a co worker/family/friend .

Linux may probably not have this problem as of now. Those trojans wont have permissions to run.

[SCHISCHKA]

11 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Yes but it'd on a grander scale and all the "windows virus" memes would suddenly all be about Linux if that's where the install base was, but that isn't the case because Linux across all distros has like 5% market share  

yes this argument is all over the internet. This argument is false because almost every house is running a linux router and modem and this is an easy attack vector as these devices rarely get updated or replaced.

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Thanks for the long but ultimately useless response as you missed the point completely. This entire thread is about desktop protection.

 

I'm sorry you wasted your time typing the above. My response is simply:

 

lol

Your argument: Linux doesn't get attacked because it is not widely used.

Me: GNU/Linux is probably used more than Windows, and the reward for attacking the things running GNU/Linux could be bigger as well. There might be a small amount of truth to GNU/Linux being attacked less frequently than Windows because it's less popular on desktops, but it is by no means the sole purpose.

 

I did not miss your point. I understood it completely. The problem is that your point is extremely oversimplified and wrong.

 

lol