7 reasons to not ... install an Antivirus

[jamescv7]

In such outcome, there is a clear cut that attacks may slip to your system like hacked websites/vulnerabilty which why at least a running protection is required.

As we connect to the internet, we embrace for future attacks but as possible our awareness and knowledge should prevent it.

 

[Vasudev]

I don't think "AV's w/o heuristics are garbage". Most detections on the wild comes from Heur/Signatures, so they help a lot. Proactive modules are useful and gives you an edge over newly created threats, however it may fail to detect common regular malware samples outhere. Both needs each other in order to provide a solid protection. Most AV's are helpless if the user itself equals to 0, the same applies to proactive defenses, if the user equals to 0 it will be helpless too. I use a mix of both concepts and I haven't been infected since ever, also; I have received help from them on certain installers coming from trusted sources that where infected with Adware, in such case it is a plus that helps. Malvertising is also a case where your properly configured AV solution may help, your AD block can fail sometimes where your AV will be another chance to win a battle, a little one; but they all count. I think that calling garbage software that have been being developed for years is not totally accurate. Anything can be considered garbage when the user behind it is not able to make it work and shine.
Performance issues are not only related to AV's but a major wide of things, in the present; any new computer is more than capable of running most AV with no issues on performance side of story, however; there will be always an impact. The same way as installing any other software that uses system resources.

I was implying if a user paid for lifetime license of Norton 2005(& all others i missed) and expect AV to deliver same level of protection from viruses in the wild and also outperform their latest Norton IS & TS suites.

 

[Deleted member 178]

The real geeks don't use the antivirus

the real geeks are the 1s who are the most paranoid of getting an infection & have various realtime & online protection installed.

I, will answer you :

"True Lords of the SecGeek Way attained a level of understanding so unimaginable their lower pairs can only dream of...a state of illumination where the word AV (AntiVirus) becomes a word long-forgotten replaced by AEFV (Anti-Executable Full Virtualization)"

i, Darth Umbra, attained this level, I ascended , now my sight embrace a brand new world where slowdowns and false positive are mere remnants of a dark age...i AM Legend, i Shall give peace to the cyberworld !



more seriously, realtime AVs are now more a comfort feature than anything else , the real deal is the prevention features packed with them.

 

[Enju]

huh



if antivirus is merely a comfort feature why is MalwareTips having endless giveaways for them?

why are innumerable members flocking ( lol & some even cheating ) for those giveaways?

online protection is not 6 speaker stereo system in your suv that you can do without it.

online protection is more like the air bags in your suv that can be a life-saver at times.

1. Because it attracts users and spreads the word
2. It's free, people love free stuff
3. 4. Classical Antimalware is like an airbag that inflates 2 hours after the accident. If it's just a small crash, no problem, it might hurt a bit and nothing really bad happened but if get into something bigger than a slow collision it's over, you are dead or heavily wounded. With virtualization and/or whitelisting this won't happen since your car automatically, without any user/driver input, avoids the crash and if that's impossible the airbags open even before the crash takes place. I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[Exterminator]

All average users need/should have some type of AV protection.If anyone tells them otherwise then it is just bad advice.
I just cleaned up a computer for a friend that was locked down with ransomware.If you can get infected with that how on earth are you going to understand the principles behind a layered config consisting of more complex theories.
I still use it because there are times when it reminds me of what not to do when I might let my guard down

 

[LabZero]

that is an absolute misconception.

the real geeks are the 1s who are the most paranoid of getting an infection & have various realtime & online protection installed.

a true geek is 1 who is forever trying out new software & thus he /she has all the more need of constant online protection.

even sandboxes & virtualization software are protection in a way.

Who works every day with assemblers, debuggers, sniffer, reverse engineering and malware research, do you think they use an antivirus?
They find 0-day exploit by analyzing thousands of code lines and they find and analyse vulnerability ... they, not the antivirus.
For the average user, antivirus, firewall, antimalware etc, with all their limitations, of course are useful tools to prevent permanent infection.

 

[Vasudev]

"True Lords of the SecGeek Way attained a level of understanding so unimaginable their lower pairs can only dream of...a state of illumination where the word AV (AntiVirus) becomes a word long-forgotten replaced by AEFV (Anti-Executable Full Virtualization)"

i, Darth Umbra, attained this level, I ascended , now my sight embrace a brand new world where slowdowns and false positive are mere remnants of a dark age...i AM Legend, i Shall give peace to the cyberworld !

Dark Lord Umbra "Malware Conqueror": can I become your apprentice?

 

[DracusNarcrym]

Who works every day with assemblers, debuggers, sniffer, reverse engineering and malware research, do you think they use an antivirus?
They find 0-day exploit by analyzing thousands of code lines and they find and analyse vulnerability ... they, not the antivirus.
For the average user, antivirus, firewall, antimalware etc, with all their limitations, of course are useful tools to prevent permanent infection.

This is all very true. There are a multitude of methods for analyzing executables, libraries or any other compiled file object there is right - even most of the more hardened ones, such as those with obfuscated or even encrypted code. And employing these methods one can learn a lot about how a certain malicious piece of software functions, and based on these findings, one can develop other methods and software which specialize in preventing/stopping or controlling these malicious functions so that they may not cause harm to the file system.
However, what happens when for some wild reason, when a number of conditions are met, a malicious executable is executed, or an exploit is run through a vulnerable browser? No matter the users' proficiency in IT and computer knowledge in general, they will not be able to stop that potential intrusion without having some sort of tool running, or without having a tool to help them stop that intrusion manually. As such, a security tool (not necessarily a traditional signature-based antivirus), such as a HIPS system which alerts the user and the user is prompted to allow/deny any malicious action(s) from being performed, would be really useful.
Whether a computer user is a programmer/coder or not, regardless of their level of proficiency in IT and whether they know how to reverse engineer compiled executables/libraries or not, tools are tools, and they will always be necessary, sometimes to a greater extent, and sometimes to a lesser extent.
It would be wiser not to be so absolute as saying "no security software is required at all" or "let's bloat our system by installing all security software we can", and choose a more middle solution, such as having only a few, but powerful and versatile security tools, combined with awareness, a reasonable level of proficiency in IT, and safe computing habits.

 

[Dani Santos]

"I'm more smart of malware;" - The irony in this one, "smarter" not "more smart".

 

[SloppyMcFloppy]

You forgot reason 8 : because Umbra said so !

• I don't mind sharing my porn collection to other peoples.

My reason ?

 

[Amiga500]

Would some members say that using a linux computer would be more impervious to malware.

 

[DracusNarcrym]

Would some members say that using a linux computer would be more impervious to malware.

Linux is far more resilient - but definitely NOT impervious. There is known malware for Linux - however it's not as simple as just getting them on the hard drive for them to do their thing. They need to be properly executed and given root access/privileges (get past password protection). That can only happen if the user allows it. If the user does, then of course there can be an infection on a Linux system.