That is an issue that can happen (and probably will happen in the future), but it is also the fault of HP. I can send my installers to Microsoft to avoid customer problems. Why HP cannot do it?
So HP is stupid and arrogant, I know that already, lol. But why does WD still block a HP installer a week and a half later, that's what I can't understand.
www.wilderssecurity.com
www.wilderssecurity.com
I guess WD does not know, it is just HP installer. HP tech support expects than someone will report it, anyone else but them, so it is DIY. Like I have reported a faulty VisualC++ library in Setpoint 2 years ago, plus a fix. But Logitech released the new Setpoint this year still crashing because of it.
I often heard the opinion that advanced users or those who know how to set up programs do not need an antivirus. I can not agree with that. One person who understands PC and PC protection once said - "Antivirus is 30% of PC protection, and 70% of protection is user actions." Still, at least 30% of PC protection is the work of the antivirus. Especially nowadays, threats are evolving and now it’s not even necessary to download something, launch, threats can penetrate and unnoticed, so that even having visited a site that has been well known to you for a long time, you will not even suspect that your system is already infected. So, as antivirus insurance, everyone needs both advanced and novice users.The problem is, that 99% users always use the default config and those, who can customize it, usually do not need AV in the first place.
I agree that AV is something everyone should have, but not because visiting a website might infect your system. That was true like about 5-10 years ago, but it doesn't happen anymore (with the exception of an occasional targeted attack on high-value Internet Explorer users)
Not when you know, how it works, malware does not magically download and run by itself, like they portrait it on the news, it needs help. I always try to find the detail reports, where they describe, how it works, step by step. This is where customizing AV, as you said, helps, like by monitoring scripts, system folders and such. Or you can simply prevent them from running silently by customizing OS, like with HardConfigurator.
I would say that it's more like 1% and 99%. While I use antivirus software, it never detects anything other than PUPs which I download myself, or a very occasional false positive for a safe installer. I don't get infected and I also wouldn't if I wasn't running antivirus software.
ESET has much better detection rates. It has a bad reputation here, because some people have tested it and found it to not be so good.K7Computing scored better than ESET, but most people on MalwareTips say that it's a bad product. It doesn't even have its own subforum. I think it's sad that you guys underestimate it so much.
Good point. In rare cases you could get hit by a drive-by download, but it certainly will not run by itself.
I agree with you. I forgot to mention that there is also such a moment as the replacement of legal programs with malicious ones by breaking into the servers of the company distributing this legal software. Remember the story with CCleaner? This was not a targeted attack on any specific users, and the calculation was made on a massive attack, since CCleaner is a very popular program and installed on the computers of many users. And here only proactive protection of the antivirus could save, which would notice suspicious actions on the part of CCleaner. I remember when this story was not even made public, and even when the developers themselves were not aware that they had been hacked (they didn’t notice it right away), one tester on YouTube posted a review about ESET Smart Security, and I I noticed that ESET signaled some kind of problem with CCleaner, it was there that the SysInspector component wrote something about the problem. The tester did not pay attention to it at all, they say a false positive. And after 4 days, information about what happened has already been made public.
As the test results show, with the proper user settings, K7Computing can outperform ESET, AVG, Avast and Panda. I think this is pretty telling that it can match some of the big name antiviruses. Also, the fact that some companies which don't even have a proprietary engine (Lavasoft, F-Secure, Bullguard etc.) have their own subforum, but K7Computing doesn't, is unfair.
I am certainly not an expert, but I heard about the drive-by download attacks, when malicious elements (scripts, as I understand it) are quietly download from the pages of hacked sites, and then the malware itself is loading directly. I don’t know the whole mechanism, I can’t judge it, but an antivirus can detect and prevent this. Of course, you can configure the browser very tightly and configure the system very tightly, and then you can use the system without antivirus, perhaps, but how convenient will such a rigid configuration be? I think it will suit not all ordinary users, for whom it will be easier once to set up an antivirus for Internet Security class well, and to get protection from such threats.
+1
As I said, don't take too much notice of a single test
You can do it. Do not count on others.
There are tests of two K7 Computing products. The vendor admits that K7 Total Security is more comprehensive than K7 Antivirus. The tests are not conclusive yet to show reliable detection rate of K7 products. So, we cannot say for sure, that Eset detection rate in AV Labs tests will be better than K7 Total Security. But it is very probable that Eset can be better from K7 AV on the base of the capabilities of both products.
It is normal that the malicious website can run the malware, but in most cases, it will be contained/restricted in the web browser sandbox (except web browser exploits). The AV with web filtering feature can prevent access to many malicious websites and can block malicious scripts injected to legal websites, but it can be done without the AV, too. In theory (on the well updated system/software), it is possible that very cautious and experienced user could harden a little the web browser and system without losing much usability, and skip the AV real-time protection. She/he would be probably safer than average users with AV protection, but still using the AV by her/him will be safer.
Many times there is news, that some malware infected computers by itself, I go deeper and look-see, the file download was indeed triggered silently, but it pretended to be a document or a picture and people were like, what is this and ran it to find out. If it were ignored, it would not do anything.
That is indeed a big problem for the average user. That is how people get infected.
AFAIK the malicious file type would be document_bill.docx.exe
