Can common sense replace security?

[LoftedAphid86]

LOL.......................No one else should EVER be using your computer under Admin rights. If someone needs to use the same pc then they should be under an LUA. Now your just grabbing for examples. Geswall is not realistic since 99% of the average pc users never heard of it nor does it support 64 bit OS's.

Just because people haven't heard of it, that doesn't mean that it isn't effective.
I don't use a 64 bit OS and if I did I would likely use Bufferzone once it comes out on 64 bit computers to achieve similar levels of protection.
A Limited User Account isn't bulletproof, despite not being able to change the OS root.
An exploit may one day be found that could allow a program root access from a limited user account.

 

[Ink]

What about someone who is new to this? (ie. places/countries where computers have just been introduced).

In my opinion, common sense cannot replace security. You can make wise decisions but you still need security in any form (i.e. updates/patches or antivirus scanners).


This may be an overkill but..
If you really think you can use no security, I would like to see you using Windows XP (SP0 and without any updates). Doing online banking or other sessions that involve personal data being transmitted on an un-protected network.

 

[Dieselman]

HIPS are useless in the hands of a noob.

 

[LoftedAphid86]

HIPS are useless in the hands of a noob.

GeSWall is entirely automatic, so it can be used by the average computer user.
BTW: It's n00b, not noob.

 

[Guest28]

I don't care who you are or what you do or how smart you are. In my own personal opinion everyone should security software. Common sense is good but you're not using it if you don't have security software to back you're butt up when you fail at preventing malware.

 

[Dieselman]

You mean everyone should use security. And where did anyone say don't use security? No where. But if don't have any common sense then your security is meaningless.

 

[LoftedAphid86]

You mean everyone should use security. And where did anyone say don't use security? No where. But if don't have any common sense then your security is meaningless.

Title:

Can common sense replace security?

 

[Guest28]

That's why i said *my personal opinion*..................... I did not say anyone said that.

 

[Tom172]

I don't think common sense can replace Security software, but it can greatly increase your protection.

Dieselman, you went a year without no real-time security, and had zero infections, but try it again and you may not have the same results. Luck is a great factor also.

 

[Dieselman]

No luck needed. I have common sense.

 

[LoftedAphid86]

No luck needed. I have common sense.

But, who's to say that anonymous didn't plant malware into Paypal when they DDoS'd it?
They didn't, but what if they did?
You may have been unaware of it but if you bought anything online with Paypal, then you would have been infected.

 

[Tom172]

No luck needed. I have common sense.

You visit one of your favourite sites, that has been hacked and is serving up malware, you get infected. How is your common sense then?

 

[Dieselman]

It's called mount a new image and presto. I'm virus free again. You people seem to forget. I dont fear infections. I conquer them. Why do so many of you live a paranoid life.

 

[Tom172]

Granted, I'll give you that. But the topic here is not cleanup measures, but prevention. And common sense just isn't enough to prevent infection.

And we're no more paranoid than you.

 

[Dieselman]

I'm not paranoid Tom....................That why I have a system image. I don't use a VM but I play with live malware all the time. So what if my PayPal got hacked. I call the bank and tell them. They cancel my card and refund me my charges. No big deal.

 

[bogdan]

No security might be too extreme - an unnecessary risk. But I admit that I am sometimes tempted to give up some layers of security, like HIPS for example. I would then just use a limited user account + an antivirus + a software firewall (mainly because I find it easier to use/configure than the default Windows 7 firewall).

 

[Dieselman]

Windows 7 firewall at the default state is just fine.

 

[bogdan]

Not for me, for the reasons mentioned before: Windows often leaves ports opened and has services listening to them. Conficker got through the default firewall without problems. A router helps, but my laptop isn't always behind a router and sometimes I allow friends to connect to my network.

 

[Dieselman]

Thats why you use this bogdan.

http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/order.html

 

[bogdan]

It is not a perfect solution. I want a bit more advanced features (security zones, for example - only available in the payed version) Also notice that System/Core application protection is also only available in the payed version. I don't know if this is related to the fact that executables in system folders trying to connect to the Internet didn't generate a pop-up when I first tried it out.

Edit: The FAQ clarified my problem:

The Free version can not protect "system" applications, formally located in C:\windows\*. So, the Free version blocks any initial network access attempts of the "system" applications (as explained above), forcibly/implicitly sets "EnableAll" zone to the applications implicitly always and prompts you with "Now Enabled:" in the notification balloon. The behavior provides system/network related services with unlimited network access.