Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
General Security Discussions
"Overkill": excessive protection and the false sense of security
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 789746" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Some things will probably never change:</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Inexperienced users tend to use 2 or more AVs, because they feel insecure. That is much more annoying to them as compared to the possible problems due to incompatibilities, broken updates, and unstable system.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">After some learning, people can realize that there does not exist both usable and bulletproof security on Windows. If the user wants to use the computer, then he/she must accept some risk of it. It is like accepting the risk that you can be injured by a car, when crossing the road on green light.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Some people can also realize that their fear of the computer infection is much greater than the fear of being robbed of it, or get a flu, or fall down the stairs. There are many other dangerous things as probable as the computer infection, which are not so fearful for most of us. Why?</li> </ol><p>Some people like to find out something close to bulletproof protection, and they are doing it for fun (as a hobby). But in the home environment, most of people should not fear about such things like:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the malware escaping the web browser sandbox (Edge, Chrome);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the sophisticated malware that attacks organizations;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the highly targeted attacks;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the Meltdown and Spectre (hardware) exploits;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">the kernel exploits, and general Windows exploits.</li> </ul><p>Furthermore, trying to protect the computer against those vulnerabilities by adopting additional protection, would be as reasonable as living in the nuclear bunker.</p><p>For the home user, being infected via those vulnerabilities, would be as probable as being hit by a lightning. Those vulnerabilities are real and dangerous only in organizations. For example, the most dangerous WannaCry attacks were based on the exploit, which was already patched by Microsoft, so the people with Windows on default settings, were automatically protected.</p><p></p><p>I would rather recommend to rethink the short story about two friends and an angry bear. You do not have to run faster than a bear. It is sufficient to run faster than your friend.</p><p>So, you do not have to apply a bulletproof protection. It is sufficient to apply a better protection (including safe habits) than average users do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 789746, member: 32260"] Some things will probably never change: [LIST=1] [*]Inexperienced users tend to use 2 or more AVs, because they feel insecure. That is much more annoying to them as compared to the possible problems due to incompatibilities, broken updates, and unstable system. [*]After some learning, people can realize that there does not exist both usable and bulletproof security on Windows. If the user wants to use the computer, then he/she must accept some risk of it. It is like accepting the risk that you can be injured by a car, when crossing the road on green light. [*]Some people can also realize that their fear of the computer infection is much greater than the fear of being robbed of it, or get a flu, or fall down the stairs. There are many other dangerous things as probable as the computer infection, which are not so fearful for most of us. Why? [/LIST] Some people like to find out something close to bulletproof protection, and they are doing it for fun (as a hobby). But in the home environment, most of people should not fear about such things like: [LIST] [*]the malware escaping the web browser sandbox (Edge, Chrome); [*]the sophisticated malware that attacks organizations; [*]the highly targeted attacks; [*]the Meltdown and Spectre (hardware) exploits; [*]the kernel exploits, and general Windows exploits. [/LIST] Furthermore, trying to protect the computer against those vulnerabilities by adopting additional protection, would be as reasonable as living in the nuclear bunker. For the home user, being infected via those vulnerabilities, would be as probable as being hit by a lightning. Those vulnerabilities are real and dangerous only in organizations. For example, the most dangerous WannaCry attacks were based on the exploit, which was already patched by Microsoft, so the people with Windows on default settings, were automatically protected. I would rather recommend to rethink the short story about two friends and an angry bear. You do not have to run faster than a bear. It is sufficient to run faster than your friend. So, you do not have to apply a bulletproof protection. It is sufficient to apply a better protection (including safe habits) than average users do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
