>Using antivirus is for computer illiterate people. The chances

That's your opinion.

Common Sense is the best anti-virus

>>45493936
Wrong, exploit-based web-based worms like Sasser will infect a computer even if a user is smart enough to not to run infected executables.
CPU footprint of modern antiviruses is slight.

>>45493981
No shit. And thanks to this guy >>45493995
I might change my opinion.

Do you understand the reason of a discussion now?

>Not worth the cpu usage
>Not being able to go to random ass porn sites
>Being this poor
You should be spending all you effort on getting a job to replace that shitty 10 year old thinkpad you use 24 hours a day

I have one installed and all it warns me about is when I download cracks for vidya. I mean really those are the only notifications so either I'm going something good or the antivirus just sucks ass. And I've tried tons of them

>>45494043
> Goin on random ass porn sites
> Not watching porn explicitly on 1080p
> 2014

>>45493995

>not having a firewall
>not keeping your system up to date

Nice try, but a smart user would never do these.

>>45493995
This.

>>45494028
Back in the WinXP days, when I used to find and screw around with exploits, if you didn't have any form of security, you would never know what hit you. A lot of exploits were undetectable for a long time, too. Fun times.

>>45493936
would be true if only flash and java weren't so badly secured.
even amazon's adds can be a way in for malwares.
addblockers limits the risks but can't eliminate it and they might become illegal and not easy to find soon (UE is working on it)
btw, since I stopped using opera I never get real trouble
btw, windows defender is good enough and it's cpu usage is really low
btw, I got a virus on a mac 3 month ago
btw, acording to the latest studies 58% of android devices are contaminated, 34% of them are supposedly protected by an antivirus

>>45494061
Exploits may abuse both of those factors. An antivirus with behaviour-based detection model will be able to secure a compromised system.

>>45493936
Most modern is have av built in and they run silently in the background. Mse has come pre-installed since windows 7 but m$ doesn't bother telling everyone not to waste their money so they don't get railed for being anti competitive. Discuss

>>45493995
10 years of computer using only Common Sense without a single infection.

A hardware firewall and not being retarded is far better than some bullshit antivirus software. CPU footprint is the least of the problems.

>>45493936
My clients computers are setup with windows 7, firefox, ABP and NSS with scripts globally allowed.
DNS is set to my dns-server which is running a filter from here http://malware-domains.com/files/domains.zip along with some other filters.

This has actually proved to be better than any antivirus we've tried.

>>45494139
>10 years of computer using only Common Sense without a single infection.
Consider yourself lucky.
>A hardware firewall and not being retarded is far better than some bullshit antivirus software.
That's why you don't run "bullshit" antivirus software, and use it as a piece that accompanies your firewall and intelligence.

>>45494099
>they [adblockers] might become illegal and not easy to find soon (UE is working on it)
Excuse me? Illegal? What's UE?

>>45494061
0-days will probably exist even in updated software, thats why they are 0-days... Firewalls are easily exploitable, they dont do shit against ZeuS, Cutwail and others, and if the system is backdoored I´d better not talk...

>>45493995
This is a good reply, this video is interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QT4YJn7oVI

Another thing that "CommonSense" retards dont know what a binder or a binder+crypter is. You can even bind spyware on top of a jpeg, so when you open the image the spyware loads at the same time, will CommonSense work in that case for you fags???? (there are some very small bots out there like uBot or Torpig). Commonsense fags, what about malicious pdfs?

Also, OS X and Linux arent malware-proof, here is one of the most recent ones: http://www.thesafemac.com/iworm-method-of-infection-found/

>>45494180
EU sorry, uropean eunion

>>45494180
He is probably spanish, UE = EU

>>45494194
How about a source? That sounds absurd.

>>45494194
kek

>>45494198
>a source
like everywhere in the tech news from the last 10 days

>>45494181
And antivirus is supposed to protect you from all of that without exposing any attack surface whatsoever?

>>45494181

>0-days will probably exist even in updated software, thats why they are 0-days... Firewalls are easily exploitable, they dont do shit against ZeuS, Cutwail and others, and if the system is backdoored I´d better not talk...

Even anti-virus can't protect you from 0days

>>45494252
Well post some examples then.

I'm paranoid. I'm not VERY tech savvy and I've heard of viruses that can take various forms, I feel like MBA keeps me protected even though it does hog a few resources. Good trade-off.

>>45494180
>Many webpages comes with ads.
>You can choose not to have ads to make them lighter
>doing so may become illegal.
How are they going to enforce this? My dns-cache may be poisoned to redirect all known ad-domains to localhost.

Also, the message sounds like this to me:
>Many cars comes with backseats.
>You can choose not to have backseats to make them lighter
>doing so may become illegal.

>>45494262
>>45494267

They can detect binded shit and even some crypted one, that actually helps.

Against 0-days they cant do shit.

They can help you against some browser malware too with url checks, like what ABP with malwarelists work

>>45494289
>MBA keeps me protected
Macbook Air keeps you protected?

>>45493936
>Using Windows is for computer illiterate people.

ftfy

>>45494267
>Even anti-virus can't protect you from 0days
Antiviruses with behavior-based detection mechanisms can.
>>45494262
Have there actually been a single virus that uses AV as an attack surface, I'm interested in this.

>>45494309
Malwarebytes Anti Malware. Sorry, I thought it was fairly known.

That's right in my experience. Even though Windows hasn't been my main OS for 2 years, I didn't get a virus infection or detection in 6 years.

I still run MSE on Windows because my 3770 doesn't give a fuck.
I believe that Common Sense and Adblockers are the most effective anti virus software there is.

>>45494180
>>45494294
Also, brb, hoarding dns-filters etc.

>>45494328
>Malwarebytes Anti Malware
MBAM.

>>45494328
MBAM is a malware removal tool, not an antivirus.

>>45494324
>behavior detection
Which sort of antivirus are those?

>2014
>not using Linux
>>>/out/

>>45494340
Oh, right.

>>45494355
>2015
>not using bsd

>>45494355
>Linux can't get viruses
>>>/out/

>>45494348
What's the difference anon kun

https everywhere, enjoy

>>45494355
If anything, use Solaris on x86.
Just thinking about writing Malware for it is absurd.

>>45494384
Antivirus supposedly prevents viruses from coming in.
Malware removal tools supposedly removes them when they are already in.

Antivirus = condoms
Malware removal tools = morning-after pill

>>45494394
That just means that people who are spying on you can't see what kind of malware you infect yourself with.

>>45494099
>would be true if only flash and java weren't so badly secured.
Several exploits in the past allowed me to retrieve valuable registry information. This didn't require flash or java. All the user needed to do was successfully load a simple PHP script/page.

File: ClamTK3.08.jpg (159KB, 745x563px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 745x563px

>>45494355
An assumption of the fact that Linux can't get malware is wrong, pic related.
Being militant about operating systems is a joy for children, by the way.
>>45494384
Antivirus primarily aims at preventing an infection, malware removers aim at removing already present malware on the system. If you're paranoid then you're better off running an antivirus, there is little reason to run malware removers on a clean machine.

>>45494429
Linux = Being such an ugly cunt nobody would want to fuck you anyway.

>>45494469
Any lightweight free AV's out there?

>>45494354
Most modern antiviruses do. An example of a behaviour-based virus protection mechanism is heuristic analysis.

>>45494475
Nice blog post

File: 1411223219418.gif (3MB, 480x292px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x292px

>>45493936
>are not worth the cpu usage of a antivirus.
Oh god, you're right. MSE is such a hog. My fucking i7 4970K is just straining under the load of the lightest AV software out there. I bet I could decrease my render times and improve my VM performance by 1000% if I just uninstalled MSE.

Thanks so much, OP. By the way, this is 1997, right?

>>45494487
>Any lightweight free AV's out there?
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
In "Test" field, choose "Performance Test", then in the field "Sort" pick "Value" and decide yourself.

What's the ClamAV equivalent for windows?

>>45494540
ClamAV.

I agree with that, though it is worth running a scan every few months to see if anything has slipped by.

>>45494540
ClamAV is available on Windows.

File: 1400732486316.gif (3MB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x220px

>Mfw I'm currently using the free version of Avast, having just uninstalled norton internet security

>>45494376
>downloading viruses
>giving viruses root access
>executing viruses
shiggy diggy

>>45494487
Clamav is god tier

>>45494469
>pic related.
>implying those arent windows viruses

face it, if you care about security, you dont use Windows.

>>45493936
I can't help suspect that a lot of the people claiming to not have viruses actually do have viruses. A lot of viruses are hidden and won't actually show themselves in the form of "the pc is acting weird".

I had a friend who boldly claimed he didnt have any viruses, so i asked him how do you know and installed an antivirus on his comp. His computer was riddled by viruses.

Supposedly according to "the experts" even 1 antivir program isnt enough, because none of them cover all the different viruses out there and is unable to detect them with heuristics. In reality windows have failed the security game and everyone now needs to use linux to feel somewhat safe.

File: 7329_fb79_867.png (568KB, 867x1054px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 867x1054px

B-but what about if someone jacks their flash drive into muh PC when I ain't looking? is MBAM enough? also I sure hope my CS 2010 don't need upgradin'

>>45494623
>>implying those arent windows viruses
They aren't.
Examples of Linux malware include Snakso, Nuxbee, PiLoT, Wit, Winux, Kagob, Coin and much, much more.
>face it, if you care about security, you dont use Windows.
Hasty generalization.

>constantly go on weird websites
>nothing have happened

I do a malware check every once in a while but nothing ever comes up.

The only time I've gotten a virus in the last 5 years was when I accidentally downloaded a game from TPB without reading the comments.

>>45494640
>In reality windows have failed the security game and everyone now needs to use linux to feel somewhat safe.
Are you being serious?
Windows is less secure than Linux, that's true, but it is not completely unsecure. In you want security and nothing else then the only viable option is OpenBSD, not Linux.

>>45494659
You should upgrade to CommonSense 2015 Enterprise, it's free after all.

>antivirus
>any year
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2459760/antivirus-products-riddled-with-security-flaws-researcher-says.html
http://www.syscan360.org/slides/2014_EN_BreakingAVSoftware_JoxeanKoret.pdf

I use MSE, ABE, NoScript and a firewall that blocks everything by default unless I allow it. Any executables that I am unsure of I will run in a VM.

I've always wondered how "botnet" and consumer friendly anti-virus programs are.

I mean. They search through all your files. Can't they get that information to their servers quite easily?

>>45494760
Why?

>>45494772
They don't care about your chinese cartoons porn.

>using AV

Install GNU/Linux already tards.

>>45494796
how do I know that?

>>45494704
>Windows is ...not completely unsecure
0/10

>>45494796
Obviously. I mean. I'm not really all that bothered by all the data gathering that goes on(you know, beyond holding a bit of a grudge I still use stuff like google after all), but I've always been curious about it.

>>45494864
Nice lack of argument.

>>45495005
>what is history

Fuck OP.

What's the best AV in terms of detect rate, resource usage and whatever else is important in AVs?

>>45495427
GNU + Linux

you can thank me later

>firewall
>virustotal.com for files from untrusted sources, i.e. other people

>>45495427
Seconding this question for firewalls. I use Comodo because it can be configured to ask if i want to allow/block every single connection that a program makes to the internet. Any other firewalls with similar behavior?

>>45495427
Kaspersky
Panda
Avira
ESET

Those 4 are good, and for malware removal Malwarebytes

>>45495728
>Seconding this question for firewalls

iptables

>>45493936
I agree with you. I've been visiting the same old major sites for years but one day I got a random virus that randomly appeared in one of my folders and wanted to access the internet. it almost felt like a planned attack or something. my virus scanner didn't even detect it but my firewall blocked it from internet access

it was a small exe file which had one of those cartoon locomotives as icon, fucking weird. uploaded the file to virustotal and a few recognized it. it also had random number sequence as filename. i didn't download any exe file at that time and i don't even use P2P networks or the likes. all i browsed that week was youtube and other pleb shit which is unlikely to have viruses. no porn websites at all so I doubt this was a driveby infection too.

what about 360 internet security? It's cloud based. I went from avira antivir to it because avira is fucking annoying with their ads and shit

Common sense since windows vista.No problems.

>>45493984
>>45494139
>>45494337
>>45495877
>>45494728
>common sense

so which Linux distros do you guys use?

I don't wear a condom ever since getting a Mac. I'll download a free one once in awhile just to check and then delete it. The only time it ever found anything, it was in a Windows 7 virtual machine folder. Also I reckon you don't need a condom if you're running Linux. But if you're running Windows without one, you're dumbfuck retarded.

>>45493936
When you have things as simple as the Magneto exploit against the Tor browser that are able to execute arbitrary malicious code, and XSS attacks abound, it is really hard not to justify the use of at least a simple anti-virus.

>>45496332
nope, you're dumbfuck retarded if you need one for windows. mac and linux are pretty dumb proof though there are viruses.

the fact that you think a virus scanner detecting something which is considered a threat by it is an actual one shows that you're the dumbfuck. so keep using mac

>>45496364
>if you need one for windows

hahaha you idiots using windows without AV
pathetic

>>45496364

Windows babby detected. Like 95% of malware in the world infects Windows operating systems. All that needs to happen for you to get a virus is for you to be connected to the Internet. I always have AV software on Windows, even in VMs. Because if you don't, you're a fucking dumbass.

>>45496445
I always have antivirus software on my Windows PCs too. in 20 years they didn't detect a single virus, only minor shit like programs that behave like a virus (which I want them to and is neccesary for their function) but actually aren't one. I'm just saying: Just because your AV detected some sort of threat on your VM doesn't mean that it's an actual one.

>>45493995
This is why I browse with NoScript. NoScript without antivirus is more effective than antivirus without NoScript, assuming the user is knowledgeable enough to only white-list what's needed. It's too much hassle for most users.

>>45494870
No, because some security researcher would point it out, and they would lose all business.

>>45493995
Sasser only targets XP, right?

If I was running a broke-ass OS that old then of course I'd be running AV. Not really a good reason to run it on a modern machine.

>>45494760
>>45496536

http://gentoo.on.zoy.org/noscript

>>45493936
I consider my friend to be reasonably computer-literate (can program, kinda knows his way around GNU+Linux (and has used it as main OS in the past, but muh games), etcetera) but even like a week ago he got keylogged and had his runescape geepees (yes, runescape) stolen.

>>45496697
>reasonably computer-literate
>can program
I don't think you really understand what the term "computer-literate" implies.

>>45496763
It's just an example anon. The fact that he can program also implies that he knows a thing or two about how programs actually work, in contrast to computer-illiterates who think programming is black magic.

>>45495745
Thanks, mang.

>>45496789
Computer-illiterates think a graphical OS is black magic.
If you know programming, even just "some", you're most likely more than just computer-literate.

I am an avid windows user and i always check with several scanners whenever i download executables or pdfs. I have also been using adblock. I do not seem to have malware but i have a feeling that someone has been monitoring my computer activity. And i know its not the nsa.

>>45496869
You can't be somewhere above computer-literate. You can't be "more than just computer-literate" like you can't be "more than just literate" - you can either write or you can't, you can't be "more than just able to write" (or well, you can, sort of, but then you're still literate - you're still able to write)

>>45496897
>i have a feeling that someone has been monitoring my computer activity. And i know its not the nsa.
This is called paranoia. What gives you that feeling?

Get a firewall if you feel threatened.

>>45496961
Yeah... That's my point.
Computer-literate implies you can use a computer.
Like being able to read makes you literate.
Being able to program is more like being able to write a novel.
They're not the same thing.

>>45497123
but they are
someone who can write a novel is literate you idiot. Even if you can write a novel, you're still literate. Even if you can program, you're still computer-literate.

>>45497140
You're an idiot. Congrats.
You can be more than literate in the sense that being able to write a novel implies that you are already literate whereas being literate does not imply that you are able to write a novel.
Do you understand the difference now or do you require further spoonfeeding?

>>45493936
>Discuss
Completely incorrect assumption. I've gone to a manufacturer's website to download device drivers from them directly from their own private server, and found a virus in the package I downloaded. Someone had hacked their server and injected a virus. You can be exactly where you're supposed to be doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing in what should be a completely safe environment and still get nailed by something. Not using some sort of antivirus in 2014 is completely irresponsible, you may as well just put your computer and broadband connection up for sale to the highest bidder and sell it to the botnets, at least that wayyou get paid to get fucked in the ass.

Idk man I'd just use a light AV.

or go the sensible route and install Linux if you can't stop yourself from clicking porn ads.

>>45497252
>running anything unsigned

>>45497170
But you're saying that if you can write a novel, you're "more than literate". That means you're not literate anymore, but something else now - and that's fucking wrong, because if you can write a novel, you're still literate, just more literate that most people.
If you can program you're still computer literate. In my example it wasn't even important how computer-literate my friend was, just that he was computer-literate (as opposed to computer-illiterate). If you can program you're certainly computer-literate, but being computer-literate doesn't neccesarely mean you can also program.
Just how fucking stupid are you?

I don't understand why you wouldn't want an anti virus

>>45497363
As if anyone really checks signatures

>God tier
Eset

>Shit Tier
Everything else

>>45497252
I don't think and antivirus would be helpfull at most cases here though. A lot of people would think that the AV is bugging and detecting things that aren't viruses like viruses (ie. cracks for games), and allow the program to run anyway.

>I know that this is a stupid argument, but I wanted to say it anyway.

MBAM proved to be great for me on multiple machines, even operated by tech illiterate people. uBlock with multiple malware lists is also a great tool. Or umatrix/noscript, but it's a bit of a hassle to continually set those up.

If it's not Nod32, it's not worth buying

>>45495427
ESET Nod32

Anything else doesn't work or is lying to you