Are anti-viruses a meme? I still use Windows Defender. Also,

I've been scanning shit with malwarebytes for years and never detected anything, I run everything in a restricted sandbox anyway. Sometimes my download sources are pretty dodgy, but I still have had no issues. I guess you'd only get malware if you're clicking adverts.

>>61775867
Malwarebytes is good. AVG, MCafee and Norton are memes.

I guess you can advoid the adverts by having an ad-blocker.

>>61775867
I forgot to mention that I actually have Malwarebytes with a license too.

>>61775888
>I guess you can advoid the adverts by having an ad-blocker.
Yes, I should have mentioned this. I use a hostfile for systemwide blocking of known bad hosts but I stack umatrix and ublock on top of that in my browser.
It might be overkill but I've never had any incidents, no ads, no popups, no malware.

So as long as you're blocking ads or at least not downloading anything from them, you're probably good. Most malware today seems to target exploits in legitimate software anyway so it's not like a scanner would help at all in that case, at best it would let you know you're infected but I'm pretty sure if you get hit with some ransomware, you'd know either way.

>>61775898
I just use the free version and update the database manually before every scan, it's just 1 more click. I never want real time scanning because that shit eats up my resources bad.

In the modern age, all antiviruses do is increase the attack surface for malware to embed itself in your computer

Just use CommonSense 2017

>>61775925
But wouldn't real-time scan/protection be great if you suddenly were to get attacked? Like a surprise attack, or if you were not careful.

File: kyary bite.jpg (18KB, 480x360px)

18KB, 480x360px

Cute image by the way.

>>61775945
Baby Metal fan

>>61775942
I mean maybe, but I don't really know. It's hard to say if it's worth it, it would be worth it if it worked but what's the likelihood of it detecting some 0-day or worse, the likelihood of it being defeated, anti-malware defeating techniques used to be a big thing for malware authors and I bet it's even easier today to hide from detection and disable them quickly.

Realtime scanning has always seemed useless to me, passive scanning seems to be the way to be because when they find something bad, they add it to their index, if they haven't already found it and you get a surprise attack, they're still not going to find it fast enough, it might take days before it gets added to their index and by then it's too late for you. However it is convenient, say you download some malware and don't run it, your AV doesnb't detect it, you go away for a week and come back to run it now, the active scanner might detect it now and it's helpful in that way.

To summarize what I'm saying better, the whole thing is left up to chance, at least that's how I look at it.

>>61775968
I like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIKqgE4BwAY
but I haven't heard anything else from them.

>>61775932
Nice meme

Kys babymetal

Depends. If you download things from suspicious source or browse cancer webpages then I suggest having an antivirus. I mean, it may NOT be necessary but I'd rather be safe than sorry. My antivirus blocks a few things sometimes.

>>61775867
I want to add to this with my frustration. While I've never had my shit stolen directly, I have had it stolen through legitimate service breaches which is infuriating, my security is fine but their is not, so I lose. I do't trust any service now and use a password manager to have a unique password per site.
https://haveibeenpwned.com/
>Pwned on 16 breached sites and found no pastes
Fuck that.

>>61776034
I use last pass

File: rip.png (10KB, 829x171px)

10KB, 829x171px

>>61776189
I dropped them after their security breach
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2936621/the-lastpass-security-breach-what-you-need-to-know-do-and-watch-out-for.html

I use keepass now because it's local. Lastpass is a good idea and service but I'm ultra paranoid about keeping all of my passwords in one place already, keeping that cookiejar on someone elses machine is even more nerve wracking.

>>61776220
Yeah, I can imagine. Since it's saved in a database.

You could practically lose everything but the good thing is that I use a lot of 2-step-auth apps.

>>61775867
>I guess you'd only get malware if you're clicking adverts.

or if you visit swfchan without an adblocker.

>>61776021
i also want to kyss babymetal