Who still buys anti-virus software

[SUroot]

What's anti-virus protection?

And why would anyone in their right mind pay...and pay...and pay...for it? And continue using a so-called OS that's rife with viruses, adware, malware, spyware...and needs third-party 'protection' as a result?

:rofl: :laugh: :rofl:

Its "rife" because it's targeted. Lets face it, you can't cripple a bank or government by writing a virus for linux.

I love Linux and use it as my daily driver, although I do have command line AVG running in the background.

I'm careful anyway though.

I only use windows as a VM to handle things that Ubuntu (including wine) cannot do so I don't have an AV. When I did, I did pay for it. Simply because at that time, things like Nod32, BitDefender, Kaspersky WERE better than free versions. I always used to keep a close eye on the PcPro Labs tests, until Avira became the 2nd best AV - which was free.

 

[SUroot]

there are NO Linux viruses in the wild.

Sure, right now - nothing in the wild.

There were 441 new malicious programs consisting of Viruses, Trojans, worms and other malware, in 2005 alone. There's nothing in the wild as theres not a lot of point targeting linux as it doesn't really cause much disruption.

...it's the computer equivalent of putting dog crap in a brown paper bag and setting it on fire on the door step of an empty house then ringing the bell.

 

[Mehta23]

AVG was on my old pc, when the trial ran out, I used AntiViR. Norton on my sister's laptop. Avast and Microsoft Essentials on my new PC.

 

[alostpacket]

i was specifically referring to consumer end of the market. laptops, desktops, home computers. Linux so far, much like UNIX, has seemed only to take up the supercomputer, mainframe, minicomputer and other markets not related at all to what Microsoft has taken over. in the home computer market, it barely exists sadly. i would like to believe otherwise but when even mentioning its name i often get 'Linux?! what's that?' or 'oh that free operating system? it still exists?'

Indeed, and it's an important distinction.

However at least some malware doesn't concern itself with whether it is attacking a server or home user.

Phishing = OS independent
Trojan = More likely desktop/laptop, to a lesser degree affects servers
Spyware = More likely desktop/laptop, to a lesser degree affects servers
Virus = equal opportunity employer

It's the last one that's hardest to protect against, though thankfully the least able to be exploited. The rest a user such as yourself would likely be able to avoid without AV, just by using common sense.

And as for viruses, I would say keeping a system up to date, keeping a good firewall running, and network security = good habits for ANY OS.

 

[Crashdamage]

Sure, right now - nothing in the wild.

There were 441 new malicious programs consisting of Viruses, Trojans, worms and other malware, in 2005 alone. There's nothing in the wild as theres not a lot of point targeting linux as it doesn't really cause much disruption.

Again, that's a common misconception. Linux is a minor player on the desktop, but dominant in servers which is where the really valuable data is and in large quantities. For example, over 90% of financial records worldwide are on Linux or Unix servers.

There is some Linux malware out there. Not all malware is a virus and viruses are by far the most dangerous type of malware. But there are NO Linux viruses active in the wild. Not because of lack of market share or not enough valuable data on Linux machines to be worth the effort - see above.

The reason there are no Linux viruses is because a virus *cannot* propagate on Linux *unless* the user is stupid enough to run as root. Fortunately, few are. Not running as root also foils most other types of malware.

Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0

 

[nickdalzell]

Think that's an old argument or a geek thing. Mention "Linux" to many Android users, they'll probably say the same thing. LOL. With the Ubuntu laptops available here, they don't have "Linux" anywhere on them, they have "Ubuntu operating system" or "Ubuntu OS", along with the Ubuntu logo. Tux is nowhere to be seen.

Wasn't there a few badges awhile back that had Tux on them? powered by Linux?

 

[SUroot]

Again, that's a common misconception. Linux is a minor player on the desktop, but dominant in servers which is where the really valuable data is and in large quantities. For example, over 90% of financial records worldwide are on Linux or Unix servers.

Not sure where you are getting your statistics from.

Sure, we have a few CentOS boxes here. Many government organisations that I have been contracted too will have the odd Linux server. Having worked for major American electronic payments companies, I'm aware that there is a lot of Unix out there. There is also a lot of (believe it or not) mainframe still around too. In fact, one company I worked for (that I legally cannot mention) had all their high end customers on mainframe because for them it was more reliable than any other platform.

But throwing Linux into a "Linux and unix" category simply means linux is stealing Unix's statistics. Linux is not Unix and its unfair to lump it in. Sure, its designed similarly and uses the same commands (because Linux is a unix clone) but from a relationship perspective, Mac is more Unix than Linux. Most Unix stuff will not run in Linux and vica versa. They are not synonymous.

So no, 90% of the worlds financial information is not "on" linux boxes. In fact, probably none of it is, because generally the organisations that have the bigger proportion of that data don't store data on servers anyway. They have SANs for that.

I know you love Linux. I do too. But lets not paint a false picture. Linux is not unix. Linux is out there but almost exclusively on multi platform domains, meaning if you attack Linux, you still have to attack windows to do the damage. Almost all single platform domains are windows. This makes attacking them not only easier, but more "rewarding".

Don't get me wrong, it certainly is much harder to infect Linux. Added to that, spreading viruses is hard too see every distro has massive proprietary elements. For example, there may be 3-4 different installers for one application to cover every distro. So its hard to write a virus that is inter-distro compatible. This makes it less of a target as its significantly more effort for significantly less gain.

I do specialise in IT support, although not directly in Linux but much of what you are citing as misconceptions are actually opinions based in experience. I may not be as technical as other members of this forum, but I do have a real understanding of blue chip, financial, government corporate IT systems as well as those of technology development companies too. It's not like I'm just plucking opinions out of the air.

The company I work for now deals with software built on Linux platforms. The Operating systems we produce surround linux kernels. Linux is our bread and butter.... but 75% of the organisation (excluding firewalls) is windows.

 

[Crashdamage]

Name one true virus affecting Linux that is possible to 'catch' - i.e. in the wild, on the loose. Not other malware or proof of concept exercises - a real, on the loose Linux virus.

I don't know where your stats are coming from...

Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0

 

[SUroot]

*sigh*

I agreed with you in my first response that there are no viruses in the wild.

Sure, right now - nothing in the wild.

I also went on to say that this is because generally, writing viruses for linux is fruitless.

I even further agreed with you that it was harder to spread viruses in linux and harder to infect it.

Don't get me wrong, it certainly is much harder to infect Linux. Added to that, spreading viruses is hard too

My entire point is that Linux is not immune so we shouldn't paint the picture that it is.

lets not paint a false picture

I wrote a lot of words and both made a lot of points and agreed with a lot of your points. You seem to have missed them all.

I fail to see how you don't know where I am getting my stats from. I clearly explain this in my last post.

Many government organisations that I have been contracted to

Having worked for major American electronic payments companies

I do specialise in IT support

I do have a real understanding of blue chip, financial, government corporate IT systems as well as those of technology development companies

Did you read any of my post or did you just decide to argue against me without reading it?

 

[nickdalzell]

SU why are you quoting and responding to yourself?

 

[SUroot]

SU why are you quoting and responding to yourself?

The quotes are my way of reiterating my points in response to Crash.

 

[mikedt]

Wasn't there a few badges awhile back that had Tux on them? powered by Linux?

I know that one. "GNU/Linux" is techinally the correct title for a Linux kernel based OS. Because a typical distro is the Linux kernel along with GNU software.

But I'm sure Canonical wants to focus on their own branding for their own products. The Ubuntu Operating System. It's actually rather difficult to find the word "Linux" on the Ubuntu website.

 

[Slug]

Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days.

I do, for one.

Why or why not?

I've never picked up a virus/trojan/malware and intend to maintain that record. Unfortunately I don't always have the luxury of being able to avoid suspicious sites/links.

I don't see the upside of buying something that there are multiple free programs that do the same thing.

I use both; second (or more) opinions are helpful and avoid false positives.

 

[IOWA]

For Windows I use the Microsoft stuff. It's got a really light footprint, so I figure why not.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I never thought about footprint, but since Microsoft has a vested interest in protecting its flagship product from exploits, it follows that they'd be highly motivated to offer the best anti-malware product. Plus they have access to the Windows source code!

 

[Crashdamage]

I never thought about footprint, but since Microsoft has a vested interest in protecting its flagship product from exploits, it follows that they'd be highly motivated to offer the best anti-malware product. Plus they have access to the Windows source code!

You would think so. But tests have shown the M$ stuff is not real good.

Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0

 

[Bob Maxey]

You would think so. But tests have shown the M$ stuff is not real good.

Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0

Oh bollocks and bumpkiss.

MS products are tested daily, by tens of millions the world over and MS passes the test almost every toime, Those that have problems likely have problems fitting Tab A into Slot B.

Unless you are being silly and you just hate MS, then I see where you are coming from. You Linux Fanbois are all the same. Join the Linux revolution and suddenly, MS sucks.

You Linux converts are like people switching from a dumb phone to Android. Suddenly Android RULES, Apple sucks. Get a grip, MS makes good crapola to be sure.

Like by pappy use to say . . "We buy 'em books and they eat the pages."

 

[Crashdamage]

Microsoft sucked long before Linux came to be. Nothing sudden about it.

Linux user #266351. Android since v1.0

 

[SUroot]

I use both daily. They both aggrevate me. They both miss features the other does well.

 

[dirtbikerr450]

Just curious who still pays for anti-virus protection these days. Why or why not?

I don't I find that there are free programs out there that offer just as good protection as some of the leading brands.

I use Malwarebytes (free version) and MS Security Essentials, and I have never had a problem. Maybe because I stay away from sites that you can't really trust.

I don't see the upside of buying something that there are multiple free programs that do the same thing.
Is it something that mainly just the people that don't know much about computers that are easily manipulated that pay $100 USD a year to protect their computer? Sure I don't get all the add ons that the software comes with since I use the free version, but I would never use it anyway.

So what are your thoughts?

i buy norton anti virus

 

[nickdalzell]

i have a love/hate relationship with Linux and Windows, and Android both. i have a few Apple devices, which i find work smoother than the same task in Android. i have computers running Linux which run faster than Windows and are more resistant to malware, but sometimes cause me massive migraines as some things done in Linux end up being triple harder than Windows. i use Android devices out in the field at work as they are disposable and easily replaced if broken, unlike their Apple rivals. so they each have advantages and disadvantages. i am no fanboy. there is nothing good about being a fanboy of Android or Apple, or Xbox or PS3. in the end it is up to whatever the one person chooses. i never understood all the hate that Xbox users have, or vice versa, someone chooses a different device than you prefer or think is better. boo hoo. it is not up to you to decide which is best for them

quite frankly i am glad we even have choices. if everyone ran Linux and Android we would have a boring, diversity-free world. a world of literal Borg. personally i am glad there is the choice of so many OSs meant for so many different people. if they like Apple, fine. if they like Microsoft, fine. if they like Google, fine. no company is 'evil' no matter what you want to believe. they exist to make a profit, like any other business. i myself have all sorts of products, from all of them. Microsoft makes my Xbox. Sony makes my PS3. Apple makes my iPad. many make distros of Linux. so what? it's up to the person to choose. i would not want choices taken away since neither are harming anyone. so please, stuff it with all the 'Apple/MS/Linux is evil' stuff ok?

brand loyalty may have meant something in the 1980s when you could buy a Curtis Mathes American-Made TV that you knew was going to last some two decades before going out, unlike a China-made clone. but today, everything no matter what is made in the same hut of child-labor in China or Japan. brand loyalty today just makes you a pompous moron, not worthy of bragging.

yes, companies make mistakes. we all do. Microsoft blew it with Windows ME. so what? Apple blew it with the Mac Cube. they blew it with having zero memory protection in Classic MacOS. is that really worth making fun of? let's see you do something perfect then we'll talk

 

[Speed Daemon]

You would think so. But tests have shown the M$ stuff is not real good.

Whose tests would those be? Symantec's? Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

 

[mikedt]

Oh bollocks and bumpkiss.

MS products are tested daily, by tens of millions the world over and MS passes the test almost every toime, Those that have problems likely have problems fitting Tab A into Slot B.

China can be like that Bob. So often I've found that using MS products here is not so good. I would never enter any passwords, private information or heaven forbid do online banking on any computers here, but my own.

A good example recently. I bought a new Lenovo laptop from the local official Lenovo dealership. Turned out the Windows 7 Ultimate it came with was pirated and with no way to activate it. PCs here come with crippled Starter or Home Basic versions of Windows, Chinese only. They thought they where doing me a favour.

Can't buy genuine Windows as a stand-alone product in China. It's only officially sold with new PCs. I was able to buy Windows 8, but only because I have a UK credit card, and bought a Windows activation key via MS United Kingdom. I put Linux Mint on it as well, and that's what I use mostly.

Unless you are being silly and you just hate MS, then I see where you are coming from. You Linux Fanbois are all the same. Join the Linux revolution and suddenly, MS sucks.

You Linux converts are like people switching from a dumb phone to Android. Suddenly Android RULES, Apple sucks. Get a grip, MS makes good crapola to be sure.

Like by pappy use to say . . "We buy 'em books and they eat the pages."

I'm not a fanboy. I use both Windows and Linux. But I like to be able to trust my computers not to be spying on me.

I love this one... The Microsoft IIS "Error Message: 403.6 - Forbidden: IP address rejected"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/248043

Well Microsoft invented the Chinese Windows botnet. They made the problem in the first place.

 

[KOLIO]

Saw this thread last night & just wanted to put my 2¢ in on the topic:

Found a good deal on BIT DEFENDER TOTAL SECURITY 2013: 3PC's/1yr for $20.

 

[zuben el genub]

I bought Eset years ago and have stuck with it. I bought it as it was the only AV at the time that DID NOT REQUIRE IE!

I was running a shell on 98SE that effectively hid IE and it was not usable.

It has a Linux version which I use to check files I download for 2 XP machines.