Antivirus software, a dirty little secret
"The antivirus industry has a dirty little secret: its products are often not very good at stopping viruses." [link]
-The article also tells us that two products with the best detection rates are in fact offered for free.
A good source for up to date information about AV software: [link] A little research here goes a long way. Never assume that a product is superior just because it's more expensive or is produced by a well-known company - and stay safe
-The article also tells us that two products with the best detection rates are in fact offered for free.
A good source for up to date information about AV software: [link] A little research here goes a long way. Never assume that a product is superior just because it's more expensive or is produced by a well-known company - and stay safe
Comments29
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Antivirus are no longer very effective. It's far more important that you keep your system automatically updated, be careful with what you download, and have a good firewall like "Comodo".
I did not use any anti-virus software for years. I do irregular scans with tools like Spybot S&D and I am pretty sure that I am still virus-free. That might be due to the fact that I am a programmer and know what is suspicious.
Well, I'm not an expert at AV softwares, but I don't consider them useless, since the anti virus in my machine has helped protecting my system from many malwares. I'm quite satisfied my AV software performance. I'm using Avira Free. It does give false positives at times, but if I've doubt I check it with virustotal dot com.
For the last many year, I've never used my PC without any anti virus software.
[link]
For the last many year, I've never used my PC without any anti virus software.
[link]
I'm going to sell you this rock. It keeps tigers away. How do you know it works? Well, you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Yes, I didn't mean to say that AV's are useless or that you shouldn't be using one - quite the opposite. They are definitely necessary. This is just to note that the industry in general has lagged seriously in "keeping up with the bad guys", serving up more marketing hype than real results and therefore one has to be doubly cautious.
This is just to note that the industry in general has lagged seriously in "keeping up with the bad guys", serving up more marketing hype than real results and therefore one has to be doubly cautious.Anti-virus software is useless crapware. Only unsafe operating systems built by morons with no technical skillz (ie. windows and such) even require such bandaid-solutions. Real operating systems don't need AV software.
Even the free AV softwares are less than useful. They gives tons of false positives, and because this makes them seem more useful, like they're actually doing something, the maintainers have no incentive whatsoever to fix this behaviour. Most don't even accept false-positive reports. Interesting thing is, that the false positives always only happen on software made by small, independent developers or small software companies. That's because the AV people know that the bigger software corporations have so much legal firepower that if they showed false positives on their software, they'd be in trouble. So the people who end up suffering from this immoral behaviour of AV software makers are the small, independent developers of software, while the big software houses don't care, and the AV companies keep making money out of fear-mongering.
Even the free AV softwares are less than useful. They gives tons of false positives, and because this makes them seem more useful, like they're actually doing something, the maintainers have no incentive whatsoever to fix this behaviour. Most don't even accept false-positive reports. Interesting thing is, that the false positives always only happen on software made by small, independent developers or small software companies. That's because the AV people know that the bigger software corporations have so much legal firepower that if they showed false positives on their software, they'd be in trouble. So the people who end up suffering from this immoral behaviour of AV software makers are the small, independent developers of software, while the big software houses don't care, and the AV companies keep making money out of fear-mongering.
Only idiots get virues... nothing is secure, someone wants in, they'll get in.
Do you see the massive contradiction in your post?
There is no contradiction there at all. Its very possible to operate a computer without getting a virus or worm etc. Many different kinds of malware and security threats.
Only idiots get viruses, yet if someone wants in they can get in. If you don't see the hypocrisy here, you just straight up did not complete formal education.
Lets see, virus and someone getting in... two different things I was talking about. Theres loads of different kinds of security threats security software is hopeless to defend against.
Virus, malware, hacking, it's all the same process. Unauthorized access to one's computer.
No what? It's the truth.
YOUUU CAAAN'T HAAANDLE THE TRUUUUTH
Which is what?
I'm sorry, what were we talking about? It's been so long since I posted that.
Also, that article is 2 years old and that vulnerability with .desktop files has been fixed from what I can tell - I just tried, for fun, running a .desktop file without execute permission (in MATE) and it popped up a warning dialog about "untrusted launcher". Also, .desktop files without the execute bit show up with the .desktop extension on the desktop.
So... yeah. Old news.
So... yeah. Old news.
Meh... "send someone an email, attach malware, ask them to save the file and run it". Kind of convoluted...
One of the things that we did in my Automaton and Formal Grammars class was construct a proof to demonstrate that a Turing Machine (a program) is incapable of recognizing the function of another Turing Machine (in this case, a virus). Basically, we mathematically proved that antivirus cannot possibly work.
Actual antivirus uses things like signature databases to locate viruses, but that only works for previously identified viruses.
Actual antivirus uses things like signature databases to locate viruses, but that only works for previously identified viruses.
This is interesting. I did have that subject for a year but understood nothing. 
Problem of logic: how would the same not be true of a virus then?
If our brains count as Turing Machines, that creeps me out.