"You Don't Really Need an Anti-Virus App Anymore"

[callthatgirl]

I don't do AV support anymore and when clients ask me what I use, I say the Windows built-in and backup daily with BackBlaze. I have no idea how I don't have viruses considering I used to be a click bait addict lol. I also use all three major browsers.

 

[JoeTech]

Microsoft itself said that windows defender is only there so that people have at least some sort of protection. Many AV testing websites also use windows defender as a baseline for testing and if your AV can't beat it, then you pretty much fail the tests. Even if you are fine with that, you are still passing up a good source of extra income.

 

[red12049]

First, I'm colorblind, so I'm having a really difficult time reading that. Second, without knowing a whole lot more about who did the testing, and how it was performed, the graph by itself doesn't mean much. Finally, in my locale, with my customers, over the last 21 years, none of them do a great job. I used to keep a worksheet... gave it up a few years ago when I realized that what it was really telling me was that ALL the AV sucked. If all my customers get are PUP's then great protection against rootkits won't help them much. Obviously, there is more to it than that, but...

Don't mean to sound close-minded, just reporting what's on the ground in my neck of the woods.

Rick

 

[NviGate Systems]

I understand why people feel the way they do.

It's kinda like insurance in a way. It doesn't matter whether you have to claim or just pay premiums, you are gonna pay. One way or another.

Same with computers. Pay now or pay later.

 

[JoeTech]

If you want to know when the last time Norton's firewall blocked something in the real world that would be yesterday for me. I'm not sure windows defender with the default firewall would have blocked it.

 

[TechLady]

Here's exactly how the test was done: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/avc_factsheet2017_02.pdf

 

[glennd]

why we no longer sacrifice virgins to ensure a good harvest.

Wait.... what?!

 

[Rocco]

Wait.... what?!

I know right! I lost a daughter for nothing???

 

[Rocco]

First, I'm colorblind, so I'm having a really difficult time reading that. Second, without knowing a whole lot more about who did the testing, and how it was performed, the graph by itself doesn't mean much. Finally, in my locale, with my customers, over the last 21 years, none of them do a great job. I used to keep a worksheet... gave it up a few years ago when I realized that what it was really telling me was that ALL the AV sucked. If all my customers get are PUP's then great protection against rootkits won't help them much. Obviously, there is more to it than that, but...

Don't mean to sound close-minded, just reporting what's on the ground in my neck of the woods.

Rick

Those comparative charts are awesome. Unbiased testing. You can read the entire monthly or quarterly report if you want. They detail exactly what they did. They do the exact method on each software they use each month for testing. Sometimes they do skip a month. And some software goes up and down each time. Some are consistently at the top.

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

I like when I hear people say, don't use internet explorer, don't use Firefox, don't use blah, blah, blah.... Again, it doesn't matter.

Well it doesn't matter as much right now but there were time periods when IE was pretty risky business and same for firefox (well..without plugins)

 

[red12049]

Here's exactly how the test was done: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/avc_factsheet2017_02.pdf

Thanks for that.

Computer Bloke pretty much made my case. If all the top AV's are within a few percent of each other, and Defender is the least confusing to my clients, places the least load on the computer, and is already included... what exactly am I gaining for my $50. - $100 for paid AV?

Rick

 

[ComputerRepairTech]

Thanks for that.

Computer Bloke pretty much made my case. If all the top AV's are within a few percent of each other, and Defender is the least confusing to my clients, places the least load on the computer, and is already included... what exactly am I gaining for my $50. - $100 for paid AV?

Rick

Whoa there, while av-comparatives is the best test available it still relies on a sample collection method that av companies use (one of several). So if microsoft missed 3.4% you can expect the real rate of being compromised by opening that attachment that just arrived in your emails spam folder to be several times that. What i'd like to see is a site like virustotal that uses full versions of AV products and releases statistics so we can really see how fast AV companies are responding to the fresh malware we find. I kind of wish virustotal would release their numbers, i mean i know its just the command line version but still at least we will get a measure of the actual definition updates.

 

[NETWizz]

I just run the Windows Defender and don't think anything else is necessary. Personally, I have never had a problem with any crapware.

 

[NviGate Systems]

I read the article.

1.) The article is geared towards home users
2.) He mentions caveats in the form of "the very old or very young" as in folks who can't surf safely, but this can be anyone.

A good AV or Anti-malware will not only protect from file based threats but will prevent you from surfing to phishing/fakeware etc. This is perhaps the most common, people who do a search on Google and blindly follow links without reading and using a brain.

Then there are others who get that message about "you have a virus" and are dumb enough to call then then are doubly dumb enough to actually let some stranger from the internet connect and control their PC. If people were to slow down, stop, think, use the old grey cells, most of this bones nonsense wouldn't happen.

You can't fix stupid.

Please keep in mind when I say "dumb" and "stupid", we all can admit to being that, and many of my clients admit it was dumb or stupid of them to have done XYZ.

 

[HFultzjr]

The "Best" Anti-virus is between your ears. But, some people have an empty space there and it need replaced with "something".

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

First, I'm colorblind, so I'm having a really difficult time reading that. Second, without knowing a whole lot more about who did the testing, and how it was performed, the graph by itself doesn't mean much. Finally, in my locale, with my customers, over the last 21 years, none of them do a great job. I used to keep a worksheet... gave it up a few years ago when I realized that what it was really telling me was that ALL the AV sucked. If all my customers get are PUP's then great protection against rootkits won't help them much. Obviously, there is more to it than that, but...

Don't mean to sound close-minded, just reporting what's on the ground in my neck of the woods.

Rick

That graph she linked is the very well known (by people in the IT industry) "AV-Comparatives.org" test, done and released each month. It is widely regarded by long time experienced techs, and they do a lot of "real world testing". Their monthly graphs are instantly recognizable.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Back to the topic, typical media though..they say "you don't really need an antivirus app"...yet, they say to use the antivirus that is built into Windows. The writer of that article needs to make their mind up..which one is it? If they really do mean "you don't need an antivirus app"...the writer should go ahead and uninstall the built in Windows defender. But Windows Defender itself is the antivirus app Microsoft bundles into Windows. It has a long..long history going back to a product called "Giant AntiSpyware", which Microsoft bought up and rebranded into Microsoft Antispyware. Then combined with a bit more tech from a few other antivirus companies Microsoft purchased over the years.

 

[brandonkick]

These articles and the ensuing debates about if or not "security" apps are necessary
really crack me up.

Sure, if your careful and knowledgeable about what you do on the computer... your a
lot less likely to be infected. Imagine that!

If you don't drink and drive, do the speed limit, keep your car in good working order
and avoid times of heavy traffic... your a lot less likely to be involved in some kind of
car accident. Again, crazy right? Does that mean your car doesn't need airbags, seatbelts,
rear view mirrors or a horn? Of course it doesn't.

Just because YOU are careful with what you do, doesn't mean your 100% risk free. You
are in a lot better of a position then those who go "asking for it", but to have that free
little application just sitting around in the background... just in case.. is not such a bad
thing?

Sure it won't catch everything, but then again.... seatbelts and airbags don't save every
life either.

 

[TechLady]

Sure it won't catch everything, but then again.... seatbelts and airbags don't save every
life either.

Yes...fundamentally what we have is a debate over risks. Better to skip the seatbelts and airbags because there's a small chance they won't work, or better to at least try, given there's a bigger chance you WILL survive with them used? I don't use emotion to decide these things. I use data + likely outcomes and choose accordingly. Same with protecting my clients--I know very well a good portion of them will never have their brains in gear when presented with scareware and attachments, and I also know making them go with a product that consistently fails tests is not going to be doing them any favors whatsoever.

And to tie this in with that other thread on sexism in the industry...I am not necessarily going to be given the benefit of the doubt with these things as a female tech. If I had clients getting continually infected because I recommended no antivirus, I don't know that I would be considered an expert in this field for very long.

 

[JoeTech]

I agree this thread is more about the risks a person is willing to take. The reason why we have seatbelt and helmet laws in the first place is because enough people either didn't care or were too clueless about the risks of not using one. Imagine if we didn't have those laws, we would be seeing articles about how you don't need to wear a seatbelt because cars are safe enough now.