Who here does NOT use any type of anti-virus or spyware? (windows users only)

[[BB] Rick James]

I can tell either many of these folks don't work in IT and have never seen what a virus can do, or they work in IT and know a lot less than they think they do. Hell I work on a virtually virus-proof OS (OpenVMS) but I've seen what they do to a corporate environment. They spread on their own. You don't necessarily have to do anything. Some just spread over the network. Anyone remember that blaster worm that spread over the internet by itself?

Running with no AV is like the analogy people made about having sex without a condom. Except you can pick up the disease just hanging out on the streets (i.e. the internet). Or maybe you've had sex with 20 women and no disease. "STDs being widespread is a myth!" Good luck with that mentality in life.

And a few of you are going to be the ones with zombified computers at some point. Thanks for screwing over everyone else because you don't want to give up a MB of RAM and a tiny bit of CPU power that you could never detect.

Just because some of us don't have it installed doesn't mean we don't do scans frequently. Outside the box thinking.

 

[f1y]

I don't use a an anti virus because I don't have internet at my house. I Browse the net from work. For me though no need for anti virus. My computer's like 95% media center and the other 5% is school work

 

[Crosshairs]

Just because some of us don't have it installed doesn't mean we don't do scans frequently. Outside the box thinking.

Well this is one of those threads where anyone who runs without , gets called names and insulted by the internet tuff guys.

Some of them are also self proclaimed "experts' in the matter.

I feel safer just knowing they care..

It really has turned into a worthless thread.

 

[[BB] Rick James]

Well this is one of those threads where anyone who runs without , gets called names and insulted by the internet tuff guys.

Some of them are also self proclaimed "experts' in the matter.

I feel safer just knowing they care..

It really has turned into a worthless thread.

Agreed. I'm sorry I posted.

 

[XOR != OR]

Well this is one of those threads where anyone who runs without , gets called names and insulted by the internet tuff guys.

Distasteful as that behavior may be, what you people don't realize is that you are the problem. Where I get the most spam is not from any registered MX servers, but from ips that reverse to home connections.

By not running an AV, you are effectively not just putting yourself at risk, but everyone around you. The damage done can be incredible, again, not just to yourself but to others.

Some of them are also self proclaimed "experts' in the matter.

Governmental agencies depend on my knowledge in this matter ( as well as others ). Expert or not, I have a great deal of experience in the field and I've seen what a virus can do. Even to people who were "careful", or "knew what they were doing".

It really has turned into a worthless thread.

As mentioned earlier; You can lead a horse to water...

 

[Caffeinated]

I use AVG on all of my XP boxes. I don't use IE, so there goes 99% of the spyware problems. IE is pretty much asking for trouble. I'll go stock KDE and Iceweasal over the most hardened Windows build any day.

 

[Caffeinated]

You're "logic" gets even worse. This turned into a gun fight, and you sire, have been out of ammo for quite some time.

If you are going to go so far and admit that a person is vulnerable to a new virus before the definitions catch up....how do you honestly sit there and say it's okay to go without PROTECTION at all? You're either continuing this argument out of sheer insanity, or you are the most illogical person ever to enter these boards?

Agreed.

It is utter nonsense to have no anti-virus protection. I'd rather have poor protection than no protection, because at least if I have poor protection, the idiotic crap is prevented. It's a bit like deciding to wear a jacket when it is chilly outside. Common sense. Or are you somehow more intelligent by NOT wearing a jacket? Humanity left the trees and put on clothes because .... they are warm.

 

[PopeKevinI]

Let's just sum this up before anyone else jumps in:

Poster: "I don't use virus protection and I haven't ever had a virus!"

Mob: "How do you know you haven't if you don't have protection?"

Poster: "Because I run scans, of course."

Mob: "And how do you know you won't get one?"

Poster: "Because I'm smart about my browsing, I don't go to questionable sites."

Mob: "What if you get one anyway?"

Poster: "Why, then, I'll just reformat. No big deal."

That seems like a waste of time when you could just get a couple of free pieces of software and significantly reduce your risk of needing to reformat and spend two days installing and updating games and apps and getting your desktop back where it was. And besides, there is the potential that someone could gain control of your PC and do things that can get you in some serious trouble.

It is entirely possible that you could get infected with something that ultimately leads to a malicious hacker having full access to your system. They could then mine enough data to hijack your own identity. Or maybe they would use it to run a few transactions using a stolen identity. Then the FBI comes knocking on your door and finds the kiddie porn they stashed away on your hard drive.

Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes. Should you take at least some measure to prevent it? I don't see why not. I honestly see no reason to avoid using AVG, Adaware, and Spybot S&D to make your system more secure. My system is quite old these days and I get no performance hit running AVG's realtime scanner and Spybot's TeaTimer.

This whole thread seems silly to me.

 

[[BB] Rick James]

Let's just sum this up before anyone else jumps in:

Poster: "I don't use virus protection and I haven't ever had a virus!"

Mob: "How do you know you haven't if you don't have protection?"

Poster: "Because I run scans, of course."

Mob: "And how do you know you won't get one?"

Poster: "Because I'm smart about my browsing, I don't go to questionable sites."

Mob: "What if you get one anyway?"

Poster: "Why, then, I'll just reformat. No big deal."

That seems like a waste of time when you could just get a couple of free pieces of software and significantly reduce your risk of needing to reformat and spend two days installing and updating games and apps and getting your desktop back where it was. And besides, there is the potential that someone could gain control of your PC and do things that can get you in some serious trouble.

It is entirely possible that you could get infected with something that ultimately leads to a malicious hacker having full access to your system. They could then mine enough data to hijack your own identity. Or maybe they would use it to run a few transactions using a stolen identity. Then the FBI comes knocking on your door and finds the kiddie porn they stashed away on your hard drive.

Is it likely? No. Is it possible? Yes. Should you take at least some measure to prevent it? I don't see why not. I honestly see no reason to avoid using AVG, Adaware, and Spybot S&D to make your system more secure. My system is quite old these days and I get no performance hit running AVG's realtime scanner and Spybot's TeaTimer.

This whole thread seems silly to me.

This thread would have been fine if people didn't bash others for not running some short of virus protection. Most were slammed for admitting to not running any.

Lets face it ,the pull out method just feels better.

 

[djnes]

This thread would have been fine if people didn't bash others for not running some short of virus protection. Most were slammed for admitting to not running any.

And that's what you're msising. There are very good reasons for "slamming" those people. There's no ground to stand on against using AV software. There just isn't, and it can't be more clear. If you insist on running without, you have to be ready to be called out on such actions. This is one of very few topics we have on there that shouldn't be debated. For crying out loud, this is an advanced computing forum, and people still don't see a need for AV software! If you decide to be that careless, be ready to have your actions "slammed".

 

[[BB] Rick James]

And that's what you're msising. There are very good reasons for "slamming" those people. There's no ground to stand on against using AV software. There just isn't, and it can't be more clear. If you insist on running without, you have to be ready to be called out on such actions. This is one of very few topics we have on there that shouldn't be debated. For crying out loud, this is an advanced computing forum, and people still don't see a need for AV software! If you decide to be that careless, be ready to have your actions "slammed".

What if the computer your on doesn't go on the internet? Then is there a real need for virus protection? I have a computer that is never online due to some company information being on it. It doesn't need the internet to do what its set up to do. So if I come to this forum and state "I don't use virus protection", am I still eligible to be bashed?

 

[djnes]

What if the computer your on doesn't go on the internet? Then is there a real need for virus protection? I have a computer that is never online due to some company information being on it. It doesn't need the internet to do what its set up to do. So if I come to this forum and state "I don't use virus protection", am I still eligible to be bashed?

Are there any files, discs, etc that come in contact with this computer? If so, then yes, it should have AV software. If you stop trying to turn this into an argument, and stick with the norm...it's needed. You can find unique exceptions to every rule. My points, along with all the others, is that for a normal, connected system, there's no excuse for not running one. If you insist on trying to find some unique exception to argue about, you might want to head over to the OS forum, and read the warning.

 

[[BB] Rick James]

Are there any files, discs, etc that come in contact with this computer? If so, then yes, it should have AV software. If you stop trying to turn this into an argument, and stick with the norm...it's needed. You can find unique exceptions to every rule. My points, along with all the others, is that for a normal, connected system, there's no excuse for not running one. If you insist on trying to find some unique exception to argue about, you might want to head over to the OS forum, and read the warning.

No files from an outside source come in contact with the computer. For some business owners that really isn't all that unique. That's why some people also have external hard drives so they can disconnect and reconnect when the internet isn't present. That situation is along the same lines as not having a computer online due to external threats.

 

[PopeKevinI]

No files from an outside source come in contact with the computer. For some business owners that really isn't all that unique. That's why some people also have external hard drives so they can disconnect and reconnect when the internet isn't present. That situation is along the same lines as not having a computer online due to external threats.

If you have a stand-alone, non-networked PC that takes no files from other systems...you're fine without antivirus.

But if it's on the same network as any that have internet access...if it ever receives files from other sources...if ANYTHING ever happens to it besides data entry, I'd go with a free AV package just to err on the side of safety.

Taking an external hard drive off a system while it's online is absolutely useless. If you get an aggressive virus, it's just going to infect files on that drive as they become available, or as they are accessed.

I really wish someone could give me a good reason to not run AV. I see a lot of people saying they don't and talking about how they never got a virus and all that, I'm just curious as to why they feel the need to run the risk.

 

[[BB] Rick James]

If you have a stand-alone, non-networked PC that takes no files from other systems...you're fine without antivirus.

But if it's on the same network as any that have internet access...if it ever receives files from other sources...if ANYTHING ever happens to it besides data entry, I'd go with a free AV package just to err on the side of safety.

Taking an external hard drive off a system while it's online is absolutely useless. If you get an aggressive virus, it's just going to infect files on that drive as they become available, or as they are accessed.

I really wish someone could give me a good reason to not run AV. I see a lot of people saying they don't and talking about how they never got a virus and all that, I'm just curious as to why they feel the need to run the risk.

You could run your scans prior to hooking the drive back up though.

 

[zacdl]

Mob: "How do you know you haven't if you don't have protection?"

Poster: "Because I run scans, of course."

A better question would be, "Well, if you are immune to virii because you "surf safe", why are you scanning?"

IMO running those scans is admitting there is the possibility.

If you have a stand-alone, non-networked PC that takes no files from other systems...you're fine without antivirus

Sure, until some employee or other jokester comes and installs the cool game he finds on the internetz, and because there is 0 protection anywhere- it will quickly spread.

 

[djnes]

I really wish someone could give me a good reason to not run AV.

If it were possible...maybe.

You could run your scans prior to hooking the drive back up though.

And waste more time instead of just slapping a free AV package on there?

 

[Ravatar]

Running XP Pro x64 & Netgear Next Gigabit router, running Firefox with no protection software. Never had a virus or trace of spyware.

How about instead of chastising us for not running protection, blaming us for "putting you at risk.", you stop pushing your views on us? People who actively and purposely go without security software are less likely to catch a malware infection I'd have to say.

 

[zacdl]

Never had a virus or trace of spyware.

Again- how does that guarantee you from getting it in the future? Not one person has come up with a good reason.

People who actively and purposely go without security software are less likely to catch a malware infection I'd have to say.

Where's the proof in that? Really- how on earth do you figure?


I'll give you the benifit of the doubt and let you explain your reasoning first before going further.

 

[djnes]

How about instead of chastising us for not running protection, blaming us for "putting you at risk.", you stop pushing your views on us? People who actively and purposely go without security software are less likely to catch a malware infection I'd have to say.

If we were only "pushing" opinions, we could discuss that, but how do you argue against facts?

Are you really going to infer that people withOUT software or less likely to get infected?

Does anyone see a pattern here? Those who don't run AV software are coming up with more and more ridiculous comments to support themselves? Sounds like ideas borne of desparation to me. Agrue against facts, and you will get to be desperate.

This isn't even a debate anymore (as if it ever was). Next person to argue against using AV software will probably say they don't, because Captain Kangaroo appeared to them in a dream and told them it wasn't needed.

 

[KevinO]

I am still waiting for a valid reason as to why people do not run it. If there was one posted and I missed it I apologize, but please oh please tell me one good reason why you don't run it. Is it resources, too much of a hassle to install, etc?

 

[swatbat]

Running XP Pro x64 & Netgear Next Gigabit router, running Firefox with no protection software. Never had a virus or trace of spyware.

How about instead of chastising us for not running protection, blaming us for "putting you at risk.", you stop pushing your views on us? People who actively and purposely go without security software are less likely to catch a malware infection I'd have to say.

It is the same as being angry at people who sit there and are too lazy to get their cars breaks or tires replaced because they are worm. They are endangering others. Same with people who drink and drive saying they have never had an issue while driving drunk. The risk is a lot higher. Dealing with computers the risks are not as bad but the risk of your actions affecting others is a lot higher then if you take steps for protection. I know I've had a shit load of issues with clients on cavtel for example because the amount of worms on their network were causing routers to fail(they were pretty much getting dos attacked by the worms and shit on cavtels network).

I'm not talking about the computer people claim is fully standalone doing nothing with any other system. I'm talking about any system with a network connection.

 

[zacdl]

Is it resources, too much of a hassle to install, etc?

You stop right there, because that is all the reasons you can think of, no?
And each of those reasons has been disproved many times.
Resources- basically null.
Install- Give me a break. 5 minutes is nothing compared to re-installing Windows.

Again- what is a good reason for NOT using it?

Same with people who drink and drive saying they have never had an issue while driving drunk

I've said it time and again- the highway/vehicle senario is a really great example when talking about networking.

"I dont have an airbag, and I drive safely, and I've never had a wreck. This must mean I am immune from accidents."

 

[KevinO]

You stop right there, because that is all the reasons you can think of, no?
And each of those reasons has been disproved many times.
Resources- basically null.
Install- Give me a break. 5 minutes is nothing compared to re-installing Windows.

Again- what is a good reason for NOT using it?

There is not a good reason and I haven't had anyone who doesn't use it give one (and personally, like you reiterated, that there is not a good reason).

 

[PopeKevinI]

Running XP Pro x64 & Netgear Next Gigabit router, running Firefox with no protection software.

Yeah, but...why?

 

[Ravatar]

Yeah, but...why?

Because I can't think of a convincing reason TO use it.

I'll submit that there's no guarentee that I won't get an infection in the future. BUT, there is no guarentee that AV/spyware software will protect me against infection. In fact, many of the infected machines I used to fix as an on-site repair tech WERE properly protected by one or more antispyware applications and an antivirus, both of which were up to date.

Would you trust birth control that "sorta, kinda worked" "some of the time"?

 

[djnes]

Would you trust birth control that "sorta, kinda worked" "some of the time"?

So you'd rather not use any birth control at all? Does that make any sense? How honestly do you sit and argue on a platform like that? Seriously, apply just a small ounce of common sense! You're insulting the intelligence of everyone around, simply by trying to make that arguement!

I'm also not sure where you get this idea that AV software rarely works. If you choose a good package, even some of the free ones, they work very well and are updated almost on a daily basis.

 

[JBavousett]

I let my PC freeball it. I used Norton for a long time, but it's such a resource hog. As is, I re-install windoze every 3-4 months anyway, so a virus doesn't bother me.

 

[zacdl]

As is, I re-install windoze every 3-4 months anyway, so a virus doesn't bother me.

You are OK with a Virus logging your bank account sign-in information and sending it to someone, then?

What 100% of the people arguing this seem to think is that a virus just corrupts the system and files. They fail to realize that a well thought out virus won't let you see any of its activity at all. It gets in, steals information, and gets out.

There is not a good reason and I haven't had anyone who doesn't use it give one (and personally, like you reiterated, that there is not a good reason).

OK, there is no good reason to NOT use Anti-Virus.
There is a good reason TO use Anti-Virus: It protects you from 99% of stuff out there.

Again- what the heck is your logic in not using it? By your own admittance- there is no good reason to not use it. There are plenty of reason to use it.

 

[KevinO]

OK, there is no good reason to NOT use Anti-Virus.
There is a good reason TO use Anti-Virus: It protects you from 99% of stuff out there.

Again- what the heck is your logic in not using it? By your own admittance- there is no good reason to not use it. There are plenty of reason to use it.

I think either I am reading your posts wrong or you are reading mine wrong, but I am on your side. Everyone should be using some sort of virus scanner no ifs, ands, or buts. I am trying to get someone who doesn't use it to give me a valid reason why they aren't.

I run NOD32 on all my boxes.

 

[zacdl]

I think either I am reading your posts wrong or you are reading mine wrong, but I am on your side. Everyone should be using some sort of virus scanner no ifs, ands, or buts. I am trying to get someone who doesn't use it to give me a valid reason why they aren't.

I run NOD32 on all my boxes.

Yea, I see that now. I just thought you were an "Other", lol.

At any rate, everything I said still stands... I still would honestly like someone to give me a good reason why not to use AV.

 

[GoldenTiger]

At any rate, everything I said still stands... I still would honestly like someone to give me a good reason why not to use AV.

There isn't ANY reason not to. Just plain stupidity, like people who walk across the street jaywalking without looking, then drive in their car and don't pay attention to where they're going, yet expect that everything will be fine for them while doing either.

The thing with virus/spyware is, you have NO WAY OF KNOWING if you're infected if you don't have the active protections going and scan every so often. You CAN'T SEE most of the actual dangerous ones, such as keyloggers stealing passwords and personal info, or trojans that load discreetly without anything visible when you visit a random site. Even a normal site can have something embedded by a third party in an ad that is malicious without the site knowing. In addition to just risking your own security, you're endangering EVERYONE further by propgating the malware, all because "OH I'M SO COOL AND SMART I DONT NEED ANTISPYWARE AND VIRUS PROTECTION LOL OR A FIREWALL CAUSE I'M SO TECHNICALLY ABLE!!!!" It's not an issue of that, it's an issue of reality.

The only reasons anyone can actually argue have been debunked. Cost? Nope, there's things like BHOdemon, Spybot, Avast/AVG, free firewalls, etc. all available, and if you want a commercial one like SpySweeper or PestPatrol it's about $5-10 a year on any kind of comparison shopping with fatwallet or the hotdeals forums here for 5 minutes. Resources? Come on now, you are NOT noticing 1-2% while gaming or web browsing, even if you're on a 286. Placebo effect, anyone? Time? It takes all of ten minutes to install and configure them all to a usable state... it takes a lot more if your identity is stolen or you lose your bank account's money due to fraud. Heck, even if it's just a Windows-killer, it takes longer by far.

Stop being subject to the SMFU syndrome. You're not.

 

[Ravatar]

So you'd rather not use any birth control at all? Does that make any sense? How honestly do you sit and argue on a platform like that? Seriously, apply just a small ounce of common sense! You're insulting the intelligence of everyone around, simply by trying to make that arguement!

I'm also not sure where you get this idea that AV software rarely works. If you choose a good package, even some of the free ones, they work very well and are updated almost on a daily basis.

Exactly, I'd rather not use birth control that "sometimes works" and live with the illusion that I'm protected. Women wouldn't trust a pill that "might" protect them. Women want a pill that "will" protect them. One that has been proven by clinical studies and science.

Industry research has concluded that there is a huge separation in the detection rates of current antivirus.

 

[KevinO]

Exactly, I'd rather not use birth control that "sometimes works" and live with the illusion that I'm protected.

Antivirus software is now a conspiracy to create illusion(s) of protection. Wow.... Just Wow....

I am almost convinced that viruses are really not existent.

 

[Crosshairs]

I would like for someone in this thread to point to a study that shows the number of machines that are currently infected...and also provide information about how many of those infected machines are without protection, and how many that are infected, have AV installed.

With all the "facts" that are being touted in this thread, this should be a pretty easy task for someone to complete.

 

[XOR != OR]

I have a suggestion. It's obvious the pro-AV camp isn't going to convince the rabid anti-AV camp of anything, so let's just drop it. I think the thread speaks volumes about pro-AV on it's own, without any further comment from any of us. If someone with a truly open mind reads only a fraction of it, they'll understand the points made and be able to make an informed decision on their own.

So, truce?

 

[zacdl]

With all the "facts" that are being touted in this thread, this should be a pretty easy task for someone to complete.

Actually, I don't think it would be.

You really think someone that thinks no AV being the way to go, would post "Oh yea, and I've been infected X times"? Not gunna happen.
They are only going to post if they *think* they are doing fine.

Edit- I would agree to that truce. But every time it seems this thread is falling down the listings, someone else brings it up again saying how well they have done without AV...

 

[djnes]

Exactly, I'd rather not use birth control that "sometimes works" and live with the illusion that I'm protected. Women wouldn't trust a pill that "might" protect them. Women want a pill that "will" protect them. One that has been proven by clinical studies and science.

And yet you still want to argue that no birth protection is better??? Let's drop the illusion BS and stick to facts. You're protection is non-existent. So is the basis of your logic. Do you realize the more comments like this you make, the more it hurts your argument? No one seems to be realizing that the more ridiculous, wild claims being made against using AV software, only reconfirms the need?

 

[Ravatar]

Antivirus software is now a conspiracy to create illusion(s) of protection. Wow.... Just Wow....

I am almost convinced that viruses are really not existent.

Who said that? I'm saying that a lackluster solution to a serious problem only creates the illusion of protection. Sorry if that example was so left field for all of you.

I don't use antivirus software because it shouldn't be necessary. Instead of creating an unnecessary market for anti-malware software, the architecture itself should be safe from malware risk. As more and more people buy/download antivirus/antispyware software en masse, even FROM THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDES THE FLAWED OS, the industry will just continue to become more and more comfortable with the concept of releasing vulnerable software, and then try to sell the cure.

Are there tons of machines out there that have been compromised? Yes, there sure are. And are they part of the problem? Indeed, they are. I don't have an infection, so at this point I'm not part of the problem. But you can't say I'm not trying to be part of a cure. The cure that demands software vendors take responsibility for their critical errors and stop pushing them off to third party developers.


Anyways, this obviously isn't an open discussion about the use of security software, it's an attempt to berate and railroad non-users into compromising their views. No point in feeding into this ridiculous discussion much longer.

 

[djnes]

Who said that? I'm saying that a lackluster solution to a serious problem only creates the illusion of protection.

So then don't use a lackluster one. There are plenty of damn good ones, and some of which are even free. Thinking you're better off with nothing simply defies logic.