So, we are all told we need an Antivirus and Firewall as a minimum, Now people are looking into other avenues such as HIPS and Sandboxing[b]Virtualization[/b].
Is it really needed?
My personal experience is that, I have never been “Hacked” and a Software firewall has never done anything for me.
^ Largely due to the fact of having a router[b]Hardware firewall[/b]. If I didn’t have a hardware firewall It would be needed.
As for an antivirus, I can’t say that I’ve ever been “infected”. I have found trojans and stuff from doing P2P transfers, But they are usually picked up by an ON-DEMAND Scanner and/or send it to virus total.
^If your doing safe browsing, Such as Youtube - Do we really need a leech on our system?
I agree with you Kyle. Any antivirus or firewall is a burden to your system. I see no reason to use Windows if you’re not a gamer and if you’re using your computer for Web browsing and writing documents.
People spend hours and days in the forums discussing their security setups, changing them constantly, complaining about other products. Pointless IMHO. Use Linux. And have a router. Period.
If you still want to use Windows - have a good free antivirus (Avira,Avast) and use common sense when browsing. If you don’t have a router than you should have a firewall too. But an intelligent one. A firewall that won’t nagg you every 2 minutes.
Linux is one of the most secure O.S., yes. But, I ask the following. What if Linux had the market share that Windows has, would it still be the most secure O.S?
Exactly. The reason why Windows is the most vulnerable OS is b/c that’s what most malware writers focus on b/c its installed on 95% of PCs. It would be the same if everyone switched to Linux.
Same thing with Mac. If it had the shame share on the markets as windows, it also would probably have more malware writers focused to it. Sometimes it seems that a OS having a “small reputation” is actually (as it probably is) better than windows. Heck why am i even talking about this when it is so obvious? (:LGH)
Exactly. I always try to say that to Mac users and they all freak out: My OS is secure!!! It is secure!!! More secure than Windows!!! (:LGH)
No one doubts that. Do we? But what no one can argue about, is that, the only reason why it is more secure, is precisely for not being as much used as Windows is.
All these 3 O.S (Windows, Linux and OSX) have their own advantages, but the ones picking Linux and oSX can’t say they chose it because they are the most secure. They can say, though, they chose because they’re the most secure, because Windows is the ones most used and therefore the one that will be attacked the most.
And against that we cannot argue. It is the truth. But, I do hope that the day for Linux and Mac will come. Why? To make those fanboys cough a little bit!!! (I know, I am mean… ;D). I mean, I use Linux, but I use it because I need it and most of my internet time is done in Windows… never had any problems…
Even if Linux or OSX were 100% secure, then would stop being it, for a very simple reason, which is, from the moment they all install any other application, it will most certainly have weak points, therefore a 100% perfect O.S would become weak.
I recall a friend going to africa. She was not very concerned about viruses but when she came back she warned me that there might be some viruses on the PC…
There were more than 200 different viruses! In the developed countries you might not encounter viruses in everyday operation because most PCs are clean (I assume). So in the developed countries it is not that much important, but elsewhere in the world there is a very strong need for AV and firewall.
Just my 2 cents
Security is an end result that can be achieved though slightly different approaches that basically include safe behaviours (security policies), end-user training/compliance, security softwares and safe applications/services/OSes.
Safe behaviours can provide a lot to the overall security and can minimize the risks but security itself is something transient and even safe behaviours change with time.
Safe browsing for example explicitly reduce security risks restricting websurfing to trusted sites but even a trusted site may pose a risk which is usually negligible but is not guaranteed to be safe from exceptions. Even safe sites have a chance to be compromised (even indirectly though malvertising). Even if safe, those sites may require the user to install legitimate but exploitable components (thus increasing the overall risk and becoming an indirect weakness).
Safe browsing require user training and compliance too and if a computer is accessed by different users the overall security can be affected also by an individual’s misbehaviour.
Once a system is compromised it can possibly become a vector of infection even if it was previously trusted.
There is no single approach to security and IMHO even security itself is only a part of a more general approach that implicitly consider the user an active agent and not a passive one whereas today everybody implicitly entrust a blackbox-like software to carry some tasks.
