Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is AV software necessary?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
May 26, 2004 3:34:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?

Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.

AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
This is because

(1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
(2) I don't open email attachments
(3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
(4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
(5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem

My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.

Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
they will always be out of date when it really matters.

Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.

More about : software

Anonymous
May 26, 2004 3:34:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Hi John,

My own experiences and mostly, opinions, follow those
you have expressed.
These days one needs to set the corp AV updater to check
almost hourly and distibute immediately changes to the sig
files and engines.
I find a number of commercial (mostly the big names) AV
products are pure dogs, bloated hogs that gobble up a system
and are all too eager to get in the way of anything they should
be able to recognize as allowed to go full-tilt without any
meddling.
I have also found some AV is much more light-weight, but it
is still there waiting to "blow up" or "blow something up"
at just the wrong moment.
I have one of my heavy use (for internet access) systems set
with no AV as an experiment (actually a hold over, as I
resisted using any auto-start AV for year after other called it
a necessity due to the infectous nature of the network) and
I have not been infected. In fact, know on wood, I have never
had a system infected, not ever.
Your 1,2, 3 is about all there is to it, well, one actually can use
IE/OE if you set things (like ActiveX) to disabled (or prompt
and then use good, common sense).
The problem is that your 1,2,3 is beyond the ability of most
people to enforce on all users of their machine ;-(
--
Roger Abell
Microsoft MVP (Windows Server System: Security)
MCSE (W2k3,W2k,Nt4) MCDBA
"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 3:34:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>

AV software may not be necessary IF you can operate your computer in a
completely risk-free manner. But some people can't (or won't).

For instance, I know better than to open attachments from strangers, but it
wasn't that long ago that I found a Word macro virus embedded in a document
I was expecting from a known source. Without AV software, I wouldn't have
known about the virus. There's no way I can get around opening those sorts
of files unless I have people mail the documents to me, and I retype them,
or scan and OCR them, and I'm not about to start doing that.

That's an example that might apply to common users. But even more critical
for me is that I repair other people's computers, and there are plenty of
times when I have to attach their hard drive to my test machine (to copy
files off of a non-booting drive, for instance) and there have been plenty
of times that my AV software has alerted to viruses on their drive.

And although plenty of people claim that they never open attachments, etc.,
I clean off a lot of viruses, and I can pretty much guarantee that the
majority of those computers either don't have AV software or they have
expired AV software. The rare one with up-to-date software usually comes in
with the complaint that they know they have a virus, but they just can't get
rid of it, and those will usually have one virus as opposed to the multitude
that are on the unprotected computers.

If you know enough about computers, you'll know what processes are supposed
to be running, what seems suspicious, and how to protect your computer. But
most users don't know any of that. They install "free" software that's laden
with spyware, they click on attachments because it came from a friend, and
they have no interest in learning any better. So AV software provides a
necessary layer of protection.

Oh yeah...and you probably have your files backed up so that if something
sneaks in, you can reformat your drive and start over without much pain.
Most people have no idea what they'd do if they had to start over.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 4:46:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

You have not thought about the children say from 10 years up that use computers everyday for fun and school that may not know that much about virues. I have found that a large number of people know very little about computers much less for them to practice so called same surfing the internet or opening e-mail. I finished working on a computer last week that had no antivirus, spyware or adaware program installed and had three worms and a lot of spyware and adaware in it. The people that owned the machine had no idea what they had done only that the machine would hardly work because of these problems. So I would say for most people, they need a AV program badly.
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 4:47:14 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

If, as you insist, AV is wholly unneeded an problem inducing, rather than
waste your time venting on a MS new user newsgroup, put your words into
action:

Remove NAV from your workplace. If you haven't the authority to do so
directly, bring your evidence and your arguments to the IT Director. Your
arguments, being so well reasoned and logical, will easily win them over to
the rightness of your cause.

steve



"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
May 26, 2004 4:50:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

On Wed, 26 May 2004 03:47:07 -0700, Roger Abell wrote:

>> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
>> This is because
>>
>> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
>> (2) I don't open email attachments
>> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
>> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
>> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem

>Your 1,2, 3 is about all there is to it, well, one actually can use IE/OE
>if you set things (like ActiveX) to disabled (or prompt and then use
>good, common sense).
>The problem is that your 1,2,3 is beyond the ability of most people to
>enforce on all users of their machine ;-(

True. Although I'd like to kick Microsoft in the gonads for (1) since this
should never have been an issue. In Linux, you use a limited account as a
matter of course and running as root is simply inconceivable.
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 4:50:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

I disagree with the linux comment, thats a USER CHOICE.
granted, most linux users will not run as root, but then
again, most educated windows users will not either. But
the pretense is that linux is better somehow, when really
its so hard to use that only experts bother, making the os
safer from stupidity, coupled with its being unpopular
enough that virus writers dont really bother to attack
it. (I dont dislike unix, but the community hype against
windows is amazing, when their os cannot even begin to
recognize most modems, printers, and modern hardware
including tapping the real features of graphics cards,
sound cards, etc. No os is perfect folks...)

OE is fine if you turn of the 'preview' and/or view all
messages as text only. I have never caught a virus from
it. IE is a mess, almost unusable.

I use a free virus program, mainly to block common virus
activities(modify boot sector, etc) as compared to
catching a specific virus. I dont run the full disk check
unless I have a problem and dont even update the
definations often. The final blocker of most worms and
stuff is my router, which rejects a lot of the senseless
commands that a hard IP computer would execute (it has a
firewall of sorts, older model).

I dont run the "big" AV stuff, but among freeware
protection, the software firewalls have given me more
trouble than AV, because it takes a fair learning curve to
get them to let the "good" stuff in and keep "bad" stuff
out. A delicate balance, mine is off most of the time.


>-----Original Message-----
>On Wed, 26 May 2004 03:47:07 -0700, Roger Abell wrote:
>
>>> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
what? - no viruses.
>>> This is because
>>>
>>> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
administrator
>>> (2) I don't open email attachments
>>> (3) I don't download, install or run software from
disreputable websites
>>> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
distribution clients
>>> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
>>Your 1,2, 3 is about all there is to it, well, one
actually can use IE/OE
>>if you set things (like ActiveX) to disabled (or prompt
and then use
>>good, common sense).
>>The problem is that your 1,2,3 is beyond the ability of
most people to
>>enforce on all users of their machine ;-(
>
>True. Although I'd like to kick Microsoft in the gonads
for (1) since this
>should never have been an issue. In Linux, you use a
limited account as a
>matter of course and running as root is simply
inconceivable.
>
>.
>
Anonymous
May 26, 2004 7:32:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

>On Wed, 26 May 2004 05:18:34 -0700, <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I disagree with the linux comment, thats a USER CHOICE.
>granted, most linux users will not run as root, but then
>again, most educated windows users will not either. But
>the pretense is that linux is better somehow, when really
>its so hard to use that only experts bother, making the os
>safer from stupidity, coupled with its being unpopular
>enough that virus writers dont really bother to attack
>it. (I dont dislike unix, but the community hype against
>windows is amazing, when their os cannot even begin to
>recognize most modems, printers, and modern hardware
>including tapping the real features of graphics cards,
>sound cards, etc. No os is perfect folks...)
>
>OE is fine if you turn of the 'preview' and/or view all
>messages as text only. I have never caught a virus from
>it. IE is a mess, almost unusable.
>
>I use a free virus program, mainly to block common virus
>activities(modify boot sector, etc) as compared to
>catching a specific virus. I dont run the full disk check
>unless I have a problem and dont even update the
>definations often. The final blocker of most worms and
>stuff is my router, which rejects a lot of the senseless
>commands that a hard IP computer would execute (it has a
>firewall of sorts, older model).
>
>I dont run the "big" AV stuff, but among freeware
>protection, the software firewalls have given me more
>trouble than AV, because it takes a fair learning curve to
>get them to let the "good" stuff in and keep "bad" stuff
>out. A delicate balance, mine is off most of the time.
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>On Wed, 26 May 2004 03:47:07 -0700, Roger Abell wrote:
>>
>>>> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
>what? - no viruses.
>>>> This is because
>>>>
>>>> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
>administrator
>>>> (2) I don't open email attachments
>>>> (3) I don't download, install or run software from
>disreputable websites
>>>> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
>distribution clients
>>>> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>>
>>>Your 1,2, 3 is about all there is to it, well, one
>actually can use IE/OE
>>>if you set things (like ActiveX) to disabled (or prompt
>and then use
>>>good, common sense).
>>>The problem is that your 1,2,3 is beyond the ability of
>most people to
>>>enforce on all users of their machine ;-(
>>
>>True. Although I'd like to kick Microsoft in the gonads
>for (1) since this
>>should never have been an issue. In Linux, you use a
>limited account as a
>>matter of course and running as root is simply
>inconceivable.
>>
>>.
>>
My programs won't run on a limited accout. So I have use admin.
account.

Greg
May 26, 2004 7:46:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Finally someone with intelligence. I agree with you 100%. I have never had a
virus and have never used an AV program. Following these newsgroups, I see
thousands of problems caused by AV programs rather than preventing problems.
"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
May 26, 2004 7:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

It's true, you don 't "need" AV, however finding such an
opinion and supposed experience from a supposed IT Pro is
definitely "interesting". Either most of those peeps don't
access the 'net and are very lucky, or they are real newbies
with little real world experience.
In general, problems resulting from AV (and other SW) are
usually unnecessary and easily prevented. Norton and McAfee
run great and have excellent records/histories.

It will be futuristically interesting because it won't be
that long before each of these folk are back, asking whether
it's a trojan, worm, virus or adware problem, if they get
enough experience, and whining about how awful Microsoft is
because it created an OS that is so widely used that it's
the target of any intelligent digital crook and mud slug.
It's like blaming your car mfg for selling you a car that
crooks like to steal, or leaving the car sitting at the
curb, unlocked.

See ya later fellas.


"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:4Z2tc.14543$eH1.6564570@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Finally someone with intelligence. I agree with you 100%.
I have never had a
> virus and have never used an AV program. Following these
newsgroups, I see
> thousands of problems caused by AV programs rather than
preventing problems.
> "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV
software. I work in IT
> > support and I really couldn't count the number of
perfectly good Windows
> > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of
the other bloated
> > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
things with
> > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of
boot up time and the
> > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> >
> > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies
could hope to
> > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical
length of time, AV
> > software is completely powerless to protect your system
when any
> > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> >
> > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
what? - no viruses.
> > This is because
> >
> > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
administrator
> > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > (3) I don't download, install or run software from
disreputable websites
> > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
distribution clients
> > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> >
> > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common
sense couldn't
> > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
doesn't turn my
> > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
grinding hard disk.
> >
> > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the
endless problems
> > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple
nice, clean
> > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still
have to mess around
> > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even
though essentially
> > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> >
> > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided
like the plague.
> >
>
May 26, 2004 7:46:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I use AVG free AV ware and prior to that I used McAfee and found that their
impact on my systems performance to be negligible for my purposes. I get
less than 1 virus per year even though I don't practice paranoia computing.
I use IE because every site works with IE, I use Outlook because it works
just fine for both mail and newsgroups and they gave it to me with the OS. I
open attachments when I get them from friends without phoning them up and
asking if they sent it intentionally.That's real progress - phoning people
up to confirm or deleting what they sent you! I run with ActiveX enabled
because I got sick and tired of messages popping up on sites telling me that
it may not display properly etc.

IMO, Microsoft had the right idea. Make the damn computer easy to use so
anybody can operate it without wondering what port 80 is. You don't need to
know how an automatic transmission works to drive a car and that's the way
computers should be. Unfortunately, there seems to be a bunch of social
misfits more intent on disrupting computers than automatic transmissions.

I consider running AV ware to be worth any minor bother.

Billh

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:4Z2tc.14543$eH1.6564570@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Finally someone with intelligence. I agree with you 100%. I have never had
a
> virus and have never used an AV program. Following these newsgroups, I see
> thousands of problems caused by AV programs rather than preventing
problems.
> "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> > support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and
the
> > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> >
> > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> > software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> >
> > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> > This is because
> >
> > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> >
> > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
> >
> > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess
around
> > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> >
> > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
> >
>
May 26, 2004 8:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

That's a good synopsis, and I agree. Might I also add the
common possibility of spam viruses sent in dictionary
attacks? Even the most immune systems have been targetted
and caught by them, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, these discussions are with a closed minded
person who asked a question full well knowing it was stupid
and who will not listen to any advice since that wasn't its
intent. IMO, anyway. Seems like it's troll-feeding season.

Pop

"D.Currie" <dmbcurrie.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hk282Fdmup1U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV
software. I work in IT
> > support and I really couldn't count the number of
perfectly good Windows
> > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of
the other bloated
> > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
things with
> > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of
boot up time and the
> > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> >
> > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies
could hope to
> > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical
length of time, AV
> > software is completely powerless to protect your system
when any
> > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> >
> > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
what? - no viruses.
> > This is because
> >
> > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
administrator
> > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > (3) I don't download, install or run software from
disreputable websites
> > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
distribution clients
> > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> >
> > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common
sense couldn't
> > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
doesn't turn my
> > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
grinding hard disk.
> >
> > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the
endless problems
> > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple
nice, clean
> > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still
have to mess around
> > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even
though essentially
> > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> >
> > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided
like the plague.
> >
>
> AV software may not be necessary IF you can operate your
computer in a
> completely risk-free manner. But some people can't (or
won't).
>
> For instance, I know better than to open attachments from
strangers, but it
> wasn't that long ago that I found a Word macro virus
embedded in a document
> I was expecting from a known source. Without AV software,
I wouldn't have
> known about the virus. There's no way I can get around
opening those sorts
> of files unless I have people mail the documents to me,
and I retype them,
> or scan and OCR them, and I'm not about to start doing
that.
>
> That's an example that might apply to common users. But
even more critical
> for me is that I repair other people's computers, and
there are plenty of
> times when I have to attach their hard drive to my test
machine (to copy
> files off of a non-booting drive, for instance) and there
have been plenty
> of times that my AV software has alerted to viruses on
their drive.
>
> And although plenty of people claim that they never open
attachments, etc.,
> I clean off a lot of viruses, and I can pretty much
guarantee that the
> majority of those computers either don't have AV software
or they have
> expired AV software. The rare one with up-to-date software
usually comes in
> with the complaint that they know they have a virus, but
they just can't get
> rid of it, and those will usually have one virus as
opposed to the multitude
> that are on the unprotected computers.
>
> If you know enough about computers, you'll know what
processes are supposed
> to be running, what seems suspicious, and how to protect
your computer. But
> most users don't know any of that. They install "free"
software that's laden
> with spyware, they click on attachments because it came
from a friend, and
> they have no interest in learning any better. So AV
software provides a
> necessary layer of protection.
>
> Oh yeah...and you probably have your files backed up so
that if something
> sneaks in, you can reformat your drive and start over
without much pain.
> Most people have no idea what they'd do if they had to
start over.
>
>
May 26, 2004 8:24:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"billh" <NoMail@Post2Newsgroup.Pls> wrote in message
news:Qu4tc.43195$tb4.1380462@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I use AVG free AV ware and prior to that I used McAfee and
found that their
> impact on my systems performance to be negligible for my
purposes. I get
> less than 1 virus per year even though I don't practice
paranoia computing.
> I use IE because every site works with IE, I use Outlook
because it works
> just fine for both mail and newsgroups and they gave it to
me with the OS. I
> open attachments when I get them from friends without
phoning them up and
> asking if they sent it intentionally.That's real
progress - phoning people
> up to confirm or deleting what they sent you! I run with
ActiveX enabled
> because I got sick and tired of messages popping up on
sites telling me that
> it may not display properly etc.
>
> IMO, Microsoft had the right idea. Make the damn computer
easy to use so
> anybody can operate it without wondering what port 80 is.
You don't need to
> know how an automatic transmission works to drive a car
and that's the way
> computers should be. Unfortunately, there seems to be a
bunch of social
> misfits more intent on disrupting computers than automatic
transmissions.
>
> I consider running AV ware to be worth any minor bother.
>
> Billh
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:4Z2tc.14543$eH1.6564570@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> > Finally someone with intelligence. I agree with you
100%. I have never had
> a
> > virus and have never used an AV program. Following these
....

There can be one tiny grain of truth in the "hit" one can
take from NAV and McAV and that's where the user installs it
and then goes completely off the deep end where, without
bothering to RTFM, they turn on scanning every bit that
changes state in the computer. These are the folks that
never take the defaults and never rtfm because it's not
"macho".

FWIW, you are a refreshing voice in the sea of chaos. Well,
relatively speaking anyway ... <g>.

Pop
May 26, 2004 8:27:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

LOL!! Thanks! Enjoyed that!

Pop

"joust in jest" <joust in jest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:o mLm4o1QEHA.1644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> If, as you insist, AV is wholly unneeded an problem
inducing, rather than
> waste your time venting on a MS new user newsgroup, put
your words into
> action:
>
> Remove NAV from your workplace. If you haven't the
authority to do so
> directly, bring your evidence and your arguments to the IT
Director. Your
> arguments, being so well reasoned and logical, will easily
win them over to
> the rightness of your cause.
>
> steve
>
>
>
> "john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> > For some time I've been questioning the use of AV
software. I work in IT
> > support and I really couldn't count the number of
perfectly good Windows
> > installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of
the other bloated
> > virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
things with
> > always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of
boot up time and the
> > general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
> >
> > Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies
could hope to
> > spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical
length of time, AV
> > software is completely powerless to protect your system
when any
> > particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> >
> > AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess
what? - no viruses.
> > This is because
> >
> > (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the
administrator
> > (2) I don't open email attachments
> > (3) I don't download, install or run software from
disreputable websites
> > (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
distribution clients
> > (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
> >
> > My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common
sense couldn't
> > fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
doesn't turn my
> > 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
grinding hard disk.
> >
> > Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the
endless problems
> > caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple
nice, clean
> > installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still
have to mess around
> > ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even
though essentially
> > they will always be out of date when it really matters.
> >
> > Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided
like the plague.
> >
>
>
May 26, 2004 10:40:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"D.Currie" <dmbcurrie.nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2hk282Fdmup1U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>>
> For instance, I know better than to open attachments from strangers, but
it
> wasn't that long ago that I found a Word macro virus embedded in a
document
> I was expecting from a known source.

I seem to recall seeing a statistic somewhere recently that something like
70% of all infected attachments come from known sources - rather like most
murders are committed by people who know the victim!
May 27, 2004 12:52:54 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"oneheli" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C22EAAC-E785-43EC-A826-1C6D720CD5EB@microsoft.com...
> You have not thought about the children say from 10 years up that use
computers everyday for fun and school that may not know that much about
virues. I have found that a large number of people know very little about
computers much less for them to practice so called same surfing the internet
or opening e-mail. I finished working on a computer last week that had no
antivirus, spyware or adaware program installed and had three worms and a
lot of spyware and adaware in it. The people that owned the machine had no
idea what they had done only that the machine would hardly work because of
these problems. So I would say for most people, they need a AV program
badly.

The problem is, that certainly in the UK, Joe Public wanders into PC World,
Dixons or Curries and buys a computer. The salesman says NOTHING about
internet security AT ALL. Joe Public takes Computer home, sets it up,
connects to the Internet, and BAM! Viruses, spyware, etc etc etc.
May 27, 2004 12:52:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"Gordon" <me6@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%23WNcOs1QEHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "oneheli" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
> news:9C22EAAC-E785-43EC-A826-1C6D720CD5EB@microsoft.com...
> > You have not thought about the children say from 10
years up that use
> computers everyday for fun and school that may not know
that much about
> virues. I have found that a large number of people know
very little about
> computers much less for them to practice so called same
surfing the internet
> or opening e-mail. I finished working on a computer last
week that had no
> antivirus, spyware or adaware program installed and had
three worms and a
> lot of spyware and adaware in it. The people that owned
the machine had no
> idea what they had done only that the machine would hardly
work because of
> these problems. So I would say for most people, they need
a AV program
> badly.
>
> The problem is, that certainly in the UK, Joe Public
wanders into PC World,
> Dixons or Curries and buys a computer. The salesman says
NOTHING about
> internet security AT ALL. Joe Public takes Computer home,
sets it up,
> connects to the Internet, and BAM! Viruses, spyware, etc
etc etc.
>
>
Yes, and you would think a person responsible for IT in a
LAN woujld have more sense than to purposely expose
themselves so fully and openly. It takes all kinds, eh?

Pop
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 1:15:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

john <john@nospam.uk> wrote:

>For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
>support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
>installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
>virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
>always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
>general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
>Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
>spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
>software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
>particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
>AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.

This is okay in your case because you have sufficient computer
knowledge to understand the problem and to know how to protect
yourself. However for at least 99 and 44/100% of the other computer
users out there (or at least those that come into contact with through
my business) this is not the situation and they need all the help they
can get. Very often this is just to protect them from the
consequences of their own deliberate stupidity.


>This is because
>
>(1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
Okay except that in Windows XP certain functions and activities
require administrator level permissions.

>(2) I don't open email attachments

I do, but not automatically. I save them first and then scan them
with antivirus. I have to receive attachments because of my business.

>(3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites

How do you determine that a website is "disreputable"? Especially one
from a new vendor or manufacturer?

>(4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients

I have to use IE and OE, at least occasionally, because I must
maintain familiarity with it so as to be able to support my clients
who do use it. As you can see, I use Agent for my main newsgroup
work.

>(5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem

I have a separate router (Microsoft MN500) with NAT connected to my
ADSL modem. It has never failed me.

>
>My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
>fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
>512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.

There are a number of antivirus products that are reliable, frequently
updated, and which do not have the "who dropped the anchor?" effect on
computer performance. AVG and eTrust are my personal favorites in
this regard.


>
>Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
>caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
>installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
>ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
>they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
>Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.

Norton 2004 *is* a virus.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 10:10:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I don't use it. But only advanced users can get away with this. I don't agree with 1, 2 (I can tell what is and isn't a virus), or 4 on your list. For 5 I use the inbuilt firewall which is good enough.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 7:44:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Really depends on what and how you use the PC as well. And, all it takes is
one mistake in one's precautions to introduce a virus. And, its seems every
few months, another method is found to sneak a virus or bug in the system.
You against real-time bug-stoppers too?
How about a software firewall that prevent nasties from sending data out
your system?
Who logs on as the administrator as you said you never do?
Won't respond to your troll on virus definitions.
"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2004 8:18:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

john wrote:
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in
> IT support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good
> Windows installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the
> other bloated virus suites. The performance hit from installing these
> things with always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot
> up time and the general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?

Agreed, if only partially. I have seen perfectly good installs "borked" by
many of the different AV suites. In my experience it usually floats back to
something else that was installed along with the OS, some application that
somehow doesn't agree with the restrictions of (or worse yet - shares some
of the files with) the AV suite in question.

The performance hit (in amount of memory used if by no other measure) is
significant. As for what - well, quiet simply put - one of the following:

- Inability to learn.
- Lack of desire to learn.
- Forced distribution of said software due to the fact most people see the
computer as a tool and a toy for distraction at the workplace and system
admins have better things to do than do the work of dozens to thousands for
them on the upkeep of their personal workstation.

> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.

Very true. In fact, in the last round the patch was the only thing that
would prevent SASSER (or a firewall) for the first hours, in which time the
damage COULD BE enormous.

> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no
> viruses. This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable
> websites (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus
> distribution clients (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an
> ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense
> couldn't fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it
> doesn't turn my 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly
> grinding hard disk.

You get no argument about your statements here. What I do argue is that not
everyone has (or wants) common sense when it comes to computers. Again -
for most people these things are tools or toys. They don't know how to fix
their own car, why should they know how to fix their computer. They have
better things to do - and that is likely true. If I had the choice of my
doctor knowing the correct procedure to remove my appendix or just winging
it because he kept his computer secure by reading up on the latest threats,
patching his machine, securing any flaws in his Internet Browser, and making
sure the firmware for his hardware firewall was up to date - I choose my
appendix.

> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess
> around ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though
> essentially they will always be out of date when it really matters.

Welcome to your role in the world. To fill in the emptiness left by people
who do not understand the importance of the tool or toy they are using until
it is too late. You could try to educate your users. You could try and
tell them "opeing attachments is bad" - but they will get that one email
from Aunt Beatrice (who is sweet, kind, makes great lemon pie and wouldn't
harm a fly) and they will consider it safe. What they don't know is that
Aunt Beatrice has Netsky and didn't even really send this email.

> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the
> plague.

Agreed. But only in-so-far that it is practical. People in general are not
going to use the common sense you tout. Wish they would.. Then I would have
more time and their computer would seem faster and I would get the credit.
As it is - I'll continue to distribute AV software at work until everyone
has as much common sense about computers as they do about touching the hot
stove.

--
<- Shenan ->
--
The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of
completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any
kind, express or implied. In other words, read up before you take any
advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions.
Anonymous
May 28, 2004 5:21:02 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin (More info?)

Yup
AV is a must have on a PC with or without internet access. I have been using Dr. Solomon and McAfee and have never felt much in terms of slow performance of my 1523 computers in my setup. Norton is good as far as its utilities are concerned. I don't grase that as an AV Solution.

----- john wrote: -----

For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?

Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV software is completely powerless to protect your system when any particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.

AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
This is because

(1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
(2) I don't open email attachments
(3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
(4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
(5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem

My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.

Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
they will always be out of date when it really matters.

Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
Anonymous
May 29, 2004 11:41:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I personally run Norton Anti-Virus 2001 on my desktop machine. I will run NAV 2004 Standard on my laptop. What is the problem with running anit-virus software?! Norton 2004 Standard can be purchased for $17 (read the article on my website at http://www.madisontelco.com/~web_1/TA/secure_a_pc.html). Norton has never slowed down my computer. I run Windows XP, and I have a 1.5 Ghz processor with 512 MB RAM.
Anonymous
June 1, 2004 12:06:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

IS AV SOFTWARE NECESSARY?

> ----- john wrote: -----
>> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>

Many valid and thoughtful points made, John et al. I'm not a "frequent poster," due to more pressing reasons (e.g., time, resources, and survival) but am compelled to comment. In 27+ years of working with, around, under and now FOR "computers" I have been feeling most jilted about "them." So much of the original sparkle has long ago faded. Viruses, mischievous-to-malicious hacking, frenetically paced rush to market (with ever shorter turn-arounds for “fixes�), international corporate & military factors, and security, security, securities all play a role. The end user is where one finds the Buck (and Windows PC) have stopped.

>> These days, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
>

Oh, so true! Especially on the heels of Sasser where I just threw in the towel, took a week off, and visited family at the other end of the state - sans computer-notebook or even a techie manual. My home LAN is configured to allow for one PC to be the house “sacrificial lamb.� It replicates what I’ve seen as a typical configuration of way too many Windows PCs in the real world. And with it come less preventive measures, higher visibility, and increased vulnerability – sort of like the person who has to sit tauntingly on the stool above the water tank and watch as people take aim to knock them into the water.

My LAN-Lamb serves as a useful vivarium, real-time reference point, and teaching-learning example for those who need support. They tend to want to “control� as much as possible on their system, and in doing so, literally turn over control to complete strangers. (‘The most difficult problem in teaching object- oriented programming is getting the learner to give up the global knowledge of control that is possible with procedural programs, and rely on the local knowledge of objects to accomplish their tasks.� From the OOPSLA'89 Conference Proceedings; October 1-6, 1989, New Orleans, Louisiana. And the special issue of SIGPLAN Notices Volume 24, Number 10, October 1989. “A LABORATORY FOR TEACHING OBJECT-ORIENTED THINKING,� by Kent Beck, Apple Computer, Inc., and Ward Cunningham, Wyatt Software Services, Inc. see also http://c2.com/doc/oopsla89/paper.html)

>> This is because
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>

Easy & straightforward as John’s approach is (grounded in common sense, too), and as oft repeated as I’ve suggested these measures to clients, few SOHO-, corporate-, or home-based users take it to heart. Like the too-often repeated info between dispatcher and law officer in the field, the person getting stopped tends to have an established pattern or maybe biological predisposition to doing the same foolish thing again and again. Granted, these folks are not a “representative� randomized sample, they define a fairly important segment of the PC-using society at large. Most of the people We-Techies come in contact with are there because they’ve GOT a problem. Like that driver stopped for yet another moving violation, these are the same people I’ll have continued PC-ER contact with over time, but on a gradually diminishing frequency.

>> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>

Now this is where THE real problem (behaviors that are damaging and self-inflicted) strains us as it defies logic. Be it AV or smoking cigarettes, cyclical abusive relationships, or taking risks that cause fatal consequences, seems like we as a species will continue to repeat history in various forms and forums. What benefits & pleasures can be derived from these experiences are more obvious than we may first acknowledge:
1. Someone runs into a problem we get a call; we get an opportunity to be of ‘help’ while we earn some compensation for our efforts; and, we get another chance to encourage “them� to learn be it by way of the stick or the carrot.
2. Our skills’ repertoire and professional precision advances if we allow it.
3. Sometimes new friendships are started; other times we encounter “situations� we quickly learn to avoid like the plague.
4. At the end of the day, it’s just one more pebble passed along life’s path.

Meanwhile, I get my creative work done on my 9-year old PowerPC, my high-tech work accomplished on my padded-room Pentiums, let my Microsoft XP and NT lambs do their thing, and on occasion run into a friend or neighbor not seen in 10-12 years. “I didn’t know you did PC stuff,� said Sally who I’d not seen since the early 90s (and this is a small valley, too!). “You’ve probably got a MAC,� I said. Astonished she looked at me and asked, “How’d you know that?�
Anonymous
June 2, 2004 10:21:06 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

I think if more people used AV software I would'nt be sitting at home watching my IDS go off with signs of ports scans from Sasser, Nimda, Code Red, Blaster, and Slammer all day long. Even though they dont catch the newest worms and such, so many of the old ones are out there waiting to reinfect your computer. We share in this global cesspool of the internet and people that dont patch and dont use some sort of AV are just asking to be 'owned'.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 2:35:23 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

"john" <john@nospam.uk> wrote in message
news:p an.2004.05.26.10.34.35.418768@nospam.uk...
> For some time I've been questioning the use of AV software. I work in IT
> support and I really couldn't count the number of perfectly good Windows
> installations I've seen borked by Norton AV or any of the other bloated
> virus suites. The performance hit from installing these things with
> always-on protection is lamentable, both in terms of boot up time and the
> general responsiveness of the OS, and for what?
>
> Thesedays, viruses spread faster than the AV companies could hope to
> spread updated virus definitions. So for a critical length of time, AV
> software is completely powerless to protect your system when any
> particular worm or virus is at its peak on the Internet.
>
> AV has disappeared from my home machines and - guess what? - no viruses.
> This is because
>
> (1) I login to the systems as a limited user, not the administrator
> (2) I don't open email attachments
> (3) I don't download, install or run software from disreputable websites
> (4) I don't use IE or OE - these programs are virus distribution clients
> (5) I use an ADSL firewall router and not an ADSL modem
>
> My opinion is that AV software fixes nothing that common sense couldn't
> fix. Common sense has the additional advantage that it doesn't turn my
> 512MB P4 system into a 64MB P2 with an endlessly grinding hard disk.
>
> Nevertheless, at work, I still have to deal with the endless problems
> caused by AV software. I still have to knowingly cripple nice, clean
> installations by installing Norton bloatware. I still have to mess around
> ensuring that the AV definitions are up-to-date, even though essentially
> they will always be out of date when it really matters.
>
> Is AV software necessary? IMO, no. It should be avoided like the plague.
>
My house hasn't burnt down yet; I make sure the gas cooker's off before
going out or to bed, and don't smoke ... but I'm not getting rid of my smoke
detectors just yet ...


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.699 / Virus Database: 456 - Release Date: 04/06/2004
June 6, 2004 2:26:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

AV software is NOT necessary, anymore than:

seat belts
telephone
underwear
safety helmets on the job
shoes
education
and a couple of other items. You can quite successfully
connect to an ISP at least one time without haven AV. If
you don't have a 'net connect, it might be even safer. But
it's NOT "necessary".

Pop
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 8:37:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

What puzzles me is why the original poster thinks NAV has such awful effects
on the PCs he builds ... I have never heard that sort of feedback from
anyone else.
In my experience a sensible anti-virus policy is one of the first things any
sort of external information security or IT quality audit checks for. Those
guys have seen what happens if you ignore the basics, and anti-virus is
right up there with things like effective backups. What makes a home
environment any different? If anything, it is likely to pose greater
virus-related risks, because the PC is typically engaged in a wider range of
activity, and is typically communicating with a wide range of people with a
wide range of awareness of Internet security issues.
"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:u04vAJ9SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> AV software is NOT necessary, anymore than:
>
> seat belts
> telephone
> underwear
> safety helmets on the job
> shoes
> education
> and a couple of other items. You can quite successfully
> connect to an ISP at least one time without haven AV. If
> you don't have a 'net connect, it might be even safer. But
> it's NOT "necessary".
>
> Pop
>
>
June 6, 2004 9:47:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

Tis unfortunate that you are now paranoid over viruses. This prevents you from
operating your computer without that garbage so you'll never see how great a
PC can be. And, you speak/write with emotion rather than fact.
"Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:u04vAJ9SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> AV software is NOT necessary, anymore than:
>
> seat belts
> telephone
> underwear
> safety helmets on the job
> shoes
> education
> and a couple of other items. You can quite successfully
> connect to an ISP at least one time without haven AV. If
> you don't have a 'net connect, it might be even safer. But
> it's NOT "necessary".
>
> Pop
>
>
June 7, 2004 11:35:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

LOL! Is that right? What're you doing, rewriting a
dictionary or something?

Pop

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:qMIwc.20481$eH1.9212584@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> Tis unfortunate that you are now paranoid over viruses.
This prevents you from
> operating your computer without that garbage so you'll
never see how great a
> PC can be. And, you speak/write with emotion rather than
fact.
> "Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:u04vAJ9SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > AV software is NOT necessary, anymore than:
> >
> > seat belts
> > telephone
> > underwear
> > safety helmets on the job
> > shoes
> > education
> > and a couple of other items. You can quite successfully
> > connect to an ISP at least one time without haven AV.
If
> > you don't have a 'net connect, it might be even safer.
But
> > it's NOT "necessary".
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 3:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin,microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

All AV programs stuff up some machines. McAfee and Norton are considered the worse. Whichever one stuffed up their machine is the one they hate.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
"Mandy Shaw" <mandy.shaw@notability.com> wrote in message news:eQUvow9SEHA.3720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> What puzzles me is why the original poster thinks NAV has such awful effects
> on the PCs he builds ... I have never heard that sort of feedback from
> anyone else.
> In my experience a sensible anti-virus policy is one of the first things any
> sort of external information security or IT quality audit checks for. Those
> guys have seen what happens if you ignore the basics, and anti-virus is
> right up there with things like effective backups. What makes a home
> environment any different? If anything, it is likely to pose greater
> virus-related risks, because the PC is typically engaged in a wider range of
> activity, and is typically communicating with a wide range of people with a
> wide range of awareness of Internet security issues.
> "Pop" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:u04vAJ9SEHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > AV software is NOT necessary, anymore than:
> >
> > seat belts
> > telephone
> > underwear
> > safety helmets on the job
> > shoes
> > education
> > and a couple of other items. You can quite successfully
> > connect to an ISP at least one time without haven AV. If
> > you don't have a 'net connect, it might be even safer. But
> > it's NOT "necessary".
> >
> > Pop
> >
> >
>
>
!