MSE News: All web users urged to run anti virus check

isofa

bankslayer wrote: »

While it is true to say that no personal computer is totally immune from malware or virus attack, it really should be reported that your risk is an order of magnitute greater using MS Windows than with other systems. Like it or not, this is a well established fact.

You need to consider the level of risk when making any decision. Just because there is some risk with non-Windows systems does not mean you should ignore the fact that odds are stacked massively against you on Windows.

The reasons are irrelevant, but the fact remains that despite its market dominance, Windows is quite dangerous and there are far better and safer alternatives. Yes, I prefer a Mac, but I am also a long-time Windows sufferer too - I just choose to make an informed decision for the sake of my security, my data, my work, etc.

If you can only afford the cheapest PC, then it's going to be Windows. However, if other factors are important to you as well, there IS a choice!

I use both platforms daily, and I certainly don't "suffer" under either, an intelligent well clued up user will have little problem with either. A poorly skilled user will have problems with both.

This is also a well discussed topic on here, I'd suggest as a newbie you search the forums and read before posting comments such as:

bankslayer wrote: »

It is quite annoying that amongst the scaremongering there seems to be little effort put into advising people on how they really can reduce the risk substantially without relying upon the band-aid of Windows antivirus software.

True "viruses" are on the decline, it's malware, spyware and social engineering attacks which are much more prevalent today.

Baldur

bankslayer wrote: »

If you can only afford the cheapest PC, then it's going to be Windows.

That's a strange statement as a Linux-based computer would be significantly cheaper than a Windows-based one.

Marty_J

MSE_Martin wrote: »

It's all web users - whatever operating system. While this particular trojan may be for one type of system - that doesn't negate the wider point. And while Mac's (and i've a lesser knowledge of Linux - but most of its users are very techie savvy anyway so less of an issue) have traditionally been less targetted, there are still viruses out there.

As for what Mac and Linux users should be doing "everyone should do an updated anti-virus scan".

Martin

Many security experts disagree that Mac users should be running an anti-virus program as a matter of course. There are so few viruses for the Mac, and you have to be trying really hard to get one. If you practice safe browsing, stay away from dodgy websites, don't download pirated software, don't open strange email attachments (and use an email provider that scans incoming emails), you won't get any virus or malware that currently exists for the Mac. The only people who consistently advocate using Mac anti-virus software are, surprise surprise, the people who sell it.

iAntiVirus, a free anti-virus for the Mac, lists only 113 threats in its database, most of which require admin privileges to be installed, are "proof of concept" viruses, or only affect older Apple software such as Classic Mac OS. One of them is even a computer game created as an "art project". All the others come from pirated software or dodgy websites.

It's just not worth the performance hit inherent in all anti-virus applications to guard myself against something that I'm not going to get anyway. I've been using Mac OS X since it was released, and every so often I install an anti-virus out of curiosity. In the last 8 years, they have all failed to find anything.

People seem to be under the impression that using an anti-virus means they're safe on the internet, but nothing could be further from the truth. The weak point in any computer system, regardless of the OS, is the idiot sitting in front of it. There's no existing anti-virus or anti-malware app that's a replacement for common sense.

bankslayer

Baldur wrote: »

That's a strange statement as a Linux-based computer would be significantly cheaper than a Windows-based one.

True, but being realistic, Linux isn't quite ready for mass consumption by typical users. It is getting very good, but we're talking about the risks being faced by ordinary people here, not a technically clued up minority.

isofa

bankslayer wrote: »

True, but being realistic, Linux isn't quite ready for mass consumption by typical users. It is getting very good, but we're talking about the risks being faced by ordinary people here, not a technically clued up minority.

Like many thousands of netbooks that were sold last year, and this year, with variants of Linux installed perhaps? Many people chose it over XP Home as it's lighter and faster, but many of those users were buying a simple laptop for web use or travel, certainly not as a tech user, who'd prefer a more powerful laptop...

[Deleted User]

MSE_Martin wrote: »

It's all web users - whatever operating system. While this particular trojan may be for one type of system - that doesn't negate the wider point. And while Mac's (and i've a lesser knowledge of Linux - but most of its users are very techie savvy anyway so less of an issue) have traditionally been less targetted, there are still viruses out there.

As for what Mac and Linux users should be doing "everyone should do an updated anti-virus scan".

Martin

It's worth noting that, important as Anti Virus software is, it's only one in what should be many layers of security.

What people should also be doing is ensuring that any updates available through Windows Update are installed and also using the free Secunia PSI scanner to analyse the programs that are installed and comparing the version numbers to highlight any that are dated and potentially be exploitable.

Exploits exist not only for Windows, especially when very popular software applications like Mozilla Firefox, OpenOffice, Adobe Flash etc are all cross platform and all are vulnerable.

Users of Windows XP should also be using a limited account, not an administrator account for their day-to-day use. Administrative accounts should only be used for installing/removing hardware and software when necessary, otherwise the potential for damage by anything that manifests itself on the machine is significantly increased. Users of Windows Vista and 7 have increased protection when User Account Control is enabled.

Paul_Herring

bankslayer wrote: »

True, but being realistic, Linux isn't quite ready for mass consumption by typical users.

Rubbish.

It is getting very good, but we're talking about the risks being faced by ordinary people here, not a technically clued up minority.

The only problem I had with the laptop I gave to my "typical user" friends was not the fact that I put Linux onto it before handing it to them, but the fact that one of them spilt wine on it, and they ended up having to purchase another (Windows this time) laptop.

I never once had cause to go round there because of the Linux laptop. Sadly the same cannot be said of the current Windows one.

mr_fishbulb

anewhope wrote: »

What people should also be doing is ensuring that any updates available through Windows Update are installed and also using the free Secunia PSI scanner to analyse the programs that are installed and comparing the version numbers to highlight any that are dated and potentially be exploitable.

Good call. Been using PSI for a while and it is invaluable in keeping your applications fully patched.

bankslayer

isofa wrote: »

I use both platforms daily, and I certainly don't "suffer" under either, an intelligent well clued up user will have little problem with either. A poorly skilled user will have problems with both.

This is also a well discussed topic on here, I'd suggest as a newbie you search the forums and read before posting....

The point we are trying to make here is that people should not have to worry so much about malware on their PCs. Ordinary non-nerd users are very much in the majority in the real world and having to be 'clued up' in order to survive is just not good enough, and if you make a sensible choice, it's not necessary.

I am well aware of forum etiquette - my comments about scaremongering and under reporting the alternatives to Windows were aimed at the media in general, not MSE forum banter.

Marty_J

mr_fishbulb wrote: »

Good call. Been using PSI for a while and it is invaluable in keeping your applications fully patched.

While we're trading apps, AppFresh does much the same thing on the Mac.