Topic: Antiviruses - page 4. (Read 1177 times)

It's your decision, you can try both and decide what suits you best. There will always be those who will advise others to use Linux, and to forget on Windows and all the dangers that come with it. I personally used Linux few times, but most of time I am on Windows, which suits me perfectly because I think I have sufficient protection, and because I use common sense.

Regarding cryptocurrency, I move my coins to hardware wallet, because regardless of the level of protection and OS, something so security-sensitive should not be on PC.

Well, theoretically you are right.

But in reality, the majority of bitcoin users on this forum aren't people who want to break free from the financial system, but want to get rich..quick.
They don't even understand how BTC works in a very shallow way.
They don't care much about their computer. They use cracked software on their windows, are still using windows 7 and click "yes" on every pop-up which appears.

You really can't protect them from themselves. Even with a linux distro they would get their coins stolen through simple phishing.


If someone is willing to learn and wants to have his coins secured and actually cares about information security, then yes. Such a person should know that linux is superior to windows and should definitely switch.




Well.. that's true.
But they also need to write letters. And you know.. libreoffice writer is soooo much different from microsoft word. It is not the original one.

And what about their plug&play hardware devices ?
While quite a lot of distros are making a good job and being plug&play, some intervention is still need from time to time.
And for people who are extremely far aways from technology, this simply is too much.

About ten years ago  last time I heard about Norton Security, and now I think, maybe install Linux?)

Lol no. VPN was intended to make your "local" network not local. Ie. a company with many branches all their computers to be part "of the same LAN" but in reality be in separate (distant) places. It wasn't intended for anti-censorship or privacy, but it can be somewhat useful for that, because you are technically using the router of this virtual network, which, can happen to be located in a different country. Oh and its encrypted, that helps too.

This is important because you must know what it was truly designed for and is not really against. Anti-censorship software is something like Tor, which was designed with that intent.

As for Linux, there is a reason to use an AV there, which is to disinfect malware ridden files from windows users, such as in a mail server scan attachments, etc. No way any malware would execute there, of course. Another example would be to clean the typical infected USB thumb/stick without formatting it. Not that it would be needed for Linux itself, malware for Linux is rare because it (usually) needs (a lot of) user interaction.

hmmmm, well....

I agree, with that


But I suppose I should clarify: I'm saying this in the context of the fact we're on the Bitcointalk forum. If there's anyone who needs the incentive to take charge of their computer's security, instead of letting someone else do it for them, it's people who use Bitcoin. We should be making that loud and clear, for the sake of newbies who just don't have such a need for a secure computer.

Bottom line (well, 2nd to the bottom ): If someone robs your BTC, or you're a ransomware victim, it's your problem for being complacent



(as an aside; what you're inadvertently highlighting is, that most Windows users only use 1 application, period: web browser. which works much better on Linux, and exactly the same, so no-one needs to learn anything new to do it )

Actually, Carlton is correct. The ones that benefit the most are the ones that know the less, such an user somebody else sets up a system for them to browse the web. That doesn't replace "common sense", but mitigates the problem like 80%. Ie: you are in Linux, you click the link to a phishing electrum site, then... Nothing happens. You don't have admin rights to be installing garbage in the first place. (And last i actually visited an actual Electrum phishing site, they didn't even bother to change the Linux version lol).

With Windows you assume the fallacy that your up to date antivirus will protect you, which is why the term zero day came to be. Zero day, nobody has identified it yet, you won't be protected, period.

If you change the OS for a "know nothing" user (ie. Granma, or whoever), your support calls will probably go down to nearly zero. The best "protected" Windows will however break one way or the other, maybe less often maybe more often, but rest assured, it will. Linux properly set up? Install and forget.

I have 30+ years of IT experience, used Windows since v3.0, and Linux since Redhat 4.1 era.

Of course if your intent is making money doing IT support, Windows is your friend. For voluntary work? Heck no.

And BTW Windows does bundle "Windows Defender", this might be why some "indows users don't bother with an antivirus. I cannot say they are wrong, keeping Windows safe takes a lot of experience, or what you call "common sense", but in addition to that you need to "protect" it in several ways, including anti-malware, firewall, etc.

So to summarize, nothing is absolute, but Carlton is far closer to the truth than you are. Oh, and if you think you could also "secure" a Windows install, you can to some degree, but never to the same level of protection. The end user is not even at fault, new exploits come everyday and many do not require user intervention at all. For those, no amount of "common sense" would save you. And you are expecting those "less savvy users" to be essentially sysadmins...

Now that i think about it, given that I removed Windows from my dual boot setup in 2007, i could also join Carlton's testimony. 12 years without no stinking AV slowing down everything and failing to ultimately protect, just a decent OS that won't easily let garbage in by default, and yes, "common" sense...

In most cases, the virus enters the computer due to inattention or lack of knowledge of the user. Therefore, first of all, you need to improve your knowledge in this.

You are making it really really hard to help defending your point of view.

To be correct.. it is never necessary IF you know what you are doing. But how many people know what they are doing ? Like 3-5% ?




The problem is not that people need 'a windows only application', but they need windows because it has become their habit and they are too stubborn to learn something new.
And exactly these people need an AV.

You don't need one. I don't need one. And probably 98% of all Unix user don't need one.
But the remaining 95%+ (almost) of people need one.




He is attacking you because you have a different point of view.
It is like if you would say you'd believe the earth is a globe.. in that case you'd get a way bigger shitstorm 

well, I'm saying that it's really never necessary.

even if you need a Windows only application, if you spend a little more on RAM for your computer, you could run it in a virtual machine and keep it isolated from the source of viruses (i.e. webpages & other internet activity would be separate, no anti virus needed if virus attack vectors are kept separate)


interesting how this user has to attack me, apparently because I've been on bitcointalk for a long time?

You should start to properly read the thread before replying in it.
He is not recommending to not use an AV. He was saying that - under some circumstances - an AV is not necessary, which is absolutely correct.

You have to realize that not everyone is using the least secure operating system on this planet. And not everyone is clicking on every shiny button which promises free money.
Just because you are one of them, who can not stay safe without an AV, this doesn't mean that people with a proper risk management can't.


So, please. Instead of spamming threads just to get your signature payment, read them and bring value to it.

My recommendation is Norton Security, it is not free, but it is working as great protection on my PC for years. It is not only AV, but a set of security programs which include AV, firewall, antispam, exploit protection and much more. It works very nice in combination with Malwarebytes Pro, and this is something that I consider good protection on Windows OS.

Most of security software is available in trial version, so it is possible to try it for 15 or 30 days completely free.

Is he preaching or recommending not to use anti-virus, if that's the case people should never listen to this guy, even if he is a legendary guy, it doesn't prove that this guy is a techie guy, our computer is our bank and since this is our bank we must employ the best security you can find to prevent intrusion.

If he is ok without using an anti-virus then it's up to him but don't tell that antivirus is a waste of money and space, this is deception.

I'm surprised that a legendary will say something like this, the operating system will not save your computer because it has no mechanism that will warn you that there is an intervention going on, only an anti-virus can do that, he can say that maybe because he is not downloading applications and software.

But for me, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, I prefer to keep my two anti-virus to protect me.

it wouldn't surprise me (and shouldn't anyone else) to learn of accusations that Avast has ties to the Czech government, or McAfee to the US government.

anti-virus companies have in the past been accused of creating new viruses to boost demand for their products. I don't know about the provenance of those claims, but certainly that incentive exists.


seeing as the anti-virus concept is a medical metaphor anyway, why not invoke another: prevention is better than cure

and so all you anti-virus advocates are doing the equivalent of eating massive bags of chips, gallons of Cola, doing zero exercise and zero research on your health, hanging out in strip clubs, then going to the doctor when you feel like shit, where you get a bunch of pills that give you so many side-effects that it's not much of an improvement on having a virus and doing nothing about it

Kaspersky is much more better and  I love this one. I have been using that one as well.

I would be wary of Kaspersky, as they've been accused of having ties to the Russian government. They have since shaken a few things up, but why run the risk when there are other viable alternatives that aren't caught up in controversy?

I don't know about Avast, but Windows Defender should be good enough for the average user. It has been rated pretty high for a while now, and it comes with the advantage of not having to trust yet another third party (I'm assuming you trust Microsoft by running Windows lol) with potentially sensitive data. Some people recommend that it be run along with Malwarebytes. Really though, nothing will protect you more than knowledge and vigilance about potential threats.

Avast is one I didn't use. The ones I used in the past are: Kaspersky is OK, Avira tends to give a bit more false positives, but it's not bad and it's one of the oldest, Bitdefender is also pretty good.
I didn't do this procedure for quite long, maybe a year, maybe I should do a check myself these days

I understand you, it will be necessary to try. But which Antivirus is still better for these tasks, Kaspersky or Avast?

Slows down, but probably protects you from almost all types of up-to-date viruses that can harm your data and not just crypto either due to your mistake or by some hacker who tries to steal everything by sending continuous attacks to your PC even when you put your AV at switched off mode. And what space are these guys even talking about? It isn't really that big in size (depends on different types of AVs but still NOT THAT BIG, at least not that huge of how much blockchain captures your hard disk space) and all it has in it is the database of all types of updated viruses to save your back from being raped off. Maybe Carlton had some issues in the past or experienced something bad in the present?

There are many antivirus softwares on the market that comes with malware after installation. When it comes to antivirus protection for windows, am never a fan of any brand on the market. I use windows and I trust the windows defender that comes with it, that is the perfect match to fight any form  of attack.