Comments on: Vista Is So Secure That It Doesn’t Need An Antivirus

By: CD

CD — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:31:33 +0000

I think his reasoning is that people must not fall into the same trap as the typical sick person in that there is some kind of “miracle pill fix-all” in the event we get sick. You can also prevent yourself from getting sick by eating healthy. I think that is his emphasis.

For example, I can easily make a machine secure without an anti-virus.

Caulk the Floppy Drive, Duct-tape the CD drive, gum the USB ports, and yank the network cabl….

By: MetaMan

MetaMan — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:29:34 +0000

I would like to point out that Vista needs an Anti-Virus only slightly more than Mac OSX does. Both are vulnerable, and both require you to authenticate before the virus installs. The Vista viruses might prove to be a little more harmful, though .

By: SLA

SLA — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:57:58 +0000

Don’t forget, that there are some viruses/trojans, which are spreading in networks using Windows vulnerabilities (without any user interaction!), there are worms, created specifically for Outlook, which runs once you highlight the letter (you even don’t need to open any attachments!).
So, no matter how clever you are, ALWAYS USE ANTIVIRUS.

By: SLA

SLA — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:42:57 +0000

OK, Vista is planned to be secure, it is secure *theoretically*, but imagine all those tons of vulnerabilities (in all those Vista-specific security functions), which will be found in first years of using Vista.

For example, Linux have another meaning of security. It is solid and stable, because it was built for years, and it is REAL part of Operating System.

Windows Security is not really something built-in into Windows. It is more like add-on to Windows. That’s why it is unreliable!

By: Indipender

Indipender — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:43:59 +0000

And what if spyware attacks your computer? I know, one spyware is not a big deal. But what if tonns of it come? You can never be carefull enough not to get theese. Most virus scanners detect spyware too…

By: Justin Halsall

Justin Halsall — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:11:29 +0000

That guy is full of it!

By: pdedecker

pdedecker — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:46:45 +0000

Some people (for example: Charlie White from Gizmodo) think that they don't need an anti-virus program. Charlie said once on his podcast that if people are careful, they will not get any viruses. That seems to be true, because after five years without a virus scanner, he decided to run a scan on his PC. Result? 0 viruses found. In his opinion, anti-virus products are just a waste of RAM. Another reason not to use a virus scanner: if there's a new virus that infects your pc, virus scanners are not able to detect that yet because it's too new. But enough about Charlie. Personally, I always have a virus scanner running in the background. Although it never detected something evil (except for maybe one minor thread a few years ago), I just feel safer.

By: TheSlasher

TheSlasher — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:47:24 +0000

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:29:05 +0000

Yeah, and the Titanic is built so well it’s unsinkable.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:42:14 +0000

Mo wrote:

I am sorry but I don’t care how secure a system is I am still going to run anti virus. I am running ubuntu 6.10 and I am still running ClamAV with ClamTK front end. Better be safe than sorry.

So true, isn’t it funny how everyone goes and purchases/downloads antivirus software AFTER they have gotten a virus. It is so much easier to prevent a disaster than it is to recover from one.