Preserved Topic: Can one make it without Anti-Virus software? (Page 1 of 2)

It would seem my web-host is one hella cocky bastard... He says he doesn't need any Anti-Virus software because he is really good at/with security. What do you guys think about this, seriously? Is this true? I think he's an idiot! What do you guys think?

What Operating System is the web-host running?

If he's running Windows then he's mad.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

indeed, nothing is 100% secure.

Still, I must disagree InI. A lamp Internet Server does not need an anti-virus solution if you don't allow users to execute binaries.
And if you do, you have other things* to worry about, which incidentially, catch virtually all viri. A server that only offers http, ftp and ssh (with private keys, d'oh) to the world has to be protected, for example with md5()s of all binaries, stored off location and regular comparisions, but it has not to be protected specifically against viri.

so long,
->Tyberius Prime

* = rootkits...

If he's "really good with security", he must also have a LOT (preferably greater than 24 man/hours a day) of time to devote to the constant tweaking and patching of his system...

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
"Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." -- P. David Lebling

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Wait... I'm not talking about a server... I'm talking about his personal computer! I misworded my question so I'll rephraise..

My webhost and I are friends with one-another and he hosts my site (he rules)... Well on his personal computer, he claims he doesn't need anti-virus protection because he is a master with security. Now he downloads a lot of shit and whatnot. Is he nuts? I believe he needs antivirus software. What do you guys think?

"I think Bush is an idiot... I think Kerry is an even bigger idiot! Vote Bush 2004!"

Just to clearify things, Its my "Personal Computer", not website..

1) Windows XP.
2) About 18 Hours Every Day.
3) No service on the machine is able to be accessed to reboot the machine.
4) 512 Bit firewall encrytion.
5) on Services.msc only a few are on, Event Log, Network Connections, Plug and Play, Remote Procedure Call, and Windows Audio.

No service from windows Xp can access the internet at all, I block it 24/7, I block ads, spyware, anti-p2p groups and government as well.

No viruses Detected, No spyware Detected, No adware Detected.

what does this prove? it proves im doing something right.


--Edit--
on most networks... a virus is usually a little 1-3MB file ranging in different varients, Its highly unlikely for somebody to pass on a 4 GB dvd with a crap load of viruses attached, and since most files i deal with are in .rar or ISO format, its very unlikely for a virus to attach itself to it if the hosts machine was infected, it usually goes for EXE's, and DLL's.

(Edited by cShadow on 09-16-2004 19:14)

^^^ Well there you have it my fellow inmates; That was my webhost. What do you guys think?

Should he have a virus scanner or is he as 'invincable' as he puts off to be?

"I think Bush is an idiot... I think Kerry is an even bigger idiot! Vote Bush 2004!"

He probably doesn't need it.

Most computer problems, viruses included, are the result of the user. If he's blocking all incoming traffic and is careful with what he downloads he might never come across a problem. He can even get buy using online virus scans.

Of course you can make it without an antivirus program. This very February (about a year after I got broadband) I installed for the first time any type of antivirus program on my computers. Only the newest PC had been infected by anything. A single virus, Junkie (old DOS FAT bootsector virus), contracted from a diskette with Prince of Persia that I had used on the school computers at some time. (I know my 286 had Junkie too (same source), but I wiped and sold that comp when it turned old.) So, keeping free of viri isn't that hard even without antivirus programs, on Windows 9x or NT systems from my experience. Once I installed AdAware I found a few spywares that I removed, though. I have repository of archived email viri lying around, but so far only Junkie has managed to actually infect my system.

--
var Liorean = {
prototype: XHTMLGuru.prototype,
abode: "http://web-graphics.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

(Edited by liorean on 09-16-2004 20:11)

I remember a while back, Microsoft blamed the problems of Windows with users, then Released XP SP2.... LOL, what a joke...


I for one will most definately not upgrade to it, Ive seen what it has Become....
build 2096.... Fast but a little bit glitchy...
build 2111.... Same glitch remained...
build 2141.... Pretty good, they fixed the glitch...
Final Release.... What a joke, Every time they made new version, Memory got higher and Higher on it...

on 2096... Ive got system memory down to using about 34 MB worth of memory..... with 2111 - 37MB, 2141 - 44 MB, Final - 73MB....

Thats all the proof that I need to see its bloatware packed with rubbish. Guess thats how windows works.... its the "Lets see how much resources we can use and still not fix the explorer memory leak.

god, so typical microsoft.

I think you might like to read Raymond Chen's The old new thing blog. Especially some of the archive entries relating to compatibility. One thing he makes clear is that essentially, Microsoft still support undocumented function calls from DOS and Windows that have been in the operative system since the first versions, just in the name of backwards compatibility with some applications. Microsoft has gone through loops to support everything they can. They correct bugs in games by introducing application specific behavior in the operative system. They make new version after new version of old internal interfaces because there is an application or two that still use them. If Microsoft were to introduce a new policy of not correcting the operative system to work with applications, but require developers to use only documented interfaces, then half of the applications written for that version of Windows would break, not to speak of those written for earlier or later ones. This is the reason why Microsoft seldom release small service patches - you can't easily correct something that have a dozen different entry points without breaking applications using one or the other of those entry points.

--
var Liorean = {
prototype: ProgrammingTheoryGuru.prototype,
abode: "http://codingforums.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

quote:

---

Topic: Can one make it without Anti-Virus software?

---

Short answer:

No.

Long answer:

Depends.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

You could obviously turn your AV on and off.
Turn it off when you are not connected (or put the internet lock on)
Turn it on when you are connected or downloading files.
Obviously it depends on what you are doing...if you are a kazaa or p2p user other than just mp3s you better have it.

I couldn't give a shit about viruses because i ghost my system.
but i do care about trojans and keyloggers because i bank online.

quote:

---

InI said:

a 100% secure system can't, in theory, be built, it's as impossible as "reaching
perfection" in anything

---

wrong. a standalone system such as a workstation can be 100% secure

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Standalone systems are not 100% secure because they can be compromised by individuals who have gained physical access to them.

In order to be 100% secure a machine needs to be completely non-functional and if the box was ever functional to begin with the data it contains is always at risk.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Ini:
You should see someone for your anger.
not good for you. you'll have a heart attack by 40 dude and you can fuckinggoogle that ahole.

InI: Sorry to see you take it that way. My post on optimisations was based on empirical testing and studying some engine code. The DOM optimisation reasoning came from notes on an implementation of DOM in Java and on design decisions for the DOM based on possible optimisations for different languages - which I got pointed out to me were only relevant for threaded environments, and that single threaded environments can optmise performance by simply removing that step from it. After testing that this was true, I corrected myself.

As for the virus post, I was just pointing out that the antivirus is actually one of the less important security meassures you can take. Making sure to reduce possible exposure and the damage that can be done are often more important prevention mechanisms. Sure, I bet I would have contracted several viri if I had ever used file sharing and such to any broader degree. Or if I had used a mail client that allows arbitrary execution of code. Or if I had used more mainstream computer programs and less obscure programs. (Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excell are notorious for their security holes - too many dependencies, too much automation. ) The antivirus program is good for detecting and removing viri, not in avoiding them.

There is no perfect being, program or security. Remember the physics rule: any system that is observed is at the same time both affecting and affected by the observer.

Think of the C compiler. It's not the usual place for a virus, right? In most cases, the C compiler is implemented in C. So, some of the things it does are to map features in the implementation to the corresponding features in the host language, and since they are the same, you can in some cases do a mapping that looks like ImplementationFeatureA --> HostFeatureA. This means that if you compile the C compiler with a ImplementationFeatureA --> if condition do HostFeatureA else do MaliciousCode. Now, this would be easily detected if the source is open, and won't take long to fix. However, if you first do that and then recompile the compiler with the original mapping, you will have built in that malicious code into the compiler in such a way that it doesn't appear in the source code. However, if you say that the condition detects a call to a standard security interface, and the malicious code is such that it logs the username and password, any code compiled with that compiler which uses that security interface will become a keylogger - without any part of the keylogging being present in the source code. This would be a deviously hard thing to detect, and tedious work to remove from the C compiler since you have to find it at the machine code level.

--
var Liorean = {
prototype: XMLGuru.prototype,
abode: "http://web-graphics.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

Wow... InI at first i thought you seemed knowledgable... Now I see your just a tempermental off-topic flamer with no fucking clue.

I said nothing about a god damned workstation or a dedicated server, you assumed that.

--ENDPOST--

(Edited by cShadow on 09-17-2004 03:04)

quote:

---

liorean said:

Sorry to see you take it that way

---

man you are one gentleman.

quote:

---

Wow... InI at first i thought you seemed knowledgable... Now I see your just a tempermental off-topic flamer with no fucking clue.

---

Time has shown that he can be both. =)

But I would worry if my webhost didn't use any anti-virus software, because even if he had the ability to keep his system 100% safe, it would be a lot more economical for him to use AV software than to spend the time necessary to prevent every single possible vulnerability that could occur.

I would also worry if my webhost used the word "your" when he should have used the word "you're." But that might just be me.

In any case, can we please not let this continue as a flame war? If there are insults to be made, take it to email; the rest of us don't need to hear about it.


 

I'm not a security expert, but like some others said above, the first thing to do is to avoid any possibilities to get a virus. Be it by using Open Source Softwares ( with a really tight bugfix timeline ), reading only text emails, blocking some ports, avoid P2P and piracy stuffs ... And finally, as shit happens, use an AntiVirus.

liorean: Your previous post makes me realize the challenge Apple took in developing Mac OS X. I wonder if MicroSoft could embrace a similar approach and code a new OS from scratch and, at worst, emulate the previous bloated behaviors for the sake of backward compatibility. The old applications would run slower, but the new ones would run really smoothly.

cShadow: InI is a knowledgeable and tempermental person. Oh, and welcome in the Asylum.

I am currently living without an anti-virus and 80-90% of the time (let's say during the last four years) I didn't have one. I believe that if you are cautious and if you are not stupid, you can live without an anti-virus happily ever after. My motto is: if I have any doubts, I delete it. If it was important and I misjudged, then it was really not important. And, keep your system updated. Viruses (virii, whatever) just can't get me because I AM UNCATCHABLE !!! I defy all viruses of the world to come and infect my human-shielded system (well, I am right now with some kind of flu, so, there are some viruses that can get me and always will...)

Not sure I can retell this accurately, but in the big perspective this describes the development up til now:

Well, Apple is very different from Microsoft in this. Apple have always had the view that ondocumented features are undocumented features - use them at your own peril, don't go complaining to Apple when your application no longer works when they come out with a new release of the operative system. They also have a far greater history of incompatible changes. In general, MacOS applications have never been compatible more than two, three, maybe if you're lucky four major OS releases. This trend of putting system integrity before backwards compatibility - at least in the case of third party applications - is much of the reason why Apply were able to pull off that switch from the 68k processor architecture to the PPC architecture. The other reason would be that they did have a very good and fast emulation layer that allowed old applications to work, similar to the change from DOS to Win32 that Microsoft did. So, you could upgrade your hardware and your OS, and retain most of your programs. However, you wanted to quickly upgrade your software. Most did this quickly, and Apple didn't lose many users in the changeover. Then we have the funding problems, the shaky period, where Apple desperately needed to get something out. They looked at buying Be or NeXT. Be hadn't been commercially exposed and they didn't know whenther they could produce what they promised. NeXT had a product on the market, had persons they knew, had an overall better solution. They went with the NeXT solution. (And this decision was probably what in the end led to the downfall of Be. An operative system without hold a platform will not survive. It's like a brain without a blood circulation to provide it with oxygen and metabolites.) Anyway, going with the NeXT solution they got a core OS that was far more powerful than their old one. The underlying architecture changed, but they retained many parts of their numerous failed projects in between, and their core Carbon API. Building on top of thes two, they built a system widely surpassing NeXTSTEP. The step from Postscript to PDF rendering and OpenGL provided the Quartz graphics toolkit and together these features built the system capabilities of OS X today. However, one piece is still missing. Backwards compatibility. This time the compatibility layer would have to be an OS emulation and not a processor emulation. It became the Classic mode. However, the compatibility and the performance was not at all as good as last time, meaning that many outfits didn't or haven't changed over from OS9 yet, because the benefit is not enough to warrant the cost of changing. However, I believe with both Quark and Adobe InDesign in native OS X versions these days, OS 9 is in the process of being phased out from print and media firms too.

(For more accurate and in detail retelling see http://kernelthread.com/)


The Microsoft story is different. They have tried to change over from, or at least tried to become independent of, the IA32/x86-32 architecture. Alpha, MIPS, Itanium (IA64). The demand has been too small for them to break free. Their operative systems have in large been backwards compatible, and upgrades have been driven on the fact that the number of new computers sold per two years was greater then the entire computer base was before. That curve has flattened, and Microsoft are today finding themselves in a situation where they have not learned how to convince the users to buy a new operative system, and where the computer turnover is too small to sustain the upgrade speed they want. They were forced to prolong the Win98 support period because too large a user base was still using it. If they build a new operative system, they must build something that is sufficiently good and valuable that they can convince not only application developers to develop for this new system, but also convince end users that it gives them something sufficiently important for them to actually upgrade. Longhorn is an improvement on Win2k3 and WinXP, but is it sufficient? What benefits would be needed for you to buy Longhorn for your old computer, to upgrade the operative system of your old hardware? What happens if this system is not compatible with the applications you are already using, what would then be sufficient to warrant an upgrade? How about the corporate and government side, what would be required for them, who generally are slower at upgrading than the private user, to upgrade?

Microsoft had two projects, Longhorn and it's successor. The intention was that Longhorn would be a partial rewrite, but the successor would drop the old parts and complete the rewrite. The critical parts to this would be WinFS, WinFX, Avalon, Indigo etc. WinFS will not make it into Longhorn, but will be released later. Avalon will be retrofitted to Win2k3 and WinXP in a somewhat crippled form. Microsoft are trying to introduce future compatibility to their old systems - because backwards compatibility with the old systems isn't enough. They need the WinXP and Win2k3 user base to convince application developers that developing with Avalon is a good choice.

--
var Liorean = {
prototype: ProgrammingTheoryGuru.prototype,
abode: "http://web-graphics.com/",
profile: "http://codingforums.com/member.php?u=5798"};

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

FFS - where's the argument?

Whether you feel you need antivirus software or not, you are blind to the operations of malicious software without it - you might think nothing is wrong, but you can pick up gigs of malicious data before anything obvious gives the game away, so better safe than sorry, eh?

If you use a standalone machine offline and never insert media into it that hasn't been created and used only and entirely upon said machine, nor ever allow anyone else to use it (and lock it in a safe when unattended), you could say that you don't need antivirus software - but I'd still say "better safe than sorry".

Any argument to the contrary is just silly. You can argue that you don't need to wear a crash helmet on a motorcycle, but you'll be lucky if you live to regret it - anybody who says they haven't ever had an accident on a motorcycle after a decade of riding is either a liar, or never leaves their driveway. Same goes for PCs - if you think can go just half a decade without falling victim to malicious software even once (even with AV software) then you are either sorely deluded, or intend never to switch the thing on.

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

I was chatting with him via IM and this is what he had to say:

quote:

---

BoSS DarkShadoW2: these guys are novice.
BoSS DarkShadoW2: complete idiots when it comes to specifics... meh, in my opinion... bunch of cut and paste retards

---

Interesting actually, I think you guys know more than he does.. LOL

"I think Bush is an idiot... I think Kerry is an even bigger idiot! Vote Bush 2004!"

I can't see not having an AV program running on my pc when there's something like AVG out there. Free, with updates, and frequently catches virii that Norton doesn't see. (I've used both at the same time before... interesting results)

If you surf the net, you're vulnerable. Pure and simple. But how you deal with that vulnerability is entirely up to you. As long as you don't pass on your virii to me, I got no issues with it.

I can think of better things to do on the computer than hunt down and fix problems...

Let's put this simple.
You never ever need any form of protection unless something happens.

History however, has taught most of us that something, at some point in time, always, without exception, happens...

It's just a matter of time.
I went from -96 to quite recently with a semi decent protection (FW + AV) and never contracted anything, then one day the lovely creator of blaster discovered that he could infect machines without user interaction... This hit me while I had my FW down for 2 minutes during a wierd ftp-transfer...
So much for my virus free streak...

It doesn't matter how smart and meticilous (sp?) you are, some one will always get an idea that you havn't thought of.
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?Computer games don?t affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we?d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.? (Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989.) }-

quote:

---

InI said:

Got jpegs? There's a gap in your system.

---

You forgot to mention that someone could sneak in and throw anthrax powder on the keyboard. - this would cause the user to keel over onto the keyboard and, in a demented anthtrax-induced state type: format c: resulting in the destruction of what i so gullibly thought was a 100% secure system

what about a ufo landing on your desktop? how about a stray moose crapping on your power supply?
you forgot to mention the mp3 vulnerabilty which is just as likely to happen as the jpeg issue and all the other crap you mention just to argue, just to prove how intelligent you are.

the point was this , read it very sloooowwwlllyyyy, maybe that will help:
no contact with external world, no chance of infection....just like the bubble boy....
as long as you do not change anything on the system it remains a closed and secure, 100%, environment - secure from worms, virus, and trojans,....go fuckinggoogle.com and check that out.

(Edited by Shooting_Star on 09-17-2004 22:42)

quote:

---

White Hawk said:

anybody who says they haven't ever had an accident on a motorcycle after a
decade

---

I've been riding sports bikes and hogs since i was 12...much longer than a decade....i guess i'm a liar. funny that's there not a scratch on my body nor my 1200 bandit....and i ride very hard.

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

shooting_star:

If you are all done spouting ridiculous drivel for the moment, I would like to draw your attention to a simple fact of life. One that remains a fact wether or not you choose to recognize it.....

For every machine or system in existence there is someone or something with the ability to damage it. You can minimize that risk but not eliminate it. End of story.

I've been using PCs since 92 (used them before but only at some specific works), I'm accessing the Internet since 95, I never had a virus that was able to damage my system or even a single file, and I most of the time don't have an AV software, and I don't spend my time taking care of the system due to being afraid of virus because I am not afraid of them. OTOH, since 92, I have had 5 hard disks that have crashed and I have lost some interesting data due to the crashings. So, I am much much more worried about crashing my HDs than getting a virus.

Today, my important files are backed up in DVDs, my important partitions are backed up in its entirety as well in separate HDs. I can get a virus and it won't make any damage in my system because I can recover from it in 10 minutes (not counting the time necessary to install the applications since my last backup, that are done every once in a while, never _less_ then one month).

I hate viruses because they make good people lose money, they are bad to the Internet as a whole but you don't need an AV necessarily. It's good with them, but it's very feasible to live without them as long as you know what you're doing. And I hate the number of processes that Norton AV uses to do its job.

Exactly - good advice for your friend:

The whole point in protection is detection and prevention. It is not a case of if something might happen, but when something will happen.
Antivirus software may not be infallible, but neither's a condom, and that does so much less - you should still think about using one if you're going to go waving your ports about all over the internet.

If you think that you can manually detect and remove the business end of every infected file you're likely to be exposed to, even during normal internet usage, then go ahead and take the plunge with every online exchange - without a condom.

Enjoy! Just don't cough in my direction...

lol

==I don't believe it! Somebody stole my sig!!==

quote:

---

norm said:

If you are all done spouting ridiculous drivel for the moment

---

i did. i stopped spouting for the moment - and instead of "spouting ridiculous drivel"
i took the time to read you lame-assed self-rigtheous crap..you fucking moron.


edit: you or ini will have to explain to me how an AV program will prevent physical damage to a PC or a MAC. the thread was about AV or NOT AV. Once more, a system that is closed is 100% secure against viruses, trojans etc... it is NOT 100% secure against acts of god...read the first post.....we don't talk about SAMs or WOMD we talk about anti-virus....got it?

(Edited by Shooting_Star on 09-18-2004 00:16)

is that rubber i smell burning?

i echo the sentiments of you know who, above.
i only use the free stuff. (AVG, Zone Alarm, Tweaked Windows 98SE, free online virus/trogan/spyware/scans/common sense/etc...) and in the five years i've been using computers i've only been hit once by a search hi-jacker.

i only started using AVG a few months ago, and hardly ever online. mostly just as a precautionionary check-up.

guess i'm just not a very good target.

or not easy enough - ask my girlfriend!.