Antivirus realtime protection: case in point.

shihonage wrote:
nsmike wrote:

[...]

I'll give you a hint :

nsmike wrote:

This is an unwarranted attitude. First off, no one said your advice "accomplishes nothing."

Raven wrote:

You? You're the expert who dishes out computer security advice to an already knowledgeable audience on a popular gaming forum. Good job, you've accomplished a lot.

That's called sarcasm. If you could misread something that obvious, it's no wonder you would see passive-aggressive as patient and diplomatic.

If you've got a bone to pick with my personality I encourage you to send me a PM instead of gracing this thread with more faulty accusations.

===

Although I really appreciate several posters' effort to actually remain on-topic, by the very nature of this thread has been living on borrowed time. Hopefully by reading the OP more people will become aware of realtime protection. If your system already ran it, it may be too late.

Oh, and I've tried many antiviruses over the years. This is not a viral marketing campaign, but although, apparently, BitDefender and Kaspersky are considered the best, Kaspersky is the one that's actually the best. It is the most comprehensive, customizeable, frequently-updated antivirus I've ever used. It's also got the best self-defense mechanisms I've seen in an antivirus, as it is resistant to most programmatic attempts to disable or remote control it.

You entirely ignored my last paragraph to make a non-existent point of contention.

You're being overly defensive and reading things that aren't there. Raven's posts were patient and diplomatic, while yours were consistently confrontational. You have only yourself to blame for any current backlash. I've got no sympathy for you, and you need an attitude adjustment.

"Were" would be past tense, which is a bit more obvious than the sarcasm you presumed I missed. I didn't. His latest post was not patient, referring specifically to the sarcasm, hence the "current backlash." And I can't say I blame him for losing patience. I will not PM you over this, as I am trying to restore some civility to this thread, and it is no less a private issue than your confrontational attitude, so publicly presented here already.

nsmike, my attitude is exactly what you read into it. I may have been academical or overly dry for you - that's just how I express myself at times - but I'm not the one who started resorting to ad hominem. It was Raven, then you.

Meditate on that for a while.

Oh, and -

You entirely ignored my last paragraph to make a non-existent point of contention.

As I pointed out, you set the precedent for that with your second opening sentence. If you want others to play fair, don't start by dipping them in the dirt.

I will not PM you over this, as I am trying to restore some civility to this thread

Great. You can start by not flaming me anymore

nsmike,

That's just the way Shihonage is, just be thankful he hasn't mentioned "Lost" yet.

Nosferatu wrote:

nsmike,

That's just the way Shihonage is, just be thankful he hasn't mentioned "Lost" yet.

Hmm. From his latest reply, it looks that way.

shihonage wrote:

nsmike, my attitude is exactly what you read into it. I may have been academical or overly dry for you - that's just how I express myself at times - but I'm not the one who started resorting to ad hominem. It was Raven, then you.

An "ad hominem" attack is used to discredit a person and lessen the power of the facts they present by attacking their character. I wasn't actually trying to discredit your positions on security. Neither was Raven. I even said I thought you were right. My problem was just that you were contentious from the start. And "personality" isn't really an excuse for a contentious attitude. And a contentious attitude isn't a discussion-provoking means of expression.

nsmike wrote:

An "ad hominem" attack is used to discredit a person and lessen the power of the facts they present by attacking their character. I wasn't actually trying to discredit your positions on security. Neither was Raven. I even said I thought you were right.

Forgive me, I phrased myself incorrectly. By ad hominem, I meant personal attack. It just sounded better in latin.

My problem was just that you were contentious from the start. And "personality" isn't really an excuse for a contentious attitude. And a contentious attitude isn't a discussion-provoking means of expression.

Again - I'm sorry if you perceive things this way. Maybe you think the Spock character in Star Trek was contentious too. Maybe my surgical dryness and your tendencies for grandstanding won't just ever get along. I guess there's only way to solve this - after math class, behind the stadium. Bring a bat.

shihonage wrote:
nsmike wrote:

An "ad hominem" attack is used to discredit a person and lessen the power of the facts they present by attacking their character. I wasn't actually trying to discredit your positions on security. Neither was Raven. I even said I thought you were right.

Forgive me, I phrased myself incorrectly. By ad hominem, I meant personal attack. It just sounded better in latin.

My problem was just that you were contentious from the start. And "personality" isn't really an excuse for a contentious attitude. And a contentious attitude isn't a discussion-provoking means of expression.

Again - I'm sorry if you perceive things this way. Maybe you think the Spock character in Star Trek was contentious too. Maybe my surgical dryness and your tendencies for grandstanding won't just ever get along. I guess there's only way to solve this - after math class, behind the stadium. Bring a bat.

Ergh. It's always harder to argue when they apologize...

I wasn't trying to attack you so much as I was trying to discourage your attitude.

Dryness doesn't always come across well in text. And most of your answers seem like they're trying to siphon off all argument.

And forget the bat. I'm bringing my battle axe.

shihonage wrote:

Again - I'm sorry if you perceive things this way. Maybe you think the Spock character in Star Trek was contentious too. Maybe my surgical dryness and your tendencies for grandstanding won't just ever get along. I guess there's only way to solve this - after math class, behind the stadium. Bring a bat.

Surgical Dryness or Provocative Asshattery? You be the judge!

Deserter wrote:

Surgical Dryness or Provocative Asshattery? You be the judge!

Looks like the latter to me.

doihaveto wrote:
trip1eX wrote:

Cough Mac Cough.

Security by obscurity is not security. ;)

It's also a completely unfounded statement.

The logic that "an OS isn't as targeted as Windows, therefore it's probably just as insecure" has zero technical basis. Though it doesn't imply the reverse either.

doihaveto wrote:

Oddly apropos timing. I finally succeeded in getting our corporate offices to turn on the real time scan on our virus client. I spent all day yesterday getting the same phone call repeatedly, "My computer is slow."

One way I've resolved this problem before, was to turn off run-time scans for all executables and files related to the stuff I was doing 90% of the time: so all Visual Studio executables, and all directories containing stuff I'm working on. It's a reasonably good security/efficiency tradeoff - the system was much faster, and chances that a virus would infect those particular files but not others is close to nil.

doihaveto wrote:
trip1eX wrote:

Cough Mac Cough.

Security by obscurity is not security. ;)

True that. I always am astonished when people say Mac OSX/BSD/Linux don't need AV...you go online, you wrap that rascal, hear?

*Legion* wrote:
doihaveto wrote:
trip1eX wrote:

Cough Mac Cough.

Security by obscurity is not security. ;)

It's also a completely unfounded statement.

The logic that "an OS isn't as targeted as Windows, therefore it's probably just as insecure" has zero technical basis. Though it doesn't imply the reverse either.

I'm not saying OSX as an operating system isn't secure - BSD in general is frightfully good at preventing system-level attacks. But most infections these days happen through social engineering - spam or websites containing trojans or 0-day exploits, which somehow trick the user into giving them the permission to run or even install.

OSX users aren't as targeted as Windows users, and good for them - they don't have to deal with all of this craziness. But there's no reason to believe that, if they started getting targeted, they'd somehow be more immune to social engineering tricks.

As a sysadmin who did a lot of digging into OSX -- a LOT -- in the early days, let me assure you that Apple is not terribly security-focused. A great deal of their code is very old, and I guarantee you that there are plenty of holes in it. I saw some fairly egregious security holes myself, with just a sysadmin's knowledge, in the 10.1 release; someone who was actually GOOD at attack-type security would have gone through that OS like a hot knife through butter.

I don't see any more obvious problems, but that left a bad enough taste in my mouth that I strongly suspect OSX is about as hackproof as cheesecloth is waterproof. It's just that hackers mostly don't bother attacking it, because it's not at critical mass yet -- viruses can't easily guarantee that they'll be spread from Mac to Mac to Mac. It's much more likely that they'll run into Windows machines along the way, and cross-platform payloads are very rare.

If Macs get up to, say, 25% market share, you'll start seeing a lot more exploits for them.

(The BSD layer is reasonably secure, mind, but that's not the bottom of the system... BSD is just a 'personality' of the actual Mach operating system, and there are likely to be a great number of attack vectors on that relatively unproven base. BSD itself is pretty damn solid, but if it's layered on a bad foundation, that won't help much.)

All that said, there really aren't any Mac viruses at the moment.

doihaveto wrote:

I'm not saying OSX as an operating system isn't secure - BSD in general is frightfully good at preventing system-level attacks. But most infections these days happen through social engineering - spam or websites containing trojans or 0-day exploits, which somehow trick the user into giving them the permission to run or even install.

OSX users aren't as targeted as Windows users, and good for them - they don't have to deal with all of this craziness. But there's no reason to believe that, if they started getting targeted, they'd somehow be more immune to social engineering tricks.

OK, then you and I aren't disagreeing at all. The "security by obscurity" line read to me a little differently than this explanation, but I see what you meant.

IMAGE(http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/8383/1161356741260zr2sh4.jpg)

Yeah like I said earlier in this thread, and I can see you all agree with me, OS/X isn't necessarily more secure in and of itself, but having low market share definitely helps you avoid attack.

trip1eX wrote:

Yeah like I said earlier in this thread, and I can see you all agree with me, OS/X isn't necessarily more secure in and of itself, but having low market share definitely helps you avoid attack.

Then by recommending that people buy a mac aren't you hurting your own chances of avoiding virus attacks? Shouldn't you be telling everyone they're the worst computers ever made? Or are you just not as self serving as I am?

If I had a Mac and people asked me what to get I'd be all like "No, oh god no, you don't want one of those. They.. uh, they smell funny. All the time. Yeah."

Thin_J wrote:
trip1eX wrote:

Yeah like I said earlier in this thread, and I can see you all agree with me, OS/X isn't necessarily more secure in and of itself, but having low market share definitely helps you avoid attack.

Then by recommending that people buy a mac aren't you hurting your own chances of avoiding virus attacks? Shouldn't you be telling everyone they're the worst computers ever made? Or are you just not as self serving as I am?

If I had a Mac and people asked me what to get I'd be all like "No, oh god no, you don't want one of those. They.. uh, they smell funny. All the time. Yeah."

Yes, you are right. The more people pick up OSX, the less the obscurity defense will help. There are a bunch of proactive OSX/BSD hackers that are trying to find where the holes are according to a bunch of blogs I have seen, but I am not certain what role Apple is actually playing in these efforts.

hehe. Yeah I was just thinking of that a few minutes ago and came back here to tell everyone Macs are crap.