Microsoft it seems is trying to go the same way as Apple. They are now offering free virus protection and malware. http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/security_essentials/default.aspx I have always used Norton at home and never had a problem. My questions are: - Is it worth changing over or do I stick to tried and trusted Norton. Would you trust Microsoft software have the same level of security? Is it a poor gimmic?
I'm not big on either... I tend to use AVG free... knock on wood. But I've seen people crash and burn on just about everything - but so far just the basic AVG free has done me right. If I worry about anything or I suspect anything or something spooks me... I Sandboxx it.
About time. You're running Windows 7 right? The MS security essentials package is actually pretty damn good. You'll get the same if not slightly better level of protection as AVG free, with a lot less overhead and it's nowhere near as horribly intrusive ad Norton. I say go for it.
I am actually running (as is my wife) Windows XP, although I after a new laptop which will run Windows 7.
i don't know about the microsoft software but i use Avast free, it's loads better than AVG and unintrusive unlike norton. And as an added bonus you can set it to talk to you in 'pirate' XD
MS's product isn't terrible. Norton on the other hand, should be taken out back, shot, burned, and never spoken of again. I recomend Avira myself.
Coolio. I'd say give it a try. Although getting rid of Norton will probably be a pain in the ****, so it may be worth holding out until you get the win7 machine.
There are certainly a lot of haters for Norton and it can on occasions slow the PC. I have found though that it does a good job and many of us are guilty of sticking with the same product year on year, much like we do with car insurance policies.
I tend to recommend Avira Anti-Virus. It works quite well and they also have a good selection of free downloads. However with that said. Anti-Virus software is a bit like sticking your finger in the dyke after you've spotted the leak. Some water still gets through. Trying to stop malicious software with what is basically a black list of software is almost pointless. You can only stop the stuff you know about. The Linux approach I feel is much better. Proper application privilege lock-down via AppArmor in combination with user privilege lock-down. Basically rather than trying to spot every naughty application in existence. The system only allows applications to be executed with their defined privileges. And since it's embedded in the kernel, the OS is protected as early as possible on boot. Which is quite different from the bolt-on approach we have on Windows. It's not really exactly the right analogy. But in simple terms Linux operates with a white list of allowed applications. Windows operates with varying black lists. Then of course we have the Linux software repositories which are commonly used to hold installable software. To get into the official repositories your application needs to be reviewed. By many pairs of eyes. Or come from a trusted source. A few years back there was also a bit of scandal around the anti-virus application vendors. Many of them were point blank refusing to uninstall properly. And Norton was amongst the companies caught leaving spyware behind. This spyware reported back to a Microsoft server. To this day I don't think any body has ever revealed or discovered exactly what it was Norton were reporting back to Microsoft. The worst part of all though is that quite often anti-virus software just doesn't work. If it did, drive-by web browser attacks wouldn't be a problem. Windows wouldn't be the massive target it is today. However that problem is exacerbated by application integration into the core OS in Windows. Microsoft I think really have no option but to give away free security software. The use of third party vendors leaves users vulnerable to social engineering which tricks them into installing ransomware. Thinking it's a free anti-virus application. Which is something that's always perplexed me about Windows users. They all want free everything but refuse to try an alternative OS. Even ones as finely polished as Ubuntu or Fedora. It took Google to release Android for tablets to get consumers to seriously look at another option. In the end up though I doubt Microsoft's efforts will be any better than Norton or MacAffee or AVG. I mean Microsoft can't even keep a DNS server running. Something nobody else on the web seems to have any serious issues with. Of course the statement from Microsoft blames the "Internet's DNS address system" and not their own incompetence. Disclaimer: My opinions may be biased by the fact I have been tortured daily throughout my adult life by the stale pile of crap Microsoft calls software.
Hmmm. Sounds like a typical anti-MS rant but can't hold that against you. ;-) Most casual users won't have the time or inclination to flat-out switch OS and it's perfectly possible to operate safely with a MS desktop OS as long as you're aware of the dangers and exercise common sense.
That's the point though. Common sense on the Internet isn't that common. Your statement reminded me of a video I saw once asking people if they knew what a "browser" was. Most seemed to answer "Google" or a "search engine". My dad's Windows PC was constantly getting infected with viruses because he simply didn't understand. I switched Windows XP for Ubuntu and no more problems. It doesn't help him understand. But he is at least protected. He can't for example install software just by clicking "OK" to every single prompt. He has to stop and think and enter a password. For some reason demanding a password seems to make people think twice about things. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4MwTvtyrUQ&feature=player_embedded"]What is a Browser? - YouTube[/ame]
So if I were to download Ubuntu what is required in the way of anti virus and is that download of Ubuntu to be advised?
Aiki - Good point. User education would be the single biggest preventative measure, but by far the most difficult to implement. Another safe option would be to run a VM every time you go online, but most folks wouldn't want the palaver.
Microsoft Security Essentials isn't really new, it's been around for 2 years now and is on version 2.1, it includes Windows Defender that they've had for many years. I've been running it since it was in beta on several systems, so far so good. I know it it catches things on my wifes and mother in laws machines, I've used it (along with Malware Bytes) to clean up a cousins system that was seriously infested. Nothing is 100% reliable, I've had Avast miss detecting a virus, so for now I trust MSE more than Avast. The most safe option is one february suggested, use a virtual machine if you're going to visit questionable sites and wipe it when you're done. Quick and easy, but not really a good solution for non technical people.
VM's can be breached. There was a proof of concept code released at a recent Black Hat security conference where a hacker breaches the VM container and takes over the host. Whatever you implement in software. You can break in software.
There really aren't that many Linux virus doing the rounds at the moment in-spite of the fact that Linux runs the world. The desktop user is the weakest link in the security chain. Which is why the desktop OS needs to protect the desktop user from themselves. Which Windows just doesn't do. In Linux all you need to do is engage your brain. Do sensible things like stick to installing software only from trusted sources. Most of the software is open source. That means it's likely to have been peer reviewed by many pairs of eyes. Apart from that, remember to enable your firewall. Well I am biased in my opinions. So I'm not going to tell you to switch. That decision is yours and yours alone. However you can check Ubuntu out without installing it. It'll run right off the installer CD and a "live distribution". You'll basically have a full desktop OS running off of a CD-ROM. This approach has become very common in the Linux world. You get to evaluate the OS without installing it and without making any changes to your system set up. Your PC just needs to be able to boot from a CD. If your PC is very old you may wish to consider Xubuntu. Which is a lighter variant. If you decideto make the switch wait until October to see how the next version pans out. Ubuntu releases are every 6 months compared to every 3 to 10 years for Windows. Ubuntu has just moved o a new desktop inteace called Unity. In my opinion it needs a bit more work. However it works fine for most day to day stuff. If you really need Windows after you switch you can always run Windows in a VM. Almost all Windows software will be happy to run that way. The only problem is games. For gamers I'd recommend dual booting. Dual booting is where you install two OSs side by side. It might sound complicated and scary. However the Ubuntu installer will take care of it for you. The most important thing to do is to back everything up. Make a disc image if you can.
I forgot to say. The open source world actively encourages user to learn how their PCs work. Proprietary vendors like Microsoft and Apple need to hide how things work other wise you don't need all the additional services that surround their products.
There is always the option of going for a Mac (yes they're insanely overpriced blah blah blah). * runs from thread
Osu, For years, I've used an XP tablet PC with Avira, firefox+noscript & Spybot S&D. That PC is dying slowly, and I just jumped the creek to an Apple MacAir 13"... I am in the middle of the transition, but so far, so good. My IT guy runs a linux m/c, so I got to try it on several occasions & I never quite liked it. (Had to prevent everyone from using BaiDu, and a few other "attack" local sh!tty sites though, but since then we are good! ------ BTW, BaiDu is listed on the NYSE: To all the yanks that speak of freedom, privacy protection, etc... PLEASE, for whomeveryoubelievein's sake, STOP FINANCING THESE BASTARDS!) OSu!
