Why you shouldnt pay for antivirus programs anymore
Anti-virus protection software has been a fact of computer users' lives for almost as long as anyone care to remember. But have recent changes in system software and user behavior made anti-virus software needless? Let's take a good look at the facts.
Windows Vista
It's no secret that most malware targets Windows-based machines, because it's spread widely. Microsoft recognized this and addressed the problem by integrating anti-malware technology (called UAC - User Account Control) directly into its Windows Vista Kernel.
UAC is automatically finds potentially dangerous situations and
temporarily suspends suspicious programs effectively
trapping any malware that may be trying to install itself on the
machine.
Windows Defender protects Vista PCs by working to keep the system free of many types of malware, including spyware and adware. Last, but not least is Windows Firewall. WF, meanwhile, blocks suspicious types of incoming/outgoing traffic,. It has very poor configuration capabilities, but it greatly enhance system security. The automatic updating features provide yet another layer of protection by ensuring that the system is kept up-to-date with the latest security patches; this feature does not require the user to take any action.
Therefore:
The combination of UAC, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall and
automating updating does a very good job of keeping Vista-based
machines secure and up-to-date. Unless a Vista user is inclined to perform foolish
actions (such as intentionally subverting UAC and other
security-oriented services), external anti-virus protection is usually
unnecessary.
Windows XP
Although Vista has been widely available
for more than a year, many users continue continue to rely on computers with Windows XP.
While Windows XP remains a stable and definitely usable platform, its vulnerability to malware is well-known. XP doesn't have UAC,
Windows Defender or other security improvements. Although Microsoft and
various software vendors have worked hard to patch the numerous
security holes found in XP, new and serious vulnerabilities continue to arise quite regularly.
Mac OS X
It's no secret that Mac users like to feel superior to Windows ones, particularly when it comes to security. A 2007 study conducted by McAfee Inc.'s Avert Labs found that out of more than 236,000 known malware programs, only 7 of them targeted OS X. Unfortunately, this situation has changed for the worse since then. Despite the rise of the Mac malware, the situation is still dramatically better for OS X users than it is for MS users. This makes it much less likely, although not impossible, for a Mac system to be compromised by a virus.
Therefore: By following smart practices, such as keeping Macintosh OS up-to-date and not clicking unknown email attachments/download unknown files from the web, it is generally safe to use a OS X computer without anti-virus software. But those who need to engage in unsafe practices or who have extra security concerns can install Macintosh versions of anti-virus, anti-malware and firewall programs.
Linux/Unix
Therefore: Given the fact that Linux viruses are relatively rare and that most Linux users are highly knowledgeable, the need for add-on anti-virus protection is minimal. Still, if one has an office filled with inexperienced computer users working on Linux machines, installing anti-virus software isn't necessarily a bad idea.
Conclusion
Whether to abandon add-on anti-virus software hinges on
several factors, including the particular type of OS and how the it's
being used (box that isn't used for email or web surfing, for
instance, isn't likely to get hit with a virus). Other factors to
consider include the level of user knowledge and experience (knowing, e.g., not
to recklessly open unknown email attachments) and the computer owner's
willingness to accept an increased level of risk.
Posted at 03:00PM Nov 06, 2008 by admin in Antivirus |