The article should be corrected then, it says "Grooten and Simon [...] still [recommend] getting a third-party one". If that doesn't mean "pay money, or get your newtab page hijacked", then what does it mean?
-
-
There's free AV (actually, there's a lot of them, including some of the bigger names), but I don't think I discussed with
@lorenzofb whether to replace the pre-installed AV.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @martijn_grooten @taviso and
How many of the free AV are just a way of upselling the commercial offering? For all its faults at least Defender doesn’t (yet?) pop up adverts everyday saying you’d be better upgrading to Defender Internet Security with Ultimate Phishing Protection.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @tiraniddo @martijn_grooten and
A discussion on business models is a very interesting one. But I think if we get into that then we get into how your company makes money and it all gets derailed.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lorenzofb @martijn_grooten and
I don't think it's derailing. In the general case for a company to offer a free and a commercial version the free one must have fewer features (or more adverts) than the commercial one to justify the upgrade. If you're arguing that free's good enough why would you ever pay?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @tiraniddo @martijn_grooten and
I tend to agree. As I said earlier though, when "average people" (and I know that's a flawed description in and of itself) come to me and ask: should I get an AV? After talking to some people who know more than me about this my conclusion is: probably, yes.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @lorenzofb @tiraniddo and
That conclusion is wrong, and dangerous. I think you're stuck on this idea that the problem with antivirus is antivirus exploits, and that is a serious problem, but the real problem is it just plain doesn't work. It is not safe to click on anything with AV, it is not even safer.
2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @taviso @lorenzofb and
I think all reasonable people, even in the AV industry, will agree with "doesn't make it safe to click on anything". The "not even safer" is more contentious, and that is where the debate is.
3 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @taviso @lorenzofb
Yes, they would. They would even, if not always publicly, agree that AV isn't your biggest priority. Here's a funny thing: lots of AV vendor blogs are filled with advice for (home and corporate) users. A lot of this advice actually reduces the need for AV.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
It's funny: AV is doing a pretty good job reducing the threat on all those legacy networks where half the desktops still run XP. But rather than boasting about it, AV vendors keep telling people to patch their systems, upgrade OS's. That's also why I believe AV aren't bad people.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
Don't push it too far Martijn, a homeopath that tells you to exercise and eat right is still a homeopath
Installing antivirus on XP does not make it a secure system, if the antivirus ever makes a difference then you're in serious trouble.
-
-
Replying to @taviso @lorenzofb
I don't disagree with that statement. In theory, a company's CFO should never run in a situation where AV¹ makes a serious difference. In practice, a whole lot of of them do and I think AV still makes a decent difference. ¹endpoint protection and ignoring APT-style attacks.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Allow me: what _exactly_ does AV protect? And, follow on, at what collateral risk?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.