Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Why isn't AV the default assumption?
I don't understand why so many discussions of net security completely ignore the simple solution: Anti-virus software. Big corporations and government get hacked because they 'run barefoot', yet nobody suggests that shoes might help.
For example: When techie websites discuss Microsoft's decision to stop providing "security fixes" for XP, they always omit the only thing that matters about security. Even the commenters on such articles ignore anti-virus systems and assume the OS is solely responsible for protection.
In my experience, Windows has never protected itself. For a long time I slopped back and forth between Norton and McAfee anti-virus systems, switching when each one allowed a fatal virus to get through. A couple years ago I finally settled on AVG (paid version), which hasn't failed yet. AVG also takes much less resources than Norton, which essentially owns your CPU and HD about 80% of the time. AVG lets you schedule an automatic scan or do it manually when it's convenient.
Maybe these techie types have better protection in front of the computer, using routers and such, but it doesn't sound like they're making that assumption.
= = = = =
Side-thought: A couple years ago I compared the old Bell System security with Web security. Wondered why the Web was designed without any thought for security, given that Bell already showed how to build a giant communication net with solid protection against free riders and 'signal invaders'. Now I can see the answer: NSA didn't want a secure Web. NSA wanted a Web that could easily be 'invaded' by its own malware, and also wanted a Web that would invite dissident types so NSA could monitor them efficiently.
¶ 3:28 AM 
