Member Avatar for JamesG2

I would like to open this thread by saying that the anti-virus industry is a SCAM ! SCAM ! I say.
The proof is in the pudding. My PC is the pudding. The pudding has gone over three months now with
NO Snortin' $ NORTON $, no $ Smackabee $ , et al ad infinitum .................
It's called, Hegelian Dialectic.
CREATE THE PROBLEM, SELL THE SOLUTION.
I DON'T HAVE ANY VIRUSES on my PC. It is used every day on the WORLD WIDE WEB !
The anti-virus problem was created by the $$ anti-virus $$ people. $$$$$$$$$$

Apprximately every 2 weeks I run MALWAREBYTES and it FINDS NOTHING, except for
1 or 2 harmless adware thingies.

Any experts out there care to comment and get this thread rolling ?

  • 6 Contributors
  • 5 Replies
  • 248 Views
  • 19 Hours Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by johhny-marshal

Dani AI

Generated

This thread frames two common positions. argues that the antivirus industry creates demand and reports long-term safe operation without resident protection. Other members point out that actual risk depends on behavior and setup: disciplined, technical users can reduce exposure, while casual users face higher accidental risk. Both perspectives contain useful observations, but they answer different questions — moral critique of an industry versus practical risk management.

At the practical level, antivirus software is one layer, not a silver bullet. Resident protection catches many commodity threats and reduces reliance on perfect user judgment, while on-demand tools, account separation, patching, and backups cover gaps that signature-based detection misses. For technically skilled users who isolate risky work (sandboxing or VMs), use least-privilege accounts, and maintain tested backups, foregoing a resident product can be an operational choice. For the general population, a layered approach remains the safer default because human error is the primary attack vector.

Recommended baseline measures that apply regardless of the chosen stance:

  • Keep the operating system and all applications updated automatically where possible.
  • Operate daily under a non-administrator account; elevate only for trusted installs.
  • Scan downloaded installers and attachments before execution with an on-demand scanner.
  • Run risky files inside an isolated environment (virtual machine or sandbox).
  • Maintain versioned, offline backups and verify restore procedures regularly.
  • Monitor for unexplained performance, network traffic, or new autorun entries and preserve a clean system image for recovery.

This synthesis aligns with on least-privilege, with on exposure depending on what is run, and with and on cost-vs-risk tradeoffs. The core takeaway: whether to run resident antivirus depends on the user threat model and discipline; either choice must be backed by layered controls and a reliable recovery plan.

Recommended Answers

All 5 Replies

Member Avatar for janissl

I also do not have any antivirus installed on any of my computers. My rule of thumb is to not browse the internet and to not open e-mail attachments from an account with administrator rights. During my daily activities, I use a limited (on WinXP) or standard (on Win7) account. I also never click Run but at first click Save to download any software updates. The only security feature I use is Microsoft Security Essentials but it also has not found anything suspicious so far. Of course, we can never be sure that no malwares will attack us in a tricky way but I am of the opinion that such stuff will also be able to fool the most of antivirus programs. At least, for the first days of existence.

Member Avatar for jsherm101

It's very circumstantial on what files you run. Viruses can appear from browsing certain websites, running certain programs, or opening files with malicious content within. If you contstantly handle such files (and essentialy maintain constant internet access) you will want some sort of free anti-virus (like Avira, or Clamwin)

If you are constantly visiting sites known to carry dangerous files and running a lot of files more so I'd suggest a proactive defense software like Kaspersky or ESET

Member Avatar for CimmerianX

You don't need to PAY for Antivirus. Plenty of free options out there. Avast, AVG, etc... I would not recommend anyone run a windows pc without it. The time it takes to clean up an infection costs lots more than the slight inconvience of the AV running.

Use AV in combination with a Hosts FIle blocker i.e. Spybot. And use PeerBlock to be extra careful. Scedule a maware bytes scan once a month and you should stay clean.

Member Avatar for JorgeM

I agree that someone with some computer desktop management experience and common sense could probably get away with limited malware protection. For most people, I would recommend some type of malware client.

Member Avatar for johhny-marshal

well this is all about how one thinks. Obviously, it is the same and we all know it. If someone wants to sell his/her product, he/she has to create a need for it, then only the product or services would be sold. But, the main thing is, Viruses are surrounding the internet and we need protection for our system and data, doesn't matter who created the problem, solution is needed.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.