Are you using a recent version of Windows (8, 8.1, or 10)?
Do you have automatic updates enabled?
Do you have standard Windows features such as User Access Control enabled?
Do you use the computer with a standard user account as opposed to an administrator (root access) user account?
If the answers to all these questions are yes, I'd say you don't need an antivirus solution. Don't listen to the scaremongers. Microsoft has got you covered.
Honestly, I haven't had antivirus in 10 years and I haven't had a problem (although my windows usage has declined over the years... I mainly just stick to steam now.)
Run updates, don't use browser plugins, stick to applications you trust, and stay away from seedy looking sites when downloading common software. (Sourceforge comes to mind.)
I agree, but only if one uses noscript and requestpolicy, never torrents software, etc.
It's not that MS has you covered, moreso that AV vendors don't really catch new malware that has been mutated, packed, or whatever. So a more in-depth defense is better.
Not to mention that hilariously enough, AVG is literally selling user data now, which is what antivirus is supposed to protect against in the first place.
Depends what you're doing. If you like to play with a lot of risky torrents, then Windows Defender may not suffice. I also don't think Windows Defender does a great job at protecting you against infected removable media either. Avira seems to be pretty good at all of that and light weight.
For risky websites, a combination of Chrome, WOT, ublock origin, HTTPS Everywhere and Sandboxie and/or Malwarebytes Anti-Exploit (zero-day protection) should suffice.
Using a Standard (non-Admin) Windows account and being up to date goes without saying.
if you don't, and you don't do webbrowsing from inside windows then I can't imagine the need for anti-virus.
90% of attacks are trojan horses (fake/embedded pirated software usually) and the remaining 9.9% is browser attacks.
I doubt anyone is defeating your firewall/NAT box to get a direct connection to your windows machine, and even if they did they'd have to find a service they can exploit.
What are you using to run the VM? I've always had issues integrating the host and guest VM nicely in Windows - getting copy-paste working properly, resizing the window, etc.
How is this the same as having to run anti-virus software because the system's (i.e., Windows's) security model is broken?
> jailbreak iOS
Not sure why iOS is even relevant to my comment, since it isn't built on Linux (or even Unix).
> Security starts with the user.
This is true; a user who is bound and determined to hose their system can do it no matter what protections are in place.
But that's irrelevant to the point under discussion, which is how people who do not want to hose their system can keep it secure. On Windows, you have to run anti-virus software (and even the protection that provides is not foolproof), because the system's security model is broken. On Linux, the system's security model is functional to begin with, since unlike Windows, the system was designed that way from the ground up. So you don't need to run anti-virus software, and hence you don't have to worry about what information that software, which has a privileged position on your system, might be sending to others.
> Windows security is pretty good when running as a normal user and having UAC turned on on its full level and binaries validation.
Do you still need to run anti-virus software in this configuration?
> UNIX does have a better security model configuration out of the box, but is just as unsafe for the regular users that just dump stuff into their PCs
Again, I agree, if a user wants to hose their system, Unix won't prevent them. But anti-virus software won't prevent them either.
My point is, what about the user that doesn't want to hose their system? On Linux, it's very simple: use your package manager to install software, and don't run anything that wasn't installed that way.
You don't need an anti-virus if you are only running software from trusted sources, just like in Linux.
Just that trusted sources in Windows means not installing pirated software or that thing a friend gave because it was so cool. Or going to shady internet sites.
All things that will hose a Linux system as well.
Linux package managers are nice until one needs something it isn't there, like it happens to most average users that don't care about about FOSS and forcing themselves to alternatives.
And I never saw a UNIX that would allow to prevent users to install software locally, as Windows does with Active Directory group policies. Although I bet there are some third party commercial offerings for that.
> You don't need an anti-virus if you are only running software from trusted sources
What does "trusted sources" mean in the Windows world? Microsoft itself has shipped virus-infected CD-ROMs in the past.
> Linux package managers are nice until one needs something it isn't there
My sense is that, while this can happen, it's less likely to happen with the major Linux distros than it is with Windows. Major distros have tons of software in their package managers.
> I never saw a UNIX that would allow to prevent users to install software locally, as Windows does with Active Directory group policies
Um, you do realize that all it takes is not putting the user in the "sudoers" or "wheel" group (depending on the distro), right? This is routinely done in settings where only sysadmins are allowed to install software, such as universities. You certainly don't need anything as heavyweight as Active Directory group policies.
> What does "trusted sources" mean in the Windows world? Microsoft itself has shipped virus-infected CD-ROMs in the past.
Do you also read OpenSSH and Bash source code looking for security exploits?
> My sense is that, while this can happen, it's less likely to happen with the major Linux distros than it is with Windows. Major distros have tons of software in their package managers.
Quantity != Software X that user won't do without.
> Um, you do realize that all it takes is not putting the user in the "sudoers" or "wheel" group (depending on the distro), right? This is routinely done in settings where only sysadmins are allowed to install software, such as universities. You certainly don't need anything as heavyweight as Active Directory group policies.
I can install whatever software I want under $HOME, there is nothing preventing me to do that.
> Do you also read OpenSSH and Bash source code looking for security exploits?
I don't personally, no. But I'm confident that there are experts doing so, and that when they find an issue, it is publicized and fixed quickly, because it's considered an extraordinary and urgent event, and allowing it to continue unfixed would be unacceptable. When MS shipped virus-infected CD-ROMs, nobody thought it was unacceptable, or even abnormal.
However, if you're confident enough in Windows' security features to run without anti-virus software, that's fine. My sense is that the vast majority of Windows users are not. But the vast majority of Linux users are.
> Quantity != Software X that user won't do without.
You're going to have to give specific examples, because I just don't see this as a significant issue that users who don't want to hose their systems have to deal with on Linux. I've never come across any software I needed as an ordinary user that I couldn't find in my Linux distro's package manager. (As a programmer, I have, but that's a different case.)
> I can install whatever software I want under $HOME
Which comes under the heading of users who want to hose their systems. If you don't want to hose your system, just don't do that.
(As an aside, I think you can actually lock down executable permissions in $HOME with SELinux. But I haven't tried it myself.)
Not a given. Where I work, most of the reports I get from security admins regarding compromised hosts (found to be port-scanning, attacking other hosts, etc.) are for Ubuntu systems. You still have to secure any services you're running and take basic common-sense precautions.
And any malware maker and his dog know to bypass it before creating his new malware. How many stories have you heard of Windows Defender stopping ransomware? That's right - ZERO.
With AV you could be infected for months without ever knowing. All it takes is to get infected by anything that hasn't made it into the (often out of date anyway) definitions.
The old school Unix method works very well: Keep a list of all changes made from the base install, then periodically swap the disk out for a blank one, follow your documentation and restore non-executable user data from backup. Also has the benefit of regularly validating your documentation and testing your backups, and allows easy rollback by following the same process for major OS updates or hardware upgrades.
Why did you switch from Bitdefender? I'm forced to "sysadmin" my family's Windows systems ... and last I looked, Bitdefender seemed to do a good job. Was I wrong to recommend?
