Bit Defender or Nod32?

[Roger Wilco]

AV.

Can I clarify a point here ... I am talking about networked machines, as
in those folks use to connect to the internet; as in those of us who
Usenet et al.

No, you were defending your statement about optikl's statement being
nonsense - which it wasn't.

You are talking of some bearded geek sitting in a darkened bedroom with
the curtains closed programming in VB ?

No I'm not, I'm talking about the whole range from the geek to grandma.
Isolationism is one extreme and far too many users make up the other
extreme. They only need what AV has become because of their lack of
means to handle their security without it - not because it is
impossible. Optikl said nothing about not needing AV scanners in
general, which you seem to think is the issue.

Sorry chum, you've lost me now ...

That figures. :-\

I'm talking about everyday usage of
the home PC, you are talking about some hi-tech geek driven enterprise
where every system is maintained to perfection by perfection.
Nonsense.

Oddly enough, there is actually no need for this conversation to
continue ....

Then don't reply.

 

[Roger Wilco]

[this was meant for the end of the previous post I sent, but I live in
the real world where people make mistakes, so, to append what I
previously wrote]

That wasn't your statement at all.

I never made a statement in reply to you, I simply reiterated what I had
said earlier.

You said "None taken,..." (but there evidently was) and "...but nonsense
nonetheless." in response to a perfectly sensible post. I just wanted to
show that computing practices like p2p executable sharing exposes a user
to day zero malware and negates the effectiveness of AV at one extreme
and at the other extreme total isolation negates its need. It's just
like another thread where someone suggests a software front end for a
browser to scan for and detect malicious web page exploit code - why -
so users can do without having to patch vulnerabilities in a timely
manner? If the user has the wherewithal to handle that job, they don't
need a software solution - same as this case.

 

[ComPCs]

That figures. :-\

Making it personal does nothing for your integrity.

Allow me to give you some assistance in the discontinuation of such, and
certainly make Usenet a better facility for me utilise.

*plonk*

 

[Roger Wilco]

Making it personal does nothing for your integrity.

Nothing personal, it just figures that you get lost when points are
being made about how safe practices are always better than even the best
AV is at keeping a system secure. AV cannot in its very nature protect
against a day zero threat - but safe practices can. Safe practices
reduce the amount of exposure enough to make the quality of the AV
program less of an issue.

You need a thicker skin so you don't interpret everything as a personal
attack.

....and announcing your plonks is sooo lame...

 

[ComPCs]

It's nonsense to you because you probably think AV utilities are
proactive. Just like police, AV utilities are reactive.

A good (and up-to-date) AV solution can be both.

It can be considered proactive [1] because it detects known viruses, but
it is reactive because it doesn't detect new, undisclosed ones.

Of course, you then move onto heuristics, see
http://www.eurosecure.com/heuristics.asp as a source to cite.

The nonsense factor came into being because I felt you were saying 'twas
'simpletons' who have to use AV solutions, when in actual fact the
opposite might so often be consdiered more accurate, in that it is
highly skilled IT technicians who insist their machines/networks et al
are 'guarded' by such quite simply because - through whatever reason -
they are utilising a Windows environment.

I regarded your comments as being 'self-elevating'.

Like you, no offence was meant in my disagreement, and I trust you'll
agree with my reasoning?

[1] defined as "Acting before a situation becomes a source of
confrontation or crisis"

 

[ComPCs]

Agree.

You are considering nothing but the new threats an AV solution deals
with ... what about that which it already knows about? Is that not
proactive, even if initially it was a reactive situation?

 

[Roger Wilco]

It can be considered proactive [1] because it detects known viruses,

....

This is an example of reactive because the AV industry reacts to a new
threat. The new threat exists prior to the ability to detect it. The
confrontation is there with the appearance of the threat - and then
followed by the action by the AV industry. Okay, after they 'react' it
could be considered proactive against that known threat or against other
"new' threats that give themselves away by being too similar in some
respect to the now known threat. This shows how even heuristic
detections are reactive to some extent. Bulletproof body armor is
reactive to the threat of hostile gunfire, but proactive to the bullets
themselves?

but it is reactive because it doesn't detect new, undisclosed ones.

All threats were new, undisclosed ones at one time - and the AV industry
reacted to them.

Of course, you then move onto heuristics, see
http://www.eurosecure.com/heuristics.asp as a source to cite.

....or this one

http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/reference/heuristc.pdf

....but this is sidetracking the proactive/reactive discussion.

Even heuristic detection will be reactive to new methods. Proactive
method would be like not executing anything that wasn't thoroughly
analyzed beforehand and deemed 'clean' by someone or something actually
capable of making such a determination. Such a scheme would not depend
on the particular threat existing beforehand

 

[kurt wismer]

You are considering nothing but the new threats an AV solution deals
with ... what about that which it already knows about? Is that not
proactive, even if initially it was a reactive situation?

it is a reactive technology that can be used in a proactive manner...