1

Topic: About uselessness of antiviruses

The muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/

2

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/That case when comments it is more interesting than article.

3

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/the Muzhik from Google  carries. For the private soldier, not corporate, the user the antivirus is strictly necessary. For corporate the filtration under white lists, for example already approaches.

4

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/15 years live in Linux, and before cores... In DOS. Tell, as as do with antiviruses. They opposite, or it is possible to suffer? PS. Well we in sacred wars!

5

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any.

6

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, kaa.python, you wrote: M>> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/KP> the Muzhik from Google  carries. For the private soldier, not corporate, the user the antivirus is strictly necessary. For corporate the filtration under white lists, for example already approaches. Why you consider normal, what for control of one difficult mean, the car, it is necessary studies, to pass examination to get the driver's license, and other difficult mean, the computer, the full idiot can use?

7

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any. An antivirus, without looking everyones heuristics, does not help against the majority of unknown viruses and even in certain cases against for a long time known. Signature presence, in itself, too does not guarantee anything. The virus stuxnet, for example, had correct sign-code signatures. Basically, if the information on the computer is important enough on it really not any not entrusted programs should to be launched. If not so all is strong, presence of system of the mandatory tolerance and containers/dockers or virtual machines can help. On everyone necessary, but not entrusted program on the virtual machine. However basically there are also runaways from , do not know how much such in practice meets, meanwhile in the form of usage concepts  heard. A little in the best position here users Linux and other free OS with a repository. Because all the same in the open code to thrust  it is more difficult (not it is impossible, but more ) and if to trust , signed only from one repository any left programs still should get at first there instead of as in stuxnet, somehow to steal or agree with the holder of the certificate.

8

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, vsb, you wrote: M>> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/vsb> Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any. You can safely launch. You accepted the decision during the moment when pushed to "Download".

9

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: M>>> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/KP>> the Muzhik from Google  carries. For the private soldier, not corporate, the user the antivirus is strictly necessary. For corporate the filtration under white lists, for example already approaches. SK> Why you consider normal, what for control of one difficult mean, the car, it is necessary studies, to pass examination to get the driver's license, and other difficult mean, the computer, the full idiot can use? Because the car is mortally dangerous to associates, and misuse of the computer for surrounding a maximum is sensitive adds to spam and .

10

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: M>>> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/vsb>> Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any. SK> you can safely launch. You accepted the decision during the moment when pushed to "Download". To launch I will accept the decision, when I will check up an antivirus. When I pushed to "Download", I made decision to download instead of to launch.

11

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Stanislaw K, you wrote: SK> Why you consider normal, what for control of one difficult mean, the car, it is necessary studies, to pass examination to get the driver's license, and other difficult mean, the computer, the full idiot can use? The car it is necessary to study because it means of the raised danger to associates and.

12

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: vsb>> Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any. M> an antivirus, without looking everyones heuristics, does not help against the majority of unknown viruses and even in certain cases against for a long time known. Against the majority of the known helps. It is the sufficient reason it to use, in my opinion. M> signature presence too does not guarantee anything. The virus stuxnet, for example, had correct sign-code signatures. God and mathematics can guarantee only. Viruses with signatures this exception to the rules, and stuxnet it at all on the normal user is directed, against such viruses antiviruses will be, of course, useless (differently it and would not began to use, while antiviruses do not cease to detect it). But it as "I will not be fastened, all the same if I will get under , I will not survive". M> any not entrusted programs Basically if the information on the computer is important enough on it really not should to be launched. M> if not so all is strong, presence of system of the mandatory tolerance and containers/dockers or virtual machines can help. On everyone necessary, but not entrusted program on the virtual machine. However basically there are also runaways from , do not know how much such in practice meets, meanwhile in the form of usage concepts  heard. The normal user will not launch  for the unfamiliar program. About what you, generally? It not the worker anti-virus  to which sent . He/she is uncle Vasja the car mechanician who downloaded cool animated wall-paper. Or HR Ljubochka who downloaded from the letter .doc.cmd. And an antivirus here a unique real barrier which has enough every prospect to stop a virus. At least while we speak about Windows. It is possible for itself to present OS in which all programs will be in insulated sandboxes (though even mobile OS which initially became with this model, on these sandboxes do not rely), but these are imaginations on a subject "as could be". Here and now there is only one more or less reliable sandbox - the modern browser like Google Chrome.

13

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, vsb, you wrote: KP>>> the Muzhik from Google  carries. For the private soldier, not corporate, the user the antivirus is strictly necessary. For corporate the filtration under white lists, for example already approaches. SK>> Why you consider normal, what for control of one difficult mean, the car, it is necessary studies, to pass examination to get the driver's license, and other difficult mean, the computer, the full idiot can use? vsb> because the car is mortally dangerous to associates, and misuse of the computer for surrounding a maximum is sensitive adds to spam and . For what you hate mankind? Spam and  are capable to paralyse a city floor. It can easily lead to death of several persons. Since malfunction of management systems a traffic, finishing starvation from impossibility to order a pizza.

14

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: SK>> Why you consider normal, what for control of one difficult mean, the car, it is necessary studies, to pass examination to get the driver's license, and other difficult mean, the computer, the full idiot can use? M> the car it is necessary to study because it means of the raised danger to associates and. The computer with the Internet too. Since possibility to deprive the owner of the computer of means on banking to the account (starvation in a debt hole) finishing the order to the neighbor of the killer of service etching cockroaches poisonous gas.

15

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb>>> Hz, I do not understand its thought. Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. How I learn, a virus it or not? Signatures are not present. Only an antivirus to check up. Well or to refuse start of not entrusted programs, but it already computer transformation in  any. SK>> you can safely launch. You accepted the decision during the moment when pushed to "Download". vsb> to launch I will accept the Decision, when I will check up an antivirus. When I pushed to "Download", I made decision to download instead of to launch. By no means! In this case "check by an antivirus" - attempt at least to lower the responsibility transforming in collective as maximum - completely to shift the responsibility on whom that another. From a series "it not I it killed a reasoning, I only for the end held a knife".

16

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, alpha21264, you wrote: A> Tell, as as do with antiviruses. A> they opposite, or it is possible to suffer? They, yes, opposite: present that fopen () 3 seconds demand from you. It suffices to suffer! I certainly exaggerate, but their heuristics imports a solid overhead projector to operation almost each system function.

17

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/Well here its pearl:> Instead he suggests to be focused on:> firewalls under white lists of Chyo?? How it helps me not to pick up a virus if file  on host Y is necessary to me?> hardware locks Again, HOW??>... And systems of dynamic control by the rights And sense? Any system generating files and exchanging them with the world, is vulnerable and in essence cannot be protected. , it is loud  "antiviruses - a garbage" - it turned out (it we and without it knew), but its decision stinks even worse.

18

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, vsb, you wrote: vsb> Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. We begin with that whence you it downloaded? vsb> as I learn, a virus it or not? Virustotal.... <<RSDN@Home 1.1.4 stable SR1 rev. 568>>

19

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, CreatorCray, you wrote: vsb>> Here I downloaded the program, I want it to launch. CC> we Begin with that whence you it downloaded? clock-wallpapers.com (the address invented) vsb>> As I learn, a virus it or not? CC> Virustotal. I.e. an online antivirus? But same it is inconvenient. But if who would like, it is possible and so, of course, only it already antivirus usage.

20

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, the Philosopher, you wrote: They, yes, opposite: present that fopen () 3 seconds demand from you. It suffices to suffer! I certainly exaggerate, but their heuristics imports a solid overhead projector to operation almost each system function. An overhead projector already result   these most . In linux too  SELinux penetrate all kernel, through them transits control in any function of a kernel which are a part of implementation any . The limitative rules SELinux, what volume they would not be, do not import the slightest overhead projector to system operation because the system is thought over both at architecture level, and at implementation level. And in Windows these anti-virus Skipidarsky  do not understand that, since architecture level also grandmas for it row.

21

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> the Overhead projector already result   these most . In linux too  SELinux penetrate all kernel, through them transits control in any function of a kernel which are a part of implementation any . The limitative rules SELinux, what volume they would not be, do not import the slightest overhead projector to system operation because the system is thought over both at architecture level, and at implementation level. And in Windows these anti-virus Skipidarsky  do not understand that, since architecture level also grandmas for it row. In Windows creators of antiviruses have no possibility to implement  at kernel level. At least because of absence of the license for its change. Therefore all such things is khaki. And SELinux is not an antivirus, it (mandatory system) that should be in the modern general-purpose OS for safety.

22

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> And SELinux is not an antivirus, it (mandatory system) that should be in the modern general-purpose OS for safety. Not simply mandatory system, there extensive possibilities at level of system of the rules set from , a lot of what functional it is possible to paint it with rules, it as a matter of fact becomes the real , more truly, an antirootkit.

23

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, Michael7, you wrote: M> the Muzhik from Google states interesting thoughts. https://geektimes.ru/post/282760/Antiviruses are necessary. Because of the out-of-date and poor approach to creation of the operating systems, applied in all existing widespread OS. In competently thought over OS those products which are now named by "antiviruses" - are not necessary. But not the fact that there there will be no the of vulnerability of absolutely other type. In competent OS each application should be completely insulated from all remaining, and from other programs, and from the data. In general it is the big subject. Now in all OS on any program to default it is easy can  the important data. Well and that this muzhik about white lists and hardware locks speaks are a rubbish.

24

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, AlexRK, you wrote: ARK> In competent OS each application should be completely insulated from all remaining, and from other programs, and from the data. They also are isolated, programs even are isolated from themselves, without having possibility to write down, for example, in the page frame, at which attributes only on reading. And , at penetration into system, clings not to those possibilities, which  owing to mentioned .

25

Re: About uselessness of antiviruses

Hello, smeeld, you wrote: S> They also are isolated, programs even are isolated from themselves, without having possibility to write down, for example, in the page frame, at which attributes only on reading. And , at penetration into system, clings not to those possibilities, which  owing to mentioned . To whom is the page frame necessary? And delete all my photos it can?