I had to deal with a variant of cryptolocker on am android tablet the other day. Luckily the customer carted not at all if he lost everything so we were able tip get past the locks and facility reset. Real malware for android is definitely out there.
The anology I use with my customers is, “anti virus programs are like bulletproof vests” they are good to have if you get hit, but not a guarantee you don’t get hurt"
I don’t use an antivirus largely because they degrade my system but also because they aren’t that effective; they are reactive. But my main point was that antivirus is not needed in Windows. It’s much better if users are given a little knowledge on how to avoid malware.
Kinda depends on your use case.
If your main use of your PC is to consume porn and Russian mail-order bride catalogs, you have a different need for anti-malware than if your only use of your PC is to visit SDMB with the ads blocked. Or to VPN to your work to use their specialized app for your job.
If you look at malware by OS you will see the following:
1 - windows, as we all know, had and has a lot of malware
2 - ios has a very small percentage, despite high volume tablet and phone sales
3 - android is the new windows, it is dominating malware market share
There is a risk that your antivirus software contains defects that open your computer up to attacks that otherwise wouldn’t be possible:
Not true - “buffer overflow” does not imply “system level privileges”. It could be anything from a totally unprivileged dedicated-service user, to a normal user, to an administrator user, to kernel level - depending on context.
This is not unique to OS X. All the major modern operating systems (Windows NT, Linux, OS X, Solaris, BSD, etc - and their mobile derivatives) implement protected memory schemes that prevent applications from messing with each other’s address space or protected kernel space.
OK, I’m not up on modern versions of Windows. All I know is that there was a time when OSX had that feature and Windows didn’t. And such a feature, if implemented properly, would prevent buffer overflows in random applications from granting root access.
While it’s completely understandable that you might not be familiar with new versions of Windows if you don’t use Windows, this is also a central problem in many of the discussions about operating systems that i see on this message board, and elsewhere online.
A depressingly large percentage of people who rag on Windows seem to be doing so based on information that is years and years out of date. They remember their own experiences running Win95, or WinME, or Win2000, or they remember some problem they read about XP back in 2003, and assume that all of those things are still true in 2008 or 2012 or 2016. I’ve lost track of the number of times i’ve read complaints about various aspects of Windows that were corrected two or three or four versions ago.
Yeah, that’s why I’m careful to phrase my statements in terms of what OSX has, not in terms of what Windows doesn’t have. If my statement that OSX has this was interpreted as implying that Windows does not, that was not my intention, and I apologize.
Just this weekend: First Mac Ransomware Found in Transmission BitTorrent Client
I’m almost certain that everyone’s ideas of Windows are locked in the 90s. In the (thankfully rare today) Mac user bashing of PCs, I still hear the same shit they’ve been saying for 20 years. OMG! Enjoy your constant bluescreens!!!
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8, and 10 are forms of Windows NT. They have almost nothing in common with Windows 95/98/ME. It’s an entirely different codebase. NT was designed from the ground up to be a multi-user experience with UAC.
Generally, Windows has always been fairly secure against most forms of malware. But non-savvy users flock to Windows, and most of the malware people have is self-inflicted. People will go to the sketchiest websites, download executable files, and windows will warn them that it’s super sketchy and they got it from a super sketchy place and WARNING THIS IS PROBABLY BAD and asks if you really want to run it, and of course that user does. It’s really difficult to protect a user from themselves unless you run a completely walled garden where you have say over everything that’s executed or modified.
Ah, thanks. Apparently I’ve been hauling around some ignorance for a while. Tip of the hat for setting me straight.
Then they stridently claim “I DUN NUFFIN”, which confounds your efforts to prevent further infections.
It is funny how, in an effort to even the Operating Systems, the conversation shifted from “viruses” (meaning: “viruses”, or “viruses and the likes”)
to “malware” (aka: everything that can hurt your computer, including… sledgehammers 
)
In other words: all computers can be smashed by sledgehammers, therefore all computers are the same.
If you download some software, from some unknown source,that promises to make you king of the world, and then execute or install this software, and then this software starts messing with your other software and your private data, that’s not a virus.
“Virus” implies that you catch it without you doing anything wrong.
It’s true that Microsoft Windows has improved its security regarding viruses, but it is done in a way that represents “bureaucratic madness”.
Microsoft Windows message: “Do you want to start this application that you just clicked on it in order to start it?” :smack:
All Operating Systems have vulnerabilities. They are discovered and corrected, constantly. Obviously, some organisations do better job than others.
As to whether you need an a antivirus in Microsoft Windows or not, just check the Windows Security Center, where it asks you to enable your antivirus software. :rolleyes:
(Yandex Images)