# Is antivirus really necessary? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 14, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445 "2010-05-14T16:35:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/41 "2010-05-16T19:29:21Z")
> [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](#): > > See [herd immunity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity). Herd immunity has nothing to do with computer viruses. This analogy simply doesn’t make sense. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/42 "2010-05-16T19:50:42Z")
> [@Perciful](#): > > Why would my internet provider pay for free Norton anti virus for all subscribers if it was harmful? It’s to keep me safe and my computer out of the shop and from all the hackers. Paying for Norton AV for all subscribers is a selling point for them, I assume. It’s not necessary that Norton _actually_ help the subscribers, only that potential subscribers believe it will, and therefore choose that provider over another. That said, it probably does help the typical subscriber, at least occasionally. And if it prevents even a few customers from getting infected with bot-net software and eating up bandwith with spam (or whatever), it might be worth the investment. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/43 "2010-05-16T19:55:26Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > Herd immunity has nothing to do with computer viruses. This analogy simply doesn’t make sense. Sure it does: the less computers are infected by viruses, the less likely they are to send an infected file to an unprotected computer. Where the argument fails is that it doesn’t matter _why_ you don’t spread the infection, just so long as you don’t. **Patty** is just as much a beneficiary of my good computing practice as I am of his antivirus software. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/44 "2010-05-16T20:32:29Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > I don’t think it’s that simple. AV software causes many problems in itself, which people who don’t run AV software are immune to. Can you elaborate on this a bit? If you’re talking about Norton and McAfee being resource hogs, you’re talking about bad implementation of a concept, not a bad concept itself. > [@](#): > > And AV software is far from perfect in protecting you against threats. Acknowledged in the post you quoted. Nothing is perfect - not being perfect does not equal useless or detrimental. > [@](#): > > I think that that there is a level of other precautions that you can take, achievable by regular people and not just geeks, at which it is better to not run any AV software. That is, running AV software would overall be more inconvenient than running none. As far as I can tell, all of the people who have described methods by which you can carefully tiptoe around threats (but without AV software) have described _incomplete, inadequate_ methods. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/45 "2010-05-16T21:14:54Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Can you elaborate on this a bit? If you’re talking about Norton and McAfee being resource hogs, you’re talking about bad implementation of a concept, not a bad concept itself. I think they are necessarily resource hogs. They intercept so much of what the user does. When we trialled the various replacements for our previous antivirus solution, Symantec Antivirus, all the triallists complained that their PCs ran slower. On the other hand, SAV didn’t actually detect much of the malware written in the last five years. And the anti-malware solution we eventually replaced it with still doesn’t detect everything. It was a compromise between actually being useful and not hobbling the PCs too much. > [@](#): > > As far as I can tell, all of the people who have described methods by which you can carefully tiptoe around threats (but without AV software) have described _incomplete, inadequate_ methods. My solution is: Avoid using an admin account. I didn’t say it was a perfect method, and some things are still fiddly under it, but I don’t think it’s tiptoeing. It is a general approach that meets my claim of being “achievable by regular people and not just geeks”. ---
**Author:** ![Perciful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b38774/32.png) [@Perciful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Perciful)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/46 "2010-05-16T23:51:52Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > My solution is: Avoid using an admin account. I didn’t say it was a perfect method, and some things are still fiddly under it, but I don’t think it’s tiptoeing. It is a general approach that meets my claim of being “achievable by regular people and not just geeks”. If your computer runs slow due to having good AV software then you might need more hard drive or a faster connection. I run two all the time and do not notice any slowing at all? I have a two year old computer and a good broadband connection. if my computer is a little slow it is because my upstairs neighbors are probably using their laptop off of my connection. My poor Mom has had two very expensive visits by the Geek Squad to fix her computer after not buying AV software. At somewhere are around 200 dollars a fix I made her get Norton and had the Geek Squad install it. She also had something put on her laptop so people couldn’t steal her signal? She has been fine ever since. Well unless she forgets her password again. 😉 I don’t know what you mean by not using an admin account? You mean just use your neighbors bandwidth? Or go to a cyber café with a lap top? ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/47 "2010-05-17T00:02:56Z")
One simple thing to do is not use the default user for your PC because that user can change anything about the system. You need to setup another user account and use that and do not give the other account admin access. That alone will cut out a lot of problems. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/48 "2010-05-17T00:24:12Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > I think they are necessarily resource hogs. They intercept so much of what the user does. When we trialled the various replacements for our previous antivirus solution, Symantec Antivirus, all the triallists complained that their PCs ran slower. On the other hand, SAV didn’t actually detect much of the malware written in the last five years. And the anti-malware solution we eventually replaced it with still doesn’t detect everything. It was a compromise between actually being useful and not hobbling the PCs too much. > > My solution is: Avoid using an admin account. I didn’t say it was a perfect method, and some things are still fiddly under it, but I don’t think it’s tiptoeing. It is a general approach that meets my claim of being “achievable by regular people and not just geeks”. Of course Symantec is slow. That’s why people recommend faster alternatives. And while Limited accounts make it easier to remove malware, I’ve yet to see any that was actually stopped by it. Most malware is not completely dependent on running in an Admin account And the claim that non-techies can use it is false. Just see Perciful’s comment below. It generally takes a bit of work to actually set up a limited account to where it is usable. And, since some settings require administrator access, you have to know how to switch your account back and forth. If you’re really worried about programs, get [Process Guard](http://download.cnet.com/ProcessGuard/3000-2239_4-10333974.html). The only slowness you’ll get is having to confirm that a program is required to run. It’s funny seeing a virus ask permission to run. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/49 "2010-05-17T00:28:46Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > I return your chuckle. How do you know that your AV software is actually protecting you, and not missing numerous threats? Indeed, if you’re running AV software from the machine that’s being scanned, how do you know the AV software itself isn’t compromised? Your spidey sense? > > Running some AV software in the background is a good idea for most people. But if you, say, only browse the web using Firefox with Ad-Blocker and NoScipt, your chances of getting infected are reduced drastically. I didn’t say anything about AV effectiveness. I meant that people that “know” they’re not infected, with or without AV, are wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/50 "2010-05-17T00:42:32Z")
> [@Ximenean](#): > > I think they are necessarily resource hogs. They intercept so much of what the user does. When we trialled the various replacements for our previous antivirus solution, Symantec Antivirus, all the triallists complained that their PCs ran slower. On the other hand, SAV didn’t actually detect much of the malware written in the last five years. And the anti-malware solution we eventually replaced it with still doesn’t detect everything. It was a compromise between actually being useful and not hobbling the PCs too much. My experience differs - I’ve certainly seen some of the more popular AV packages hog the resources on a system so as to nearly cripple it, and of course anything that does anything needs to consume resources, but I don’t find all of them to be exceptionally burdensome on the system. > [@](#): > > My solution is: Avoid using an admin account. I didn’t say it was a perfect method, and some things are still fiddly under it, but I don’t think it’s tiptoeing. It is a general approach that meets my claim of being “achievable by regular people and not just geeks”. Actually, that’s the first decent non-AV suggestion I’ve seen in this thread (if you or anyone else mentioned this earlier, I missed it). Still, limited user account plus AV should be more secure than limited user account without (although my son still managed to get a trojan on his PC with a limited account and AV and anti-spyware software running - so as we both seem to agree, perfect safety isn’t possible). ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/51 "2010-05-17T01:28:39Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Sure it does: the less computers are infected by viruses, the less likely they are to send an infected file to an unprotected computer. From the linked Wikipedia article: > [@](#): > > Herd immunity theory proposes that, in diseases passed from person to person, it is more difficult to maintain a chain of infection when large numbers of a population are immune. The higher the proportion of individuals who are immune, the lower the likelihood that a susceptible person will come into contact with an infectious individual. This simply isn’t a real limitation for computer viruses. A single infected computer does not have to get lucky in order to continue the chain of infection. It will, instead, proactively attempt to infect as many other computers as possible (or as practical without drawing attention to itself). The probability of a computer on the internet being attacked is not dependent on the number of individuals running AV software. The probability of a computer on the internet being attacked can safely be assumed to be 1. > [@Perciful](#): > > If your computer runs slow due to having good AV software then you might need more hard drive or a faster connection. Harddrive space and internet speed have nothing to do with how quickly AV software runs on a computer. > [@yoyodyne](#): > > I meant that people that “know” they’re not infected, with or without AV, are wrong. Only if you assume they mean absolute philosophical certainty. If you take significant precautions against getting infected, and your computer is showing no symptoms whatsoever, and your router logs show no unusual activity, and a scan of your computer using multiple AV / anti-rootkit / anti-malware software packages (run from bootable read-only media, of course) come up clean, then you have very good reason to believe that your computer is not infected. ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445/52 "2010-05-17T01:34:47Z")
Up until a year or two ago, I would’ve said that no, with smart browsing, you can avoid the need for anti-virus. But recently I’ve seen my anti-virus pop up and block a lot of stuff it’s been detecting from flash ads (including, for awhile, ones on this site - some ad companies just don’t keep a tight enough lid on their users). Maybe they’re minor, but I wouldn’t want to take the risk. I don’t really understand the convenience/security distinction. Sure, maybe if you’re using some crappy bloated antivirus like Norton that eats up all your memory, but it’s not that big of a deal to just run a smaller, slimmer antivirus in the background. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-antivirus-really-necessary/539445.md?page=2)