It's a widely reported issue.

I agree with you on this, everyone has their own views.

To some a anti virus has licence to do what it wants as long as it protects them.

To me I will let an anti virus run as long as it does not affect what I do, this means performance and stability. My main security against virus's is my own actions, thinking about what I download, which web sites I visit and opening any attachments on emails. The anti virus is a backup to that just incase I do the wrong thing. I cannot imagine a situation where I would catch a virus that isn't from http or email. Which makes real time file scanning probably a redundant thing on my own computers but I will run it if I do not notice it.

Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 12-Oct-09 15:50:30)

To some a anti virus has licence to do what it wants as long as it protects them.

In this day and age, with malware evolved to what it is today, AV software has to have a license to do what it wants to be as effective as possible. It's the lesser of two evils; malware can bury itself so deep and hidden these days it's only natural an AV must also do the same to combat it. Would you rather undetected malware had free license over your machine, or a trusted AV program? I know which I'd prefer. Look at the Sony rootkit fiasco, imagine if that was real, real malware, delivered by a mechanism other than http or email, to thousands if not millions of unsuspecting punters. Without deep rooted AV it would never be noticed, until way to late. It's still true that most is still spread via email but it's only a matter of when not if..

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

My main security against virus's is my own actions, thinking about what I download, which web sites I visit...

That may not be enough these days - merely viewing a reputable site such as that of the New York Times could be enough to catch something nasty!

"In the most-recent case, NYTimes.com and other established sites hosted malware-infested ads. The New York Times described the attack in a Sept. 14 article.

When malicious ads � or "malvertisements" � enter the rotation on these sites, your system may become infected if you merely view the page. This is especially true if your versions of media players based on Java, Flash, or QuickTime are out-of-date." quoted from Windows Secrets newsletter article.

Another reason for using Ad block software I'd say.

I don't block ads per se but I do use NoScript with FireFox 3.5 which keeps most things at bay .

The problem is, for the general punter, advice to stay away from dodgy sites is no longer enough if they can be infected by visiting "respectable" sites.

malware can do a lot of things.

however it is a lot of if's. Generally speaking it is scaremongering.

To answer your question.

I would rather have a malware on my machine for a few days or however long before I format and reinstall than have a 24/7 impact from an anti virus. Some anti virus's affect machines far worse than malware do.

Not to mention the best malware will get by any AV.

hence the reason I scan http content, I acknowledge the risk on http.

also a reason I block adverts.

The problem is, for the general punter, advice to stay away from dodgy sites is no longer enough if they can be infected by visiting "respectable" sites.

I am not a general punter, I meant more than staying away from sites. I do take other precautions as well. I have not been able to read the article you link to as their server is down, but will check later on and post my views on it.

There has been various occurences in the past of malicous code buried in images etc. on websites but these viruses need specific things to play right for a successful infection.

Someone been vigilant far exceeds what an AV can do it is as simple as that, an AV is just one security layer of many.

Edited by Chrysalis (Tue 13-Oct-09 19:00:05)

Unfortunately even sites we trust can be hacked to serve up malware. We can't win, just minimize our losses!

I would rather have a malware on my machine

What strange logic.