So, are anti-malware "real time protection" technologies at least halfway effective...

so, are anti-malware "real time protection" technologies at least halfway effective? I'm looking for something to protect computers used by people without common sense.

install gentoo

Seriously, for people with no common sense loonix is a very good OS.

yeah they are

just use Windows Defender

yes, just keep your os and anti-virus updated. big companies make big money keeping the lists of the latest viruses and they've developed a lot of great ways to detect malware. not the best to rely on if you know you will get attacked and there can be gaps between when a new exploit/virus comes out and when your anti-virus could push out an update, but generally people are safe
also this
security by obscurity isn't the first thing you want to rely on but nobody targets linux pcs because like the year of the gnu/linux desktop never came

Properly configured Cylance or Carbon Black are good. The entire rest of the industry is snake oil shit. Unfortunately, Cylance and CB are insanely expensive.

I thought so too until my friend somehow destroyed pacman and KDE within a week of installing Antergos.

>Carbon Black
I work for a major EHR company, and that's what we use. It's running on all of our machines behind a VPN with certs.

she pregnant or eatin good?

Pregnant. Women typically evenly disperse body fat all across while men accumulate in the belly.
Without even having to google the image, look at her arms, legs, and face.

People without common sense will not use Linux, because that'd be common sense.

>cylance
Who let the memes out of california? They don't even have software tests because "it's learning bro" .

this threads full of teens with no clue


OP use UAC and group policies limit the destruction a virus can do. Put them in a limited Windows account without access to any system tools or system files. Dont allow installation of anything unless you've white listed the signature

did she have a c section

I use Trend Micro at work, have had about 3 clients over the past 6 months get hit with a crypto virus. Trend real time protection takes on average 12 minutes to detect and stop the encryption process. Although one of the clients it didnt detect the virus at all (had to restore that one from backups). It does work, and imo is worth having.

Dont. Use static images, that are rolled out fresh at every boot.

Install Mint on their PC
Easy to use and just werks

Protip: if you install a Linux distro for a tech illiterate Windows user, do not ever install anything that needs tinkering. The DE should resemble Windows (probably KDE,Xfce or Cinnamon), there should be a GUI software center as well as a GUI tool for configuring the system (e.g. yast). If normies feel overwhelmed or not at home with a new system they will quickly lose interest or start to fuck things up.

keep on pretending that this shit actually is helpful but no another software with a shit attack vector due to its "natural" permissions.

keep on thinking that those script engines aren't yet another exploitable piece of shit that introduces your system to easier and faster high level system access than other, more complicated types of intrusion.

keep on believing that a heuristic is even remotely a good way to determine one of the >10k mal-, spy-, add-, scare-, ransomwares, trojans, worms, etc that are written every day

enjoy your snak eoil

>anti-malware
What they do best is detect signatures after the malware already made damage on other computers maybe even yours.
The best way is to use an av that has good proactive defense.

av is never proactive, they never were, currently are not, and will never be that way.

ignorance

is a bliss

Enjoy thinking that being a contrarian who doesn't know shit about anything he criticizes makes you somehow smarter than everyone else. It doesn't. It makes you a blowhard and an obvious one at that to anyone who knows what they are talking about. Your act is transparent to intelligent adults. It may work on other idiots, but you shouldn't concern yourself with their opinions.

>I_Blindly_Parrot_Opinions.txt

and you do? interesting because i haven't had any argument against any of the statements being made ... hmm makes you think

tell me, how is an AV actually securing your system, while being the most privileged software on your operating system? how is the amount of add software being written daily even countered by those amazing heuristics that just assume that one trojan is a fork of another.

if you want to exploit windows these days you just aim for AV and get your permissions by probing its functions.

you are just a clueless fucking wintard who likes to believe that AV is proactive and actually introducing security.

but to get your gears grinding a bit. think about "security software". there is barely any reasearch being done on how implement with scientific knowledge pro active security measures. there is a difference between research being done on software, exploiting and fixing it.

stop kidding yourself that you know what the fuck you are talking about

is bliss* you peasant

Proactive defenses can be useful to stop anything normal security didn't stop. It's still debatable whether it's worth it. Security isn't perfect because most companies put it below convenience and productivity, so a bit of antivirus to fix people's fuckups can be useful. Still not the good solution IMO.

>used by people without common sense
Any account, privilege or data these people will have access to are already fucked. Isolate the incompetent users. Don't rely on antivirus. There's no other way.

>muh tech legends they told me as a kid

sure i would love to see proactive defense that actually works but on AV level you won't really find that, only if you redefine proactive as "X is in our heuristic, therefor we can stop X". that is actually not proactive.

proactive would be a firewall appliance, that a normal person wouldn't be able to afford. that has a learning mode to sniff your networks traffic and with the gathered information alarms you if traffic is out of the ordinary. but that is only useful if the attack against your systems actually spreads but isn't just a one time host execution thing.

>receive email from job offer
>it has .exe attached.
>open it
>click yes, execute file
No amount of pro-active antivirus can protect you from this, unless Mr. McAfee actually slaps your shit from behind.

>bun in the oven

Pls lrn2allusion

An antivirus with 'sandbox mode' renders all forms of malware useless. Even some of the most infamous malware would not run in sandbox, even before the virus was discovered and updated in the lists. Malware usually just breaks, because the sandbox doesn't give it access to the hooks it normally exploits.

I use Comodo Premium. It gets a lot of unwarranted hate, all of the issues I commonly see complained about, have never happened to me.

Kill the subhumans without common sense.

No, they are a meme. Just install uBlock origin on their firefox and activate malware domain filters and make sure the OS is up to date.
Alternatively install ZorinOS Lite on their machine. It will just werk.

So, what's the deal with the new Malwarebytes being an AV replacement? Is it just buzzwords or would those of you too paranoid to rely on Common Sense 2018 Enterprise Edition R2 trust it on its own? I haven't had malware is so long, and I do nothing dangerous and use Sandboxie for a lot of stuff but AM/AV software makes me feel a lot more comfortable.

Doesn't hurt if you have to use windows for work

I haven't had anti-virus protection in 6 years and not once did I ever get hacked with bullshit scams
>sucks2bU

doesnt work, normies are rat bastard fuckers
>hurr im stupid enough to download shemalebigdick_3.wmv.exe
>but im smart enough to subvert the antivirus and install it anyway

I'm a sysadmin at a library in the deep South, I use the active protection on all public computers and it has significantly reduced the amount of malware I have to remove. Well worth it for me.