Opening an attachment often automatically causes it to be executed. 

 

Gene

From: enes sarıbaş

Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 2:45 PM

To: nvda@nvda.groups.io

Subject: Re: [nvda] Anti Virus

hi gene,

opening the attachment isn't a problem. Executing the file is. I recieved a spam mail that contained a malicious javascript enclosed in a zip file.  My antivirus, avira, missed it. When I uploaded it to virustotal, I was the first one to upload it and only 2 antiviruses caught it.

On 11/19/2016 9:03 PM, Gene wrote:

No matter how careful you are, you can still be infected, even by going to reputable sites if those sites are hacked or if the advertising on those sites is hacked.  Yes, people should follow good safety procedures.  but that does not minimize the need or usefulness of good antimalware programs. 

 

And no matter how careful you are, what about the moment of inattention.  I'm very careful about not opening attachments.  but even so, there was one time in perhaps fifteen years or longer, that I wasn't really thinking much about what I was doing and opened an attachment that came from a message that looked as though it was from someone I knew.  If I had been paying proper attention, I wouldn't have done so but the point is that unless you are sure that you will always be paying proper attention from now until you stop using computers, there is always a small or very small chance for error.  I've seen techs or techies minimize the importance of antimalware programs.  Frankly, I consider this to be the overconfidence of knowledge.  I believe that safety is the lesson of knowledge and experience.

 

Genee

----- Original Message -----

From: Shaun Everiss

Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 11:52 AM

To: nvda@nvda.groups.io

Subject: Re: [nvda] Anti Virus

I agree, the first point of security should be your head.
Next I'd use something like firefox with better privacy for flash
cookies, ublock for adds, and noscript for scripts.
That way if you click malware it may not run.
To be honest I have been tempted to get more passive protection that
gets stuff before it handles things.



On 20/11/2016 6:44 a.m., Brian Vogel wrote:
> I have seen virtually any antivirus or security suite you can name either praised to the high heavens or called almost completely useless.  It really depends on who's doing the reviewing and the metrics they're using.
>
> As has been said here, and elsewhere, antivirus programs are not and should not be considered your first line of defense against infection.  Your own browsing habits play a far, far greater role in that.  Good browsing hygiene will keep you quite safe, if not 100% so.
>
> If you have not been infected nor had whatever antivirus or security program you've been using report anything being quarantined in a very long time you can be reasonably certain that your browsing habits are OK.  If you're constantly infected or have things quarantined without actually having been infected it would be very wise to start looking at precisely when, how, and why this is happening.  Most infections are the direct result of user action, not some backdoor entry.
>
> Windows Defender has proven more than adequate for more users on more machines than I can count at this point in my career.   Nothing is perfect, some competitors may be better, but Windows Defender is not even close to "junk".
>
> This thread entitled, Windows Defender as an integral part of Windows 10 ( http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/632487/windows-defender-as-integral-part-of-windows-10/ ) , which just started yesterday on bleepingcomputer.com's Windows 10 Support Forum, is worth reading [disclaimer: I've got two posts in that thread so far, but that's not why I think it's worth looking at].
> --
> *Brian*
>
> *Here is a test to find out whether your mission in life is complete.  If you’re alive, it isn’t.*
>
>    ~ Lauren Bacall
>