Anti-virus can't keep up with threat onsalught
It raises the question: is anti-virus good enough to protect against today's threats?
The short answer is no, anti-virus is not good enough, yet consumers can't afford not to use it when one new piece of malicious software, or malware, is released every two seconds.
security industry realised long ago that relying on a blacklist of 'known bad files' was not sustainable given the sheer volume of malware.
Whether anti-virus protects against every threat may be besides the point. Widely respected New Zealand-based security researcher, Peter Gutmann, says consumers should use it but need to have realistic expectations of what it can provide.
"In general anti-virus is a bit like locking your front door: any determined burglar will still get in but it's good enough to keep the kiddies out and it's pretty negligent not to do it," says the self-confessed "professional paranoid".
Gutmann runs a Windows system and uses the free Microsoft's Security Essentials anti-virus product.
"It's actually a pretty decent product that's unlike your Norton and all that crap. It's pretty lightweight and does a pretty good job of stopping crap. Given that it's free for home users, there isn't any reason why you shouldn't be using that on your system," he says.
"To browse the internet, Chrome and Firefox are more secure than Internet Explorer, which is the primary target of hackers."
Whatever the case may be, two things are certain: anti-virus is not "total protection" but its failure to deliver that does not make it a useless product.
note from me use Microsoft's Security Essentials anti-virus or avast good & free
as Peter Gutmann said Norton is crap. so way pay if free is better.
