Having a tool that can screen emails and other files sent to you is definitely advantageous.
I see 1 denied attack every 3 or 6 months. Not many but seeing them isolated is much better than the 1virus I recall many years ago that was so bad that I trashed the computer to eradicate it.
Apple is more than good enough.
Do you run both Microsoft Defender and the anti-virus program?Only if you're only checking email and the like and not shopping. True, OS systems such as Microsoft Defender do a good basic job but for many a more robust antivirus and firewall are necessary.
I have had virus problems in the past with Comodo and Norton. I'm currently using https://www.bitdefender.com/ Its smooth, stays in the background unless a threat is detected and does not load down the system as best I can tell.
I dropped Kespersky when Czar Putin took control of Russia.
I just checked my own system and it says that Microsoft Defender is inactive because I'm running Kaspersky software. When I go to Windows Defender, it says that Defender (shut down) is being controlled by Kaspersky.Do you run both Microsoft Defender and the anti-virus program?
Does Microsoft Defender that comes with Windows 10 do that? What else besides Kaspersky or other anti-virus software?If you receive a lot of email from people unknown to you - say you are an HR department at an employer that accepts job applications by email - then you can expect to receive emails and attachments that contain problems. That is one of the favourite methods of those who send ransomware.
Having a tool that can screen emails and other files sent to you is definitely advantageous.
This.
OS X security is pretty good already and there is no reasong for anti-virus software. For example you cannot run apps from untrusted sources without really overriding all warnings & security questions.
Yes nothing is 100% safe but if you use OS X in normal way, there is no reason to install any of these "security" apps because of the internal proctection it has.
...and, by the way, your needs for antivirus software relate directly to your browsing activity.
^^^This^^^
Like I said above, I practice safe computing and have never had a problem with that bad stuff. However, I have friends who have had me come over and try to rescue them from one self-inflicted wound or another. The most common transgression was from clicking on an attachment in an unsolicited email. The other was answering the phone and believing that it was really Microsoft telling you that your computer had a virus. On 2 occasions I saw that the ransom paid did result in their computer being unlocked. In several other cases I just reformatted their hard drive and reinstalled everything, except for their data which they had failed to back up.
Settings>System>AboutDo you run both Microsoft Defender and the anti-virus program?
There's a good reason they banned it. It created potential security holes. Federal IT folks tend to be extra risk-averse, and while they may be slow to change things, a big part of that reason is security concerns. If they're concerned about the security of it, you should be too.The Federal government is banning it for itself. It's not banned for private use. I've had good experience with it for around 7 years never having a virus that screwed up my machine. I previously used McAffee and Norton and always had virus problems. I don't want to give Russia business, but I'm hesitant to switch back to programs I had problems with.
Can someone answer my other question about Imac computers? Does it pay to load up a different anti-virus program or does the iMac use Apple virus programs automatically and are those sufficient?
Basically, you should be hard wired to the internet, wifi is a security issue and it's slower. If you do get hit by a virus, all you have to do is disconnect from the web and shut the computer off. When it reboots, any virus should be gone. It works, at least on Windows machines, I can't imagine that a Mac would be different.
My theory when I replaced my Norton that wasn;t working well seven years ago was that Kaspersky is Russian. Since they knew more about most people about getting into systems, they should know a thing or two about anti virus programs, maybe better than most.There's a good reason they banned it. It created potential security holes. Federal IT folks tend to be extra risk-averse, and while they may be slow to change things, a big part of that reason is security concerns. If they're concerned about the security of it, you should be too.
They are probably quite happy to make use of it in the backgroundIn any case, the Russians aren't really interested in my computer.
The Russian government may not be interested in the contents of your computer, but Russian hackers who have government affiliations most definitely are. Your data is worth far more than you realize, not only to nation-state actors but also garden-variety criminals.My theory when I replaced my Norton that wasn;t working well seven years ago was that Kaspersky is Russian. Since they knew more about most people about getting into systems, they should know a thing or two about anti virus programs, maybe better than most.So far so good. In any case, the Russians aren't really interested in my computer.
Of course, now that there's this war, I'm questioning whether I should continue on moral and technical grounds. Technically, I wonder if there will be updates with the new viruses as they develop or will I be stuck with only the old ones?
Morality is another issue. But that probably gets into politics and Sean has forbidden to discuss politics.
I'd respond but I'm sure it would be considered political.They are probably quite happy to make use of it in the background.
Who knows, Putin may be enjoying one of your slide shows right now - everyone needs a little distraction from time to time.
I assumed Russians would hack into computers at home that are running Norton or McAfee or any other than Kaspersky. They would want to show how effective Kaspersky is over the others. At least that's my theory. After all, it has worked well for me for seven years unlike that unreliable Norton and McAfee I used previously.The Russian government may not be interested in the contents of your computer, but Russian hackers who have government affiliations most definitely are. Your data is worth far more than you realize, not only to nation-state actors but also garden-variety criminals.
My theory when I replaced my Norton that wasn;t working well seven years ago was that Kaspersky is Russian. Since they knew more about most people about getting into systems, they should know a thing or two about anti virus programs, maybe better than most.So far so good. In any case, the Russians aren't really interested in my computer.
Of course, now that there's this war, I'm questioning whether I should continue on moral and technical grounds. Technically, I wonder if there will be updates with the new viruses as they develop or will I be stuck with only the old ones?
Morality is another issue. But that probably gets into politics and Sean has forbidden to discuss politics.
The Russian government may not be interested in the contents of your computer, but Russian hackers who have government affiliations most definitely are. Your data is worth far more than you realize, not only to nation-state actors but also garden-variety criminals.
The Russian government may not be interested in the contents of your computer, but Russian hackers who have government affiliations most definitely are. Your data is worth far more than you realize, not only to nation-state actors but also garden-variety criminals.
If I was USA based, I would avoid security software that wasn't USA based.
I'd respond but I'm sure it would be considered political.In any case, any opinions about my technical question about updates going forward?
I assumed Russians would hack into computers at home that are running Norton or McAfee or any other than Kaspersky. They would want to show how effective Kaspersky is over the others. At least that's my theory. After all, it has worked well for me for seven years unlike that unreliable Norton and McAfee I used previously.
This is the crux of the matter. You describe those as "unreliable." In what way? Please be specific....unreliable Norton and McAfee I used previously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?