TheCoreWithin

I can't take this seriously http://gamerfront.net/2008/11/13/norton ... -software/.

NOD32 all the way.
I can leave all the features enabled, have it take up 80% less memory than Norton and not interfere with my gaming experience.
All while doing what it's supposed to.

Why won't you use a mac or linux Then you won't need any performance lurking anti-virus package.

Why won't you use a mac ..snip...Then you won't need any performance lurking anti-virus package

Common misconception about Mac OS is that it is more secure than Windows. In reality it is easier to write exploits for MacOS X than for Windows Vista (even if the released viruses are less common).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13450744/Dino ... ploitation

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Elthan wrote:

Why won't you use a mac ..snip...Then you won't need any performance lurking anti-virus package

Common misconception about Mac OS is that it is more secure than Windows. In reality it is easier to write exploits for MacOS X than for Windows Vista (even if the released viruses are less common).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13450744/Dino ... ploitation

Here they are talking about an exploit in Safari not in OSX.

Elthan wrote:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941

Here they explain the possible security vulnerabilities in OSX. Here you have a little point. But I still think it's kinda weird because BSD, where OSX is based on, is the safest *NIX variant. What did Apple do to make it vulnerable??

But in fact, if you are using your computer the right way you don't even have to run a performance lurking anti-virus tools on windows.

Don't want to turn it into a massive debate on the pros / cons of Macs, but the reason Safari was so easy to exploit is because the OS isn't providing randomisation of the memory locations and allowing the memory to be executable. The whole point of the article was that Windows was harder to exploit because of the OS beneath the application, not the application itself (read the bit about all browers having bugs, but exploiting on different OSs is of varying difficulty).

Ok that fits point 2 you have given. True we shouldn't mass op this thread about the Go's and No's of an OS

We can do this discussion somewhere else? In /w orso? haha

Elthan wrote:Don't want to turn it into a massive debate on the pros / cons of Macs, but the reason Safari was so easy to exploit is because the OS isn't providing randomisation of the memory locations and allowing the memory to be executable. The whole point of the article was that Windows was harder to exploit because of the OS beneath the application, not the application itself (read the bit about all browers having bugs, but exploiting on different OSs is of varying difficulty).

That's wrong, mac os x has ASLR since 10.5.

But randomized addresses aren't that much of a problem, you see it with windows, it has it as well, and still there are tons of exploits.

The reason Mac OS X is more secure is that it's less common. That means just by virtue of being a minority it's security holes are less exploited. Also, most users are users, unlike windows where they are administrators.

Dust wrote:Also, most users are users, unlike windows where they are administrators.

This changed with Vista.

Not really.

Microsoft wanted it to change, but they failed with UAC.