I was thinking, mbam, have you got other suggestions for Windows 10? Also, is there a good setup for when I’m running games I bought, and I don’t need active scanning of threats? (Especially for legit games that use resources intensively)

  • mindlight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    If your computer is network connected you really really need antimalware running. In theory, a game server could be exploited and controlled to inject malware into game clients ( = you playing online).

    If you use a browser to access internet, there has been malware infected ads that infect your computer when you visit legitimate web sites.

    If you get infected, the malware most likely won’t do anything that makes you notice it. It all depends what the purpose of the malware is.

    Ransomware? Then it stays hidden until it has encrypted all your files and then it pops up telling you to pay or you won’t be able to use your computer.

    Collecting useful passwords? Getting full access to your Steam account is nice. Got some awesome weapons and armor in the MMORPG you play? That’s something they theoretically would script to be able to steal from you.

    Or maybe the malware just stays hidden for now, contacting it’s control center now and then to see if there is any instructions.

    Malware is business. The people behind it are businessmen and you are part of what they sell.

    If you have a fairly modern computer there shouldn’t be that much impact on the performance.

    • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      If on Windows, Windows defender is more than enough for all of that stuff. It’s very effective, although does require an internet connection or it won’t do as well

      • mindlight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes. But the discussion was about not running any since it killed performance.

        • jnk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Extremely case where I’m going to defend windows; but Ms Defender never killed performance in a pc even if i had a low-end one.

          Considering all the bloatware windows has, OP would be better off fighting like literally every other program except Defender…

          • mindlight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I fully agree.

            But my main point was that they’re taking an extreme risk if they’re running without active antivirus and access the network in one or another way.

            • SpeedySparticus@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Not running antivirus does not put you in risk. Antivirus has a considerable impact on performance and does not prevent malware. What puts you at risk is running executables with malware which antivirus can only prevent if it is just some scriptkiddie trying to hack you. Real malware can’t be prevented by antivirus.

              • mindlight@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Either you’re just ignorant or your working in the Russian malware industry.

                Remote exploits doesn’t have anything to do with you running any infected executables. It’s about vulnerabilities in executables that you are running. Read up on the zx vulnerability or the log4j vulnerability.

                One really really old attack vector is a buffer overflow attack. For example, if you’re running a clean VLC to watch a movie and your VLC is older than version 3.0.12 you’re at risk. The video file, that you “purchased” on PirateBay, could have been manipulated to crash VLC and force VLC run a specific payload in the video file. If that payload is ransomware it’s game over for you.

                Yeah, just like wearing a seatbelt doesn’t guarantee that you don’t get injured, antivirus doesn’t guarantee that your computer won’t get infected.

                But there’s no doubt about the usefulness of both seatbelt and antivirus.

                • SpeedySparticus@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  The liblzma vulnerability does not have have anything to do with antivirus. Running antivirus doesn’t help with that. Same goes for log4j. The liblzma and log4j vulnerabilities didn’t get detected by antivirus and it didn’t help prevent it. Remote exploits can also only happen if you either have some service exposed to the internet or visiting a malicious website with a vulnerable browser. Antivirus can only prevent scriptkiddies but any sophisticated malware will just bypass av

                  • mindlight@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    I explained what a remote exploit was and gave examples of remote exploits.

                    Are you claiming that antivirus isn’t able to detect malware entering through an remote exploit?