- Jul 12, 2018
- 2
- 0
- 10
User: woolwich computers
May 2, 2016 11:02:04 AM
4745454b said:
“I have to agree with the original post about not using anti-virus. I have worked in the IT field for over 25 years and I have never come across any anti-virus software that can 100% guarantee that they will stop a virus. Why is it that no anti-virus software has the wording "We Guarantee" because they can't.”
::: my commentary::: First of all does working in IT at all make someone a real authority figure on antivirus software? I mean in 1990 few people owned a computer outside of industries and the internet was a small infrastructure comprised mostly of institutions of learning, agencies, and some companies. Viruses weren’t a huge concern or targeted at average consumers until years later. So the first half of his career would be working for a larger entity and dealing with users on the network who wouldn’t know basic information to avoid malware and viruses like we know today. Antivirus is like a goalie. If you remove the goalie through human error it’s no different than never having had a goalie (antivirus software) to begin with. It mostly caught my attention because I just love the line of logical reasoning this person uses (doubly ironic since computer programming is based on logic and programmers from amateur to the best should have a background in logic and logical fallacies. They don’t have to head a debate team but you have to pick it up somewhere along your learning whether in a class or just self taught. Now I don’t work in networking but how does anyone in IT reason that because no antivirus software can’t come with a guarantee of never having a virus translate into no one should bother getting antivirus or anti malware? (Disregarding that you’d have to be a wizard capable of knowing everything that anyone might think up to take advantage of a computer code in the future to be able to make that guarantee). This guy takes either or to the extreme whee his argument turns into reductio ad absurdum. “A few viruses might make it through some computers therefore no antivirus software can be completely trusted and therefore no one should use them”. Can anyone else in IT explain how no one having any protection is in anyway an ideal environment for a network? Here comes the next lines of reasoning from Mr Blackhat.
Woolwich Computers:
“Nearly every computer that comes into my shop does so to have a virus or spyware removed and all of them have got anti-virus installed and they still get infected, so all anti-virus programs are worthless.
Just to add, I don't run anti-virus I use a hardware firewall and that will stop anything.
http
/www.onlinebootfair.co.uk
Quoted 1 time.
Options
woolwich computers has edited this post May 2, 2016 11:05:10 AM
SCORE
0”
::::me:::: Wow you work at a store that fixes computers and a lot of the computers have viruses on them that need to be removed. Who would have thought that a computer repair shop has to repair computers ruined by a virus? And therefore all antivirus software are useless and just throw them all away. Wait I just thought of something even more profound. Every computer that goes to that store comes in not working. Maybe he isn’t thinking in large enough scales. It probably means that all computers break and are therefore worthless and no one should use a computer. I mean no matter what reason it’s brought to the “COMPUTER REPAIR STORE” it’s brokrn and doesn’t work. So why buy the computer at all. You save on antivirus software which is useless so by his calculations every computer in the world is infected unless it has his impenetrable firewall. Just to underscore his ability to think logically he literally states because he comes across computers broken from a virus that 100% implies all antivirus software is useless and just don’t bother to use it (in a repair store where he works as if people are going to bring their fully functional virus free computer that is protected by software).
Of course it doesn’t state how said computers were infected. If they had any antiviral software... oh wait I forgot “all had antivirus installed”. What does that mean? Is there just some generic program out there called antivirus? Does the U.K. have a national antivirus system like their healthcare? And what does “nearly all” mean? I would say this is a false statistics logical fallacy but there aren’t any statistics. Just vague terms. Did the person using the computer disregarded any warnings, downloaded email attachments, or even had the program running or ever performed scans. Or if the software was up to date. Or if the software was a reputable company and not a downloaded cracked version using BitTorrent.
I have to ask is his boast about his hardware firewall being impregnatable by anyone or anything st least valid? And how would he know he has never had a virus if he never had any computer checked for a virus? Aren’t bypassing firewalls possible. I know in the Army we had to be careful not to use thumb drives that had been used on any computer not certified to be on the Army’s secret internet which basically is an internal internet supposed to be for the most part or wholly cut off from the internet used by everyone else. I wasn’t quite sure but a lot of viruses got through and were stopped by software and the virus originated usually from usb drives. A lot of the viruses were of Chinese and North Korean origin. I doubt anyone cares to make usb viruses just for this guy but if the Army’s network can be breached even slightly (as in a virus made the jump from one hardware to the other) but was stopped by ironically software programs than are hardware firewalls as undefeatable as he claims? I obviously
May 2, 2016 11:02:04 AM
4745454b said:
“I have to agree with the original post about not using anti-virus. I have worked in the IT field for over 25 years and I have never come across any anti-virus software that can 100% guarantee that they will stop a virus. Why is it that no anti-virus software has the wording "We Guarantee" because they can't.”
::: my commentary::: First of all does working in IT at all make someone a real authority figure on antivirus software? I mean in 1990 few people owned a computer outside of industries and the internet was a small infrastructure comprised mostly of institutions of learning, agencies, and some companies. Viruses weren’t a huge concern or targeted at average consumers until years later. So the first half of his career would be working for a larger entity and dealing with users on the network who wouldn’t know basic information to avoid malware and viruses like we know today. Antivirus is like a goalie. If you remove the goalie through human error it’s no different than never having had a goalie (antivirus software) to begin with. It mostly caught my attention because I just love the line of logical reasoning this person uses (doubly ironic since computer programming is based on logic and programmers from amateur to the best should have a background in logic and logical fallacies. They don’t have to head a debate team but you have to pick it up somewhere along your learning whether in a class or just self taught. Now I don’t work in networking but how does anyone in IT reason that because no antivirus software can’t come with a guarantee of never having a virus translate into no one should bother getting antivirus or anti malware? (Disregarding that you’d have to be a wizard capable of knowing everything that anyone might think up to take advantage of a computer code in the future to be able to make that guarantee). This guy takes either or to the extreme whee his argument turns into reductio ad absurdum. “A few viruses might make it through some computers therefore no antivirus software can be completely trusted and therefore no one should use them”. Can anyone else in IT explain how no one having any protection is in anyway an ideal environment for a network? Here comes the next lines of reasoning from Mr Blackhat.
Woolwich Computers:
“Nearly every computer that comes into my shop does so to have a virus or spyware removed and all of them have got anti-virus installed and they still get infected, so all anti-virus programs are worthless.
Just to add, I don't run anti-virus I use a hardware firewall and that will stop anything.
http
/www.onlinebootfair.co.ukQuoted 1 time.
Options
woolwich computers has edited this post May 2, 2016 11:05:10 AM
SCORE
0”
::::me:::: Wow you work at a store that fixes computers and a lot of the computers have viruses on them that need to be removed. Who would have thought that a computer repair shop has to repair computers ruined by a virus? And therefore all antivirus software are useless and just throw them all away. Wait I just thought of something even more profound. Every computer that goes to that store comes in not working. Maybe he isn’t thinking in large enough scales. It probably means that all computers break and are therefore worthless and no one should use a computer. I mean no matter what reason it’s brought to the “COMPUTER REPAIR STORE” it’s brokrn and doesn’t work. So why buy the computer at all. You save on antivirus software which is useless so by his calculations every computer in the world is infected unless it has his impenetrable firewall. Just to underscore his ability to think logically he literally states because he comes across computers broken from a virus that 100% implies all antivirus software is useless and just don’t bother to use it (in a repair store where he works as if people are going to bring their fully functional virus free computer that is protected by software).
Of course it doesn’t state how said computers were infected. If they had any antiviral software... oh wait I forgot “all had antivirus installed”. What does that mean? Is there just some generic program out there called antivirus? Does the U.K. have a national antivirus system like their healthcare? And what does “nearly all” mean? I would say this is a false statistics logical fallacy but there aren’t any statistics. Just vague terms. Did the person using the computer disregarded any warnings, downloaded email attachments, or even had the program running or ever performed scans. Or if the software was up to date. Or if the software was a reputable company and not a downloaded cracked version using BitTorrent.
I have to ask is his boast about his hardware firewall being impregnatable by anyone or anything st least valid? And how would he know he has never had a virus if he never had any computer checked for a virus? Aren’t bypassing firewalls possible. I know in the Army we had to be careful not to use thumb drives that had been used on any computer not certified to be on the Army’s secret internet which basically is an internal internet supposed to be for the most part or wholly cut off from the internet used by everyone else. I wasn’t quite sure but a lot of viruses got through and were stopped by software and the virus originated usually from usb drives. A lot of the viruses were of Chinese and North Korean origin. I doubt anyone cares to make usb viruses just for this guy but if the Army’s network can be breached even slightly (as in a virus made the jump from one hardware to the other) but was stopped by ironically software programs than are hardware firewalls as undefeatable as he claims? I obviously
Facebook
Twitter