this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
794 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

72729 readers
2167 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 169 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't understand why companies who commit blatant fraud like this aren't required to disgorge all fraudulently earned money. If someone defrauds banks they get fined based on their earnings in a way that hurts. If someone defrauds consumers for "tens of millions of dollars" they are only fined $16M.

Well, actually I do understand, I just don't like it and don't like what it says about this country's priorities.

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

By New York state law you are, any "ill gotten gains" must be surrendered. And the fine accumulates interest during any appeals to boot. it's why Trump is getting his nearly half a billion dollar fine. I wish all fraud laws were that way though. I believe most are typically based on common law fraud, and usually there's some kind of flat fine and the the rest is based off provable damages to other parties, rather than the amount of profit.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Yep. Things don't have to be this way.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 148 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Sounds like avast is malware

[–] expr@programming.dev 19 points 1 year ago

Has been all along.

[–] Lev_Astov@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service you get from a large company, you aren't their customer, you're their product.

[–] PoliticallyIncorrect@lemmy.world 119 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

When the antivirus becomes the virus..

[–] diffcalculus@lemmy.world 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫🧑‍🚀

[–] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SpeedLimit55@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven’t heard anything about Avast in years, didn’t even know it still existed.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Wait, they're not common anymore? Lol It's what I use. Any suggestions for better ones?

[–] czech@low.faux.moe 63 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Microsoft defender, ublock origin and keep your computer up to date.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And practice Layer-8 security, i.e. don't be an idiot.

[–] Hyperreality@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago

That's not really a choice you can make. Also idiots don't know they're idiots.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I haven't run anything other than free Windows defender since it was available I believe in Windows 7. Never had a virus or anything malicious. Don't download files that you don't know the source of. Don't click on mystery links. Don't visit insecure websites. And as mentioned, keep your system up to date and you'll be fine.

[–] pensivepangolin@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah people act like it’s so easy to get a virus but if you’re even remotely competent it’s pretty easy to avoid

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

I worked geek squad for years. The vast majority of malware was people downloading free games or free software and then not checking the custom install settings to uncheck the "install McAfee security scanner" or whatever toolbar and redirection it was at the time.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

Never had a virus or anything malicious.

That you know about.

Don't assume you are fine just because your antivirus doesn't alert you about viruses.

This goes for every AV, not just Defender.

That being said, I am also just using Defender snd it has worked well.

I used to run F-Secure, and I like it, but eh Defender is good enough.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

Defender + common sense usually works as long as youre not using it like a public library.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] linearchaos@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Oh, that's good now do Microsoft

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Rob@lemdro.id 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How to stay private online without needing avast.

  1. Use open source/offline apps. Only use others apps if you just have to.

  2. If you're navigating websites or servers, where it is located mostly will influence the privacy. How you may ask?

Some countries have specific laws and restrictions what sites and apps can collect or even do. Figure out which ones align in your favor and use sites and servers located in those places.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or: use linux and don't be a dumbass. I know, it sounds elitist, but I've been around a long, long time on the internet and I probably haven't used antivirus this millennia and the only problem I've ever had was one kodi addon mining bitcoin (inside a sandboxed environment).

[–] Plopp@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Linux users keep saying you don't need antivirus on Linux and that Linux is more secure and safe. This intrigues me, as I'm moving to Linux, but I never hear any technical reasons as to why this would be. All I see is "there are no viruses because it's a small platform". That's not an argument for the security of the platform so I'm curious to know if there are any technical reasons Linux would be more secure. Every now and then I read about some malware for Linux, so they do definitely exist.

[–] jyte@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)
[–] redfox@infosec.pub 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Congratz, you found a really shitty malware.

I don't think that's lockbit quality.

[–] scoobford@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The underlying user/group systems are a little more secure, containerization is common and easy (flatpak, bubblewrap, and firejail), the attack surface is lower, the marketshare is smaller, and repositories are fundamentally superior. Of these, app repositories and the market share are by far the biggest factors.

Getting malware on Linux isn't totally unheard of, but it is extremely uncommon. I've never had any, nor has anyone I know. This guy isn't the first person I've heard of getting malware on Linux, but he is one of very, very few.

one added benefit of Linux: It doesn't - on a default installation - enable tons of services the user will probably never need. These services on Windows listen on the internet connection for incoming requests (e.g. remote desktop service), or are available locally for other exploits.

One of the reasons Windows "just works" (well...) is because literally EVERYTHING is preconfigured and activated on startup. That's also one of the reasons why the system is such a resource hogging piece of work...

It's a work of hours to manually go through system services and identify & disable everything you will not need.

[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

All I see is "there are no viruses because it's a small platform".

It's also a total lie. Do you know how many Linux servers there are in the world? It's a lot. Same for Android devices.

While these aren't quite the same, and thus not the same vulnerabilities as desktop Linux, they do provide some insights into the effectiveness of its security model.

[–] expr@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago

It's not the case that viruses can't exist on Linux, it's just very improbable through normal usage. The key difference is that the overwhelming majority of software installed on Linux is through a package manager, which is a tool that downloads software from a maintained, trusted, and vetted repository of software. So instead of googling "Firefox download", clicking on (hopefully) the right link (and getting this right gets harder and harder with Google fucking up search results), and downloading the software from the website, you simply execute a command in your terminal like apt install firefox (for Debian-based systems, command can vary by distro you're using) and it pulls the software from a trusted repository. This alone eliminates the most common attack vectors, since usually Windows users get viruses by downloading random executables off the internet.

Generally, the way you get viruses on a Linux system are through finding/exploiting vulnerabilities in software which is very hard to pull off generally and are usually resolved fairly quickly once they're discovered (And of course, Linux is not unique in this respect, any computer can be target of such attacks).

[–] magikmw@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's little technical reason, at least no security features were ever tested on the scale Windows is every day.

The real reason is nobody bothers to target Linux desktop users because there's dozens of us (dozens!) while there's billions of Windows users. It's about efficiently spending your money and time while investing into crime.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

between smartphones replacing desktop PCs and mac computers, I doubt that there's "billions" of windows users left in reality.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

don't forget all the office drones, who are also the main target of scammers

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

240 million PCs were shipped last year, with about 10% being Apple. A negligible number run Linux. If we assume 5 years average life, that's still easily a billion active Windows devices.

That said, devices may not be the best metric. You mentioned users, which may use many devices. For instance, I use a Windows laptop at work, Windows desktop at home, Android on my phone.

I would use web server metrics, which are an approximate indicator of time spent on each OS.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I believe the yearly tally from some company aggregating website traffic came out a few months back and linux had climbed over 4% of desktop usage. Linux gamers have outnumbered mac users on steam for close to a year now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sacah@aussie.zone 9 points 1 year ago

I think it's the "don't be a dumbass" that's important, not the OS choice really. I haven't had a 3rd party virus scanner in at least a decade on Windows and have never had a virus or malware.

[–] Rob@lemdro.id 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I hadn't used any anti virus in about 8 years. Being on Linux and Chromeos mostly on the pc side and using Fdroid opensource apps and the few big apps needed from PlayStore.

[–] PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I haven't used any antivirus on Windows since 2008, generally doing whatever I want and just not being stupid about it, and I've had no issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CyberDine@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

If you're gonna pay for Antivirus, shout out to ESET NOD32.

They have gotten a bit expensive though. I'm buying a 1 year sub for $10 on Black Friday.

load more comments
view more: next ›