<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Defending The Kingdom &#187; antivirus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/category/antivirus/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com</link>
	<description>Security and Privacy in Your Digital Life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:59:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-virus programs that are viruses</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/anti-virus-programs-that-are-viruses</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/anti-virus-programs-that-are-viruses#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=622</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After buying a new computer last week, I was undergoing the usual process of uninstalling programs that the manufacturer thought would be useful to me but that I don&#8217;t care for. One of these was McAfee&#8217;s Internet Security suite. Perhaps it does a fine job of protecting computers if you give it the chance, but [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After buying a new computer last week, I was undergoing the usual process of uninstalling programs that the manufacturer thought would be useful to me but that I don&#8217;t care for. One of these was McAfee&#8217;s Internet Security suite. Perhaps it does a fine job of protecting computers if you give it the chance, but a few things bothered me:</p>
<ol>
<li> I was pestered several times per day to register the product. The options presented were along the lines of &#8220;Yes, register now&#8221; or &#8220;Remind me later&#8221;. Like a clingly salesperson, McAfee would not take &#8220;No&#8221; for an answer.</li>
<li>The program refused to uninstall using the standard Windows uninstall mechanism. A few Google searches suggests that my experience is not exceptional.</li>
<li>At least some users who manage to remove McAfee from their machines find that the company leaves behind <a href="http://support.kaspersky.com/faq?qid=208280258">poison pills</a> in an effort to prevent competitor products from being installed.</li>
</ol>
<p>These are serious infractions. We&#8217;ve got a program that is overwhelmingly concerned with its own survival and is willing to use sneaky tactics to achieve it. That willingness includes sabotaging users&#8217; ability use their machines as they wish (making them unsafe in the process).</p>
<p>What do we call a program like that? I think it&#8217;s obvious: McAfee Internet Security is a virus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/anti-virus-programs-that-are-viruses/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fake antivirus attack</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-fake-antivirus-attack</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-fake-antivirus-attack#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 21:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, almost everyone use antivirus software to protect themselves. So have virus craftsmen given up? Nah, they&#8217;ve just adapted to the environment. A 2009 IC3 report warns that the fake virus scan attack is becoming more popular. It doesn&#8217;t surprise me, as I&#8217;ve seen it in action a fair number of times. Here&#8217;s how the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Today, almost everyone use antivirus software to protect themselves. So have virus craftsmen given up? Nah, they&#8217;ve just adapted to the environment. A <a href="http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2009_IC3Report.pdf">2009 IC3 report</a> warns that the fake virus scan attack is becoming more popular. It doesn&#8217;t surprise me, as I&#8217;ve seen it in action a fair number of times. Here&#8217;s how the attack works:</p>
<blockquote><p>Victims reportedly receive ads warning them of the existence of threatening viruses and/or illegal content allegedly found on the victim’s computer. When victims click on the fake pop-ups, malicious code is downloaded onto their computers. Victims are directed to purchase anti-virus software to repair their computers, but in some instances this resulted in viruses, Trojans, or key loggers downloaded onto their computers.</p></blockquote>
<p>The installed software often disables your legitimate antivirus program, allowing the beastly intruder to run wild on your operating system. When this happens, there are usually just a couple options that remain:</p>
<ol>
<li>Install <a href="http://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/clamwin_portable">ClamWin Portable</a> on a USB key using an uninfected computer, then scan your computer by inserting the USB key into the infected computer. Just make sure to offload all other files on your USB key to prevent them from getting infected when you insert the USB key into the infected computer.</li>
<li>Use Microsoft&#8217;s in-built System Restore feature if you&#8217;re using Windows XP, Vista, or 7. Restore your system to the farthest date in history you can stomach without fear of losing important system changes or files. The restore feature isn&#8217;t supposed to affect your workaday files, but don&#8217;t count on it.</li>
</ol>
<p>Of course, you may want help doing either of these things, so consider taking your computer to a technician. If you&#8217;re in this situation right now, I wish you good luck. </p>
<p>If it&#8217;s not you, be wary that it could be if you&#8217;re not vigilant. The options for recovery are not wonderful, so it&#8217;s far better to prevent the infection in the first place. Remember, scan every file that comes onto your computer from another computer (whether by USB stick, email, internet download, or instant message) before opening it. No exceptions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/the-fake-antivirus-attack/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>After spam</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/after-spam</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/after-spam#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 21:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics of security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If spam emails didn&#8217;t sometimes encourage people to click through and make a purchase, it wouldn&#8217;t exist as a business. The fact that we all get spam means that, despite the costs of doing so, somebody still finds it profitable to send out all of those emails. The truly amazing thing, though, is the number [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If spam emails didn&#8217;t sometimes encourage people to click through and make a purchase, it wouldn&#8217;t exist as a business. The fact that we all get spam means that, despite the costs of doing so, somebody still finds it profitable to send out all of those emails. The truly amazing thing, though, is the number of emails spammers have to send in order to capture a single customer. The Economist had an <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/17519964">article</a> a few weeks ago that provided some data:</p>
<blockquote><p>In 2008 researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and San Diego posed as spammers, infiltrated a botnet and measured its success rate. The investigation confirmed only 28 “sales” on 350m e-mail messages sent, a conversion rate under .00001%. Since then, says Mr Peterson, the numbers have got worse.</p></blockquote>
<p>Given how good my Gmail account is at filtering out spam and assuming that other email software is rising to that standard, I&#8217;m not surprised that the conversion rate is so low. So what are spammers doing now?</p>
<p>Well, Twitter seems to be a breeding ground in rude health:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana show that 8% of links published [on Twitter] were shady, with most of them leading to scams and the rest to Trojans.</p></blockquote>
<p>And I suspect we&#8217;ll see Facebook become an increasingly important launching pad for similar threats. The <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/security-problems-are-forever">security arms race</a> continues.</p>
<p>Happy holidays, dear readers!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/after-spam/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How good is free anti-virus?</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/how-good-is-free-anti-virus</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/how-good-is-free-anti-virus#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever heard that free anti-virus programs skimp on their virus definitions so you aren’t as protected as you would be if you were using the paid version? It seems somewhat plausible as an incentive to get the free users to become paid users, right? I’ve heard that claim from friends, but I’ve always [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Have you ever heard that free anti-virus programs skimp on their virus definitions so you aren’t as protected as you would be if you were using the paid version? It seems somewhat plausible as an incentive to get the free users to become paid users, right? </p>
<p>I’ve heard that claim from friends, but I’ve always been a bit skeptical. I haven’t seen any published reviews of free anti-virus programs that mention this sort of issue, nor have I seen any anti-virus company highlight advanced threat detection rates as a feature of their paid products that isn&#8217;t available in their free products. And if they want people to pay to upgrade to more advanced detection, they would have to actually tell their customers that there is a difference in that realm, wouldn&#8217;t they?</p>
<p>Anyway, I thought of that claim when I read this portion of an <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-20018726-83.html">interview with AVG&#8217;s CEO</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The basic detection rates in our free product and our paid product are exactly the same. We&#8217;re not giving you less protection. We&#8217;re just giving you less functionality. The paid products have antispam and firewall and a few other bits. But the core features&#8211;the Web protection, the cloud protection, the virus protection&#8211;is all the same between free and paid.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I have no way of knowing for sure if that&#8217;s true for all free anti-virus providers, but I’ve used and been very happy with a number of free anti-virus programs including <a href="http://download.cnet.com/AVG-Anti-Virus-Free-Edition/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?<br />
tag=contentMain;contentAux">AVG</a>, <a href="http://download.cnet.com/Avast-Free-<br />
Antivirus/3000-2239_4-10019223.html?tag=contentMain;contentAux">Avast</a>, and, recently, <a href="http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html?<br />
tag=contentMain;contentAux">Malware Bytes</a>. Each of these, incidentally, is currently in the top five of <a href="http://download.cnet.com/windows/">CNet&#8217;s most popular downloads list</a>, which is an excellent source of suggestions for high quality software.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/how-good-is-free-anti-virus/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McAfee&#8217;s severely false positive</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/mcafees-severely-false-positive</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/mcafees-severely-false-positive#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/?p=358</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you&#8217;re a corporate/business user of McAfee&#8217;s Antivirus program, read this before doing anything else today. (Unless you want to destroy your computers&#8217; file systems on reboot.) Carry on.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you&#8217;re a corporate/business user of McAfee&#8217;s Antivirus program, <a href="https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&#038;id=KB68780">read this</a> before doing anything else today. (Unless you want to destroy your computers&#8217; file systems on reboot.)</p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/mcafees-severely-false-positive/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viruses and Spyware: Expected Costs</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics of security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The previous post discussed the amount of money you ought to be willing to pay per year to avoid getting phished. By using statistics about the average cost of phishing and the probability of experiencing it, it was possible to come up with a meaningful figure. Given the right statistics, this type of analysis is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/phishing-expected-costs">previous post</a> discussed the amount of money you ought to be willing to pay per year to avoid getting phished. By using statistics about the average cost of phishing and the probability of experiencing it, it was possible to come up with a meaningful figure. Given the right statistics, this type of analysis is possible for any type of risk.</p>
<h3>What Should You Pay to Avoid Viruses and Spyware?</h3>
<p>In Consumer Reports&#8217; <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/computers/internet-and-other-services/protect-yourself-online/state-of-the-net-2008/protect-yourself-online-state-of-the-net.htm">2008 State of the Net summary</a>, the odds of contracting a serious computer virus problems are given to be 1 in 7, the yearly costs $2.9 billion. The odds of a serious spyware problem are 1 in 14, with a yearly cost of $3.6 billion. (Note that these figures are for both businesses and consumers.)</p>
<p>From these statistics, it is possible to calculate the amount that the typical person ought to be willing to pay, yearly, in the form of insurance or a preventative product or service, to avoid the consequences of viruses and spyware.</p>
<p>If 1 in 7 <a href="http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=973">computer users</a> had major <strong>virus</strong> problems, it means that 26 million people suffered expenses of about $110 each. If 1 in 14 computer users had a major <strong>spyware</strong> problem, it means that about 13 million people took a hit of $275.</p>
<p>Using these numbers and a formula for expected costs (expected cost = average cost per incident multiplied by probability of incidence) we can conclude that the expected yearly loss per person from virus and spyware threats totals $35. Put another way, each of us should be willing to spend up to $35 per year on insurance, services, or products that would shield us from the costs of viruses and spyware.</p>
<h3>The Value of Anti-Virus Software</h3>
<p>Of course, my calculations could be wrong. But it&#8217;s interesting to note that McAfee and Symantec, two of the most popular anti-virus and anti-spyware providers, price their mainstay products at $40, $5 more than our calculation says is reasonable. </p>
<p>Is that extra $5 per year for peace of mind or is it down to overpricing? Or maybe the cost figures that Consumer Reports noted do not include the psychological cost of annoyance and time spent getting rid of viruses and spyware, which could bring the total cost per person higher than what was reported. I&#8217;m inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the millions of consumers who indicate, by their willingness to pay, that a $40 anti-virus solution is worth it to them, but I could be off the mark.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-and-spyware-expected-costs/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why are privacy and security important?</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 02:00:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every so often, it helps to remind ourselves why security and privacy are important. In late 2006, Consumer Reports published its third annual State of the Net, which I think is an excellent summary and forceful reminder of why, exactly, security and privacy should be high priorities for everyone. The report is based on a [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every so often, it helps to remind ourselves why security and privacy are important. In late 2006, Consumer Reports published its third annual <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/online-protection-9-06/state-of-the-net/0609_online-prot_state.htm">State of the Net</a>, which I think is an excellent summary and forceful reminder of why, exactly, security and privacy should be high priorities for everyone.</p>
<p><span id="more-54"></span></p>
<p>The report is based on a national survey (of America, I believe), and lists the 4 biggest threats on the internet along with their rates of incidence. If you want to know just how likely you are to suffer monetary damages from internet threats, this is a great resource. Here are the findings from survey respondents:</p>
<h3>Viruses</h3>
<p>1 in 4 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $109</p>
<h3>Spyware</h3>
<p>1 in 8 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $100</p>
<h3>Phishing</h3>
<p>1 in 115 had a major, often costly problem. The cost per incident was $850</p>
<h3>Spam</h3>
<p>1 in 2 experienced high levels of spam. Consumer Reports doesn&#8217;t mention the costliness of spam, probably because it&#8217;s too hard to measure. But it&#8217;s still a major nuisance that soaks up valuable time and computer resources for almost everyone who uses the internet.</p>
<p>I hope the readers of this blog are slightly less prone to suffer damages as a result of the advice I give. Best of luck to all of you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/why-are-privacy-and-security-important/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viruses have come of age</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:32:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recommended software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spyware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If your installation of Windows XP is lacking an antivirus program or firewall, itâ€™ll take about 8 seconds for it to become rabid and foaming with worms, viruses, and spyware. At least, thatâ€™s what this BBC article suggests. But seriously, remember when all you had to worry about was some dork impressing his friends with [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If your installation of Windows XP is lacking an antivirus program or firewall, itâ€™ll take about 8 seconds for it to become rabid and foaming with worms, viruses, and spyware. At least, thatâ€™s what <a href="http://www.bbcworld.com/content/clickonline_archive_14_2005.asp?pageid=665&#038;co_pageid=3">this BBC article suggests</a>.</p>
<p>But seriously, remember when all you had to worry about was some dork impressing his friends with some virus named after a girl that kneed him in the balls last week? That was a more innocent time.</p>
<p>Today, viruses have come of age. And theyâ€™re not even called viruses anymore. The biggest problems today are spyware and adware. The trouble with viruses was that their sole object was to penetrate your computer, then destroy it. That didnâ€™t make anybody rich, though, because good parasites donâ€™t kill their hosts.</p>
<p>The most sinister and pervasive threats have morphed into commercially propelled vehicles for privacy extraction with a view to profit. These days, when I look at a friendâ€™s computer that has slowed and showed signs of derangement from infection, I donâ€™t find a lot of viruses. But I find boatloads of spyware and adware (and thatâ€™s a metric boatload, not one of those sissy imperial boatloads).</p>
<p>So be aware of the threat you face now. A new enemy requires new tactics&#8211;this means your anti-spyware and adware programs are more important than ever. I previously recommended Spybot and Adaware for the newly important jobs â€“ <a href="http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/destroy-spyware-and-annihilate-adware">read my review of both</a> and find out how to get them (theyâ€™re free, of course).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/viruses-have-come-of-age/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virus scan effectively</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/virus-scan-effectively</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/virus-scan-effectively#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Oct 2006 06:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/virus-scan-effectively</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How do you use your virus scanner? Do you scan often? Just let the program sit idly and hope it proactively catches the bad stuff as it comes along? Actually, it is important that you do more than either of the above to stay safe. Treat your computer like a fortress Imagine that your computer [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you use your virus scanner? Do you scan often? Just let the program sit idly and hope it proactively catches the bad stuff as it comes along?</p>
<p>Actually, it is important that you do more than either of the above to stay safe.</p>
<h3>Treat your computer like a fortress</h3>
<p>Imagine that your computer is a fortress, and your virus scanner is the guard at the gate. Everything that approaches the fortress must be strip searched before getting invited inside.</p>
<p>Similarly, before opening any file that arrives on your computer (for example, an email attachment or a downloaded movie or music file) you must first scan it. Saving it to your desktop, where it can sit harmlessly, is okay, but <strong>do not open it until you scan it</strong>.</p>
<p>Scanning a single file is really easy to do: Right click on the file and select &#8220;Scan with <em>name of virus program</em>&#8220;, and a scan of that one file will be swiftly carried out. It usually takes just a couple of seconds.</p>
<p>Using this method, you should find that you are able to drastically reduce the infections that successfully crash the gates of your fortress. In addition, removal is much easier when you find out that a file is a virus before opening it &#8211; you simply need to delete the file. In contrast, once you&#8217;ve allowed a virus onto your computer, it usually gets its hooks into obscure places, multiplies, and perhaps does some damage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/virus-scan-effectively/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antivirus needs to go on a diet</title>
		<link>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/antivirus-needs-to-go-on-a-diet</link>
		<comments>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/antivirus-needs-to-go-on-a-diet#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ian Saxon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[antivirus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/antivirus-needs-to-go-on-a-diet</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Antivirus scanners are often bloated and self-serving. Programs like McAfee and Norton Antivirus seem not to have the will or good sense to shed unnecessary code. I have used both applications I mentioned above, each for more than a year. At one time I remember them being sleek and nimble, but with each update they [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="imgintro"><a href="/images/fat_big.jpg"><img width="200" height="141" alt="Fat man staring at skinny man on bench" src="/images/fat_small.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>Antivirus scanners are often bloated and self-serving. Programs like McAfee and Norton Antivirus seem not to have the will or good sense to shed unnecessary code.</p>
<p>I have used both applications I mentioned above, each for more than a year. At one time I remember them being sleek and nimble, but with each update they got more features that I didn&#8217;t need. Scanning took longer, but didn&#8217;t get any better. At which point, I had to ask, &#8220;why do I own these products?&#8221;</p>
<h3>Lighter is better</h3>
<p>You are far more likely to use a program that is simple and fast, so you will be making yourself more secure by finding an antivirus program that fits this description.</p>
<p>Now that there are so many free and good alternatives to overweight applications, don&#8217;t hesitate to junk what you&#8217;ve used in the past. Try something new. If that sucks, try something else.</p>
<p>You don&#8217;t need to put up with programs that think they should dictate the use of your computer&#8217;s resources. Reclaim your memory and hard drive space. You will be glad your computer still has some zip the next time you&#8217;re working on five spreadsheets, watching a movie, listening to music, and surfing the net all at the same time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.defendingthekingdom.com/archives/antivirus-needs-to-go-on-a-diet/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

