this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
35 points (92.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54716 readers
220 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
Yes. But the discussion was about not running any since it killed performance.
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...
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.
Oh i also agree with that, just wanted to clarify that
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.
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.
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
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?
Antivirus is not what’s stopping g remote exploits. For a remote exploit to work you either have to expose ports to the internet (port forwarding) and run a vulnerable service on said port or visit a malicious website with a vulnerable browser. Antivirus won’t protect you from more than a scriptkiddie regardless of whether or not it is a remote exploit
Yeah, that was you continuing to show how inexperienced you are.
For a remote exploit to work the computer or device has to expose ports to the network your computer is connected to.
"Remote" means that the vulnerability does not require local access. So if your friend connects his infected device to your wifi, all devices connected to the same network essentially are at risk, depending on what's listening on the devices and what vulnerabilities they have.
Your idea about avoiding bad websites is ridiculous. History is full of examples where third party ads had been created to infect one way or another. That's ads that users on legitimate site were exposed to. That's just one little example. There have been numerous examples of malicious sleeping JavaScript code that suddenly wakes up and contacts it's command-and-control server and then download malicious JavaScript code to unknowing site visitors.
Furthermore, you didn't understand my question. Of course antivirus is able to stop malware it recognizes that enters through a remote exploit. The user with antivirus would at least have a chance of knowing that something was up each time and attempt to infect was made.
You on the other hand would sit there clueless with your little zombie computer and laugh at all them script kiddies.
But hey... You just continue trying to infect others around you with bad security advice and have a good day. I'm outta here.