antivirus

Or due to the fact, that antivirus companies make money on selling antivirus software to non-experts and have a long history of advertising it to non-experts as a security solution.

Is there some standard that the software has to live up to to be labeled antivirus?

There was a time when all indications were that McCaffee AntiVirus was a good idea too.

It has a really convenient software updating utility which will make you far more secure than any antivirus feature ever could.

Most overrated: antivirus, password changes, only visiting known sites and using strong passwords.

That VM is just kept up to date and has antivirus etc.

Oh great, they'll install an antivirus and think they've fixed the problem.

As a security community, we appear to have gotten the point across when it comes to antivirus and strong passwords.

Interesting - Windows Defender is an antivirus product for Windows 8+.

There's just too many unknown variants of existing sploits and too many new sploits to have much faith in antivirus (it's reactive, last line-of-defense security).

This problem is isomorphic to the antivirus problem.

We're also at an advantage because it's very clear that the ads that fake the Windows UI are not real system messages telling us to upgrade our antivirus.

I don't think tptacek is defending the AV industry; I suspect he's advocating systems that are either inherently virus-resistant or use whitelisting, which is pretty much the opposite of what we usually call "antivirus".

Antivirus is an opposite Bloom filter...