Comment by bigstrat2003

1 year ago

I don't see any way you can possibly justify that claim. So you're saying the deliberately hostile software, which will cause damage if you install it, is somehow better than the software which can accidentally damage your computer? Even if AV is dangerous 99.999999% of the time (which I think is a bold claim), it would still be better than something which is malicious 100% of the time.

Also I note that half of your argument basically boils down to "it has vulnerabilities". But as bad as that is, it's still not as bad as being exploited. This argument is like saying "being immunocompromised is worse than actually having a deadly illness". It makes no sense.

3 comments

bigstrat2003

Reply
selcuka  1 year ago

> Even if AV is dangerous 99.999999% of the time (which I think is a bold claim), it would still be better than something which is malicious 100% of the time.

You are missing the fact that you are supposed to run the AV software 100% of the time, while you are unlikely to ever download a malicious software, let alone execute it with all kinds of countermeasures, such as code signing, in place these days.

Sebb767  1 year ago

> Also I note that half of your argument basically boils down to "it has vulnerabilities". But as bad as that is, it's still not as bad as being exploited.

The point is that it increases your risk of being exploited. With an AV installed there's a lot more code running with extremely high privileges that malware can possibly exploit. While this may be a risk you are willing to take, AV softwares do undoubtedly increase your attack surface and have a history of being exploited.