Video plugin issue with fullscreen
-
@BRRABill said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
I've only listened to a few of these podcasts, but in the recent one he did NOT say to avoid AV. He said the one built into Windows is OK to use.
Now, if he has said other things in the past, I do not know.
Problem would be... is he saying it is okay to use because he thinks that it is a good product? Or is it okay to use because he thinks that AV is pointless and doesn't care if they work or not?
Basically, if you perceive something as snake oil, all you care about is that it isn't poison.
-
@Dashrender said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Leo is the one that specifically says that AV is more or less pointless.
I'd ask this... does he feel that it was always pointless? If not, why not? If so, I think pretty much all of us have evidence that suggests that this is very much not true.
-
Funny that this gets mentioned now. I would point to an article on SW where someone asked if patching computers was still worthwhile for the same logic. He felt that "since there were two high profile breaches that could not have been prevented with patching" that it might no longer be worth doing.
Of course that was completely failed logic. It's similar to wondering if because brakes can't save you from every possible accident that you should not bother installing them on cars.
But the attitudes feel similar: someone perceives the threats that they concerned about being something different than what patching or AV helps primarily to protect against and then thinks that that protect isn't viable because of that perception.
-
If I let it run for a few seconds first, it works fine in full screen (using chrome) - if I attempt to go full screen straight away the same thing happens as you reported...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
@Dashrender said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Leo is the one that specifically says that AV is more or less pointless.
I'd ask this... does he feel that it was always pointless? If not, why not? If so, I think pretty much all of us have evidence that suggests that this is very much not true.
Steve Gibson does advocate for people to run a local AV of some sort. Security Essentials had been testing to be at about the same level of protection as the other big security vendors ~2 years ago, which is why he says it's "good enough". Partially outdated at this point. He did recently move to Windows 7, but is backwards with his arguments for holding back.j
Leo named his network perfectly imo, twit. He is really just a news person, and we've been over what we think of American based news already this morning!
-
From my perspective, what little I have seen of Leo, he only styles himself a news person. Which makes it mostly innocent. But sadly, a news person relaying opinion stops being a news person.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Funny that this gets mentioned now. I would point to an article on SW where someone asked if patching computers was still worthwhile for the same logic. He felt that "since there were two high profile breaches that could not have been prevented with patching" that it might no longer be worth doing.
Of course that was completely failed logic. It's similar to wondering if because brakes can't save you from every possible accident that you should not bother installing them on cars.
But the attitudes feel similar: someone perceives the threats that they concerned about being something different than what patching or AV helps primarily to protect against and then thinks that that protect isn't viable because of that perception.
I disagree. The patches thinks keeps most know, hopefully all known, bad things at bay. With AV, the rate of new infections, etc... unless you're running heuristic, the sig only based solutions are pretty pointless, as long as you have the rest of your defenses up and running.
I only am willing to pay for and run Webroot because of journaling. If not for this feature, I would, well not skip it since Windows Defender is free - so I'd just stick with Windows Defender.
Leo's point, assuming I remember correctly is that most AV still use primarily definition files and they are pretty useless considering how fast things continue to morph. I don't recall him specifically making a recommendation to use or not use, but he's stated that he himself doesn't use, but in the same breath he says he doesn't use Windows much any more, mostly using Linux or Mac stuff.
-
Here is the transcript from this week where they discuss it. (And also my issue with using Malwarebytes instead of a reformat.)
P.S. Maybe time to fork this post?
Leo: Nice to wipe them out. All right. This is the no-antivirus question: Steve and
Leo, I've been listening to the show since the start of the year, and I'm hoping - so
these are all people who are fairly new, I guess; you know? I'm hoping that I will
become more knowledgeable in security, mostly by osmosis. Thank you so much for
your interesting conversations and for sharing your infinite wisdom. Aw. Thank you.
My questions may show my true naivete, though: I was listening to a recent Security
Now!, and Leo mentioned that you need not have an antivirus. What? I personally
use Avira's free antivirus, and I like to scan to make sure that I have no intruders. Is
there a better way to do this? Does this even protect me in the slightest? Can you
recommend any episodes of Security Now! that could possibly teach me some more
basics, or any other free - minimum-wage laborer here - educational tools. Thanks
so much. I look forward to your podcast every week. Marissa.Steve: So you and I are on the same page on this, which is that the AV which is now
available for free - and I assume that Marissa is a Windows user. She didn't say. But
Windows incorporates either, what, Windows Defender or Security...Leo: It used to be called Security Essentials. And in Windows 10 it's just called
Defender.Steve: Right. And it's being updated. It's constantly updated. Microsoft has sort of slowly
crept into this business so they wouldn't upset the existing AV industry that first formed
around Windows. But at this point I just - I don't suggest anyone use a third-party AV. If
something really gets - somehow passes that and gets in, I like - I just use
Malwarebytes, free edition, run that to clean a system, and then remove it. But
otherwise, I don't have anything running all the time.Leo: I pretty much agree with that. The problem is that viruses spread so fast now
that an antivirus probably isn't going to protect you.Steve: Correct.
Leo: So in some ways that's a false sense of security. You get a free antivirus. You
don't need one on a Mac, really. There's really not an issue on the Mac. And the
other one I would say is there are a lot of companies trying to sell you antiviruses on
mobile, on iOS and Android. And there's no reason in the world to use those. They
can't do anything of value. And Google and Apple already do everything that can be
done. In fact, Google will scan every app before you install it. And Microsoft won't
even allow you to have an app that isn't scanned before. Doesn't keep stuff out of
the store, but they have ways of killing it. And even if you download it, and it gets in
the store, having a antivirus on iOS or Android is not going to prevent you from
getting hurt.Steve: Right.
Leo: So they're of limited utility. And they have some negative impacts. They slow
your machine down. Sometimes they can keep you from doing things. A lot of the
bugs that I hear about on the radio show, first question, I say, do you have security
software running?Steve: Well, and we also know that they've had some questionable practices, too, that
they have installed security certificates in the root store, and they're looking at all of the
security traffic coming in and out of your machine. Now, on one hand, it's like, well, yes,
but that's local, and it's for your benefit. But if they're not careful, third parties can
obtain the key and use that as a means of getting into your system. So it just - I don't
think that, on balance, the benefit outweighs the collection of problems. And, for
example, if you do have Windows, just use what's there. -
So he has the "Macs are magically safe" issue, too.
-
Although I think there might be confusion. Is he saying no AV, or no third party AV?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Although I think there might be confusion. Is he saying no AV, or no third party AV?
Third party AV. He said specifically because we have defender and its updated constantly.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Although I think there might be confusion. Is he saying no AV, or no third party AV?
Third party AV. He said specifically because we have defender and its updated constantly.
Yeah, that's VERY different from not saying to have AV. Not replacing AV and removing the AV that we have are incredibly different.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
@wirestyle22 said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
Although I think there might be confusion. Is he saying no AV, or no third party AV?
Third party AV. He said specifically because we have defender and its updated constantly.
Yeah, that's VERY different from not saying to have AV. Not replacing AV and removing the AV that we have are incredibly different.
Agreed
-
BUt then they spend a bit of effort tearing apart the value of AV and saying that it gives a false sense of security - which does not support keeping the installed AV.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Video plugin issue with fullscreen:
BUt then they spend a bit of effort tearing apart the value of AV and saying that it gives a false sense of security - which does not support keeping the installed AV.
I think they misspoke and were treating Defender as it's own entity.
