Which is worse: the computer virus or the virus scanner?
Posted on
Okay, I admit that's a silly question. Obviously the computer virus should be considered worse, but in reality, by how much? A typical symptom of your machine having been infected by a computer virus is that it may start to slow down, or that some of the processes running on it start to take up more resource than expected. From experience, however, these same symptoms are exhibited by virtually every antivirus application I've ever known.
So, what's the difference? Well, we should hope that the antivirus software isn't malicious. While these companies would love us to part with our hard earned cash to buy their products, it is on the understanding that their software will help protect us from the more harmful applications out there.
I've never really understood the mentality of someone who writes computer viruses or other malicious tools. While some may have honourable intentions—to highlight a flaw in another piece of software or (more commonly) an operating system that should be fixed—sadly, more often than not, the intention is just to cause problems for end users, many of whom are unsuspecting and undeserving of such things.
Spyware has the objective of acquiring useful information that criminal minds could use for their own gain. Adware and malware has the objective of trying to get people to click on (or fall for) their adverts and part with their money. I regard both of these as unscrupulous acts of theft, not to mention trespassing in that they've wormed their way onto a system unbidden and unwanted. Both are heinous crimes in their own right, but there is an obvious incentive behind their creation and use. Viruses, however, are just a spiteful attempt to ruin a computer user's experience; to sabotage someone else's property, which they may well have worked hard to buy.
A result of the ubiquity of viruses and other malicious and invasive applications is that these days there is a real need for virtually every computer—especially those connected to the Internet—to install an antivirus application to keep their machine relatively safe. The knock on effect of this is that in order for these applications to be robust enough to stop the threats, they end up being insatiable resource hogs in their own right. These days, nobody with an antivirus application installed gets to make the most of their computer. Resource that could be put to better use on the applications a user actually wants to be using is instead being consumed by scanners, update utilities and similar tools designed to prevent other pieces of software from installing themselves and slowing the machine still further.
I should stress that I would never advocate not using an anti-virus application—especially to less technically adept users who are potentially more susceptible to attacks. I would say, however, that when approached sensibly and with caution, the Internet isn't necessarily as dangerous as those selling said antivirus applications would have you believe. With a little knowledge and a lot of common sense, one could survive without antivirus applications and still use their computer to its full potential. The sad thing, however, is that we're forced to accept the performance hit because it's just not worth the risk not to.