Do I need an anti-virus?

lumianum

New member
Dec 11, 2015
59
0
0
Visit site
I was wondering if anybody uses antivirus in their W10M devices. Is it as vulnerable as a PC regarding virus attacks ? Thanks!
 

PepperdotNet

New member
Jan 6, 2014
1,809
0
0
Visit site
If you gotta have one, may I suggest Placebo (tm)

Windows phones are sandboxed. Any malicious code can only affect itself and what data you give it permissions for.
 

ScrubbyXD

New member
Apr 21, 2015
334
0
0
Visit site
No, guys. I'm serious. If I had Android, I would ask the same question.

Ok, you already have your answer from pepper but I will iterate. For Linux based OSs you will need antivirus due to the nature of the OS. Keep in mind iOS will never be truly secure until C is phased out for swift. Linux based systems include iOS and Android. For windows 10 you will be fine with defender (included) and a secure browser. With 10M you are fine again with what's in the box and a secure browser. The reason as pepper said is sandboxing. Apps are contained and cannot do anything nasty.
 

xandros9

Active member
Nov 12, 2012
16,107
0
36
Visit site
For Linux based OSs you will need antivirus due to the nature of the OS. ... Linux based systems include iOS and Android.

False.

1. iOS is based, at its core, on Unix. (Linux is based on Unix)

2. Linux is not inherently insecure or vulnerable to virii as you claim. (Heck, an anti-virus on Ubuntu isn't a necessary thing. If anything, to protect Windows PCs.)

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly...
 

ScrubbyXD

New member
Apr 21, 2015
334
0
0
Visit site
False.

1. iOS is based, at its core, on Unix. (Linux is based on Unix)

2. Linux is not inherently insecure or vulnerable to virii as you claim. (Heck, an anti-virus on Ubuntu isn't a necessary thing. If anything, to protect Windows PCs.)

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly...

I will grant you Unix and Linux variants CAN be secure if (and only if) the SSH vulnerability that has been around for decades and was only publicized and finally patched late last year has indeed been patched. Some variants still have their little ways in.

iOS will retain it's little exploitable issue until they remove the ability to use objective C code. That is all I will say about that one.

It's all about remote code execution these days.
 

Lee Power

New member
Aug 8, 2014
254
0
0
Visit site
Please don't confuse the OP with all this IOS, Android & Linux talk, all they asked wad did they need an anti virus for a Windows 10 mobile - the answer is NO, as there are no virus risks to a Windows phone device.
 

Laura Knotek

Retired Moderator
Mar 31, 2012
29,393
20
38
Visit site
False.

1. iOS is based, at its core, on Unix. (Linux is based on Unix)

2. Linux is not inherently insecure or vulnerable to virii as you claim. (Heck, an anti-virus on Ubuntu isn't a necessary thing. If anything, to protect Windows PCs.)

I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly...
I have been using Linux since 2006, and I've never used any antivirus software. I avoid dodgy sites, as I also do on desktop Windows. I also keep my distro updated.
 

EspHack

New member
Jun 11, 2013
1,279
0
0
Visit site
No.

as a guide use the OS popularity and marketshare as a clear indicator of how probable it would be to be attacked, w10m is nonexistent in the eyes of devs, let alone hackers, w10 pc and android on the other hand... well you get the idea, and I'm positive ios is away more vulnerable than w10m due to that simple fack, heck I could even say that apple tv has more chances of getting a virus than a windows phone

there are other factors like how the OS is designed as others have said, but even then, popularity and userbase are the clear indicators, Linux is as open as it gets, that's why anyone could point a finger at it as being vulnerable(likely due to layer 8 fails) but its userbase is so low and predictably so experienced that it really has no value for hackers at all, and the same could be said for w10m which has its almost entire userbase made up of "insiders"
 

lumianum

New member
Dec 11, 2015
59
0
0
Visit site
No.

as a guide use the OS popularity and marketshare as a clear indicator of how probable it would be to be attacked

That is correct. That's what I've always known and that's the reason why Apple users claim that Macs don't get viruses, because there were much more windows users than MacOS users. Nowadays, with Apple's popularity, that might have changed.
 

920Walker

New member
Dec 3, 2012
654
0
0
Visit site
If you gotta have one, may I suggest Placebo (tm)

Windows phones are sandboxed. Any malicious code can only affect itself and what data you give it permissions for.

How does one know what data they're really giving permissions for? The permissions listed for apps don't always appear to include permissions one would think are needed, and sometimes every permission is listed as needed for the equivalent of a fart app. Does the store know what permissions are actually required by the app and that they are all listed before an app is approved for public release?
 

Saijin_Naib

New member
Jun 30, 2015
204
0
0
Visit site
I've not developed for Windows Store, but on FireFoxOS, there was an app manifest where the developer had to declare what permissions the app needed access to. If you didn't declare the permissions, your app could call whatever APIs it wanted, and the system would return nothing.

I imagine that the manifests for Windows Store apps function the same or very similarly, so if it is in the manifest, it requires it. If it is not in the manifest, it shouldn't require access.

Another thing FireFoxOS did right was the Security/Permissions settings. You could revoke/grant permissions per app on any API group, not just the "main" ones. For instance, if you had an app that wanted access to your storage, you could revoke that. Windows 10 Mobile has pretty nice granularity of permissions, but storage is not one of the ones you can grant/revoke.
 

v535

New member
Mar 26, 2015
491
0
0
Visit site
I've not developed for Windows Store, but on FireFoxOS, there was an app manifest where the developer had to declare what permissions the app needed access to. If you didn't declare the permissions, your app could call whatever APIs it wanted, and the system would return nothing.

I imagine that the manifests for Windows Store apps function the same or very similarly, so if it is in the manifest, it requires it. If it is not in the manifest, it shouldn't require access.

Another thing FireFoxOS did right was the Security/Permissions settings. You could revoke/grant permissions per app on any API group, not just the "main" ones. For instance, if you had an app that wanted access to your storage, you could revoke that. Windows 10 Mobile has pretty nice granularity of permissions, but storage is not one of the ones you can grant/revoke.
Yeah even the developer of AIDA64 told me, MS complicates very simple things to access or retrieve system specs and because of that specs maybe inaccurate sometimes, often the developer maintains a db to retrieve specs.
 

a5cent

New member
Nov 3, 2011
6,622
0
0
Visit site
How does one know what data they're really giving permissions for?

I've not developed for Windows Store, but on FireFoxOS, there was an app manifest where the developer had to declare what permissions the app needed access to. If you didn't declare the permissions, your app could call whatever APIs it wanted, and the system would return nothing.
The security mechanism mentioned by pepperdotnet (and others) have absolutely nothing to do with the permissions system. In terms of protecting users from malware, permission systems, no matter the OS, are almost useless.

What is being refereed to is what W10M calls "app local storage", in particular how that storage mechanism isolates apps from one another. This is not a tacked on security feature, but the result of an OS architecture that was specifically designed, from the outset, to protect OS and app integrity, even in the face of a successful infection.


You can read up on it at MSDN.
 

920Walker

New member
Dec 3, 2012
654
0
0
Visit site
The security mechanism mentioned by pepperdotnet (and others) have absolutely nothing to do with the permissions system. In terms of protecting users from malware, permission systems, no matter the OS, are almost useless.
.

I know that. My question wasn't about malware or AV even though the thread is.
 

realwarder

New member
Dec 31, 2012
3,689
0
0
Visit site
How does one know what data they're really giving permissions for? The permissions listed for apps don't always appear to include permissions one would think are needed, and sometimes every permission is listed as needed for the equivalent of a fart app. Does the store know what permissions are actually required by the app and that they are all listed before an app is approved for public release?

The permissions listed in the store are the permissions the developer has requested the app needs (in a manifest file when making the app). The store does nothing other than show them to users. So if the Fart app requires every permission, it's possibly because of ignorance, possibly because the developer feels he needs access to your location, camera, microphone, life... (in which case I wouldn't install that app), or sometimes it's less devious and simply because some of the Advertisement kits used by developers request a whole list of permissions too. (Which might be because the Ad platform also wants access to your life.)

I won't install many apps because of a list of unnecessary permissions. E.g. I never install an app that requires contact access.

You are responsible for checking if permissions sound like they should be required and not install apps you think require excessive access to your phone. The Store has no responsibility other than to offer you to install apps and show you what the app developer says it requires.
 

Staff online

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
322,736
Messages
2,242,598
Members
427,978
Latest member
Duouser3