Re: [tlug] AV Preferences for Android

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, CL <az.4tlug@example.com> wrote:

> She's opted for an Android-powered スマホン chosen exclusively because
> it was a nice size, folded, and came in a color she likes.
>
> The Softbank drone got extremely pushy over the "offer"

Hm.  Au left it up to my wife, when she got her shiny new smart-hoe.
I wonder if Softbank customers are just more likely to engage in the
web equivalent of anal intercourse, and so they have more problems.

> of a "McAfee Web Security" option (498円/mo).

God, I wish those "Maginot Line" apps would die!

> it makes small processor hand helds run slower.  Or is that in the "they all do
> that" category.

What he said!  And not just on handhelds.

> Anyway, Softbank gave my wife some story about all phones needing
> protection in order to ensure the safety of the Web and want to know how
> she intends to play her part if she doesn't sign up for the McAfee
> product.  (They actually pulled the "You have to secure the safety of
> the group by joining it" gambit.)

What BS.  If they really meant that, they'd simply do the scanning at
their gateways, and you'd have no choice about it.  This could be done
really efficiently (do an MD5 of each scanned file, and keep those on
file.  If the URL and the MD5 match, no need to do a full scan).

> In my WIN days and now in my WIN VBs,
> I use "Avast!" and never have had a problem.  They also offer a free web
> protection product for Android which I am thinking of loading into my
> wife's phone.

I have seen several reports that free products for Android aren't
worth the bandwidth to download them.  I don't know if Avast! was
among the ones tested, though.  The ZDNet report I recently read was
that of about 25 such products applied to a sample of about 20 common
malwares, the best (which also was a teaser for a commercial product)
detected just over half, and the worst (complete freeware), *none*.
None of them were trojans, at least. :-/

Is your wife in the habit of downloading random software?  Opening
mail containing images or other attachments from unknown parties?  If
not, I don't see why any CPU-cycle-eating warez are needed.

I could be wrong, of course. :-)