Like many geeks, I do not run an anti-virus program. Keep your system up to date, keep your ports locked down, and stay away from the dark corners of the Internet, and avoiding viruses is really just a matter of practicing safe computing practices. Your behavior is the best anti-virus.
Unfortunately, my wife is not a geek. A few nights ago she called my boys over to my laptop to check out a website that my Grandmother had sent a link to. My suspicions were immediately aroused. It was a site obviously designed to appeal to little old ladies with a sweet prayer, cute animated backgrounds and music, and a message at the top instructing the visitor to be sure to wait until the entire site had loaded before beginning the long scroll down. Sure enough, the link had been passed along in an unsolicited forwarded e-mail which seemed to be written in stilted, mechanistic English.
I immediately removed the laptop from the network and set up a dedicated Internet connection for the laptop so that I could gain access to an online scanner. I do not use an anti-virus program, but I have been a part of the Microsoft OneCare beta for years. I use those beta licenses on the family computers and have been generally impressed with the OneCare online scanner since it launched.
While I waited for the online scanner to locate and help me eradicate the trojan that my wife had unwittingly downloaded, I found myself once again wondering why we still did not have a OneCare for Windows Home
Server. This has been a frequent question and sore point on the beta forums and newsgroups since before the release of OneCare 2.0. There are areas of overlap between the two products, particularly relating to system monitoring and backup, but there is little reason why the basic client could not be stripped down to focus on security monitoring as part of a WHS add-in. It seems to be an obvious market and one that Microsoft should have been tapping from day one.
When Microsoft first let slip that they were preparing a version of OneCare for servers, there was a great deal of speculation that this would finally bring support for WHS. Alas, this was not to be. OneCare for Servers is limited to certain versions of Windows Server based on the Server 2008 kernel. This immediately rules out support for WHS which is based on Windows Server 2003.
Assuming that the next version of WHS is based on Windows Server 2008, it is quite possible that we will see OneCare support for WHS added. It will require that OneCare for Servers be adjusted to operate in the WHS console and there will probably need to be changes made to the OneCare client to more effectively adjust its monitoring to avoid overlap with automated WHS functions. With OneCare 2.5 already in the market, we will likely have to wait not only for WHS v2, but also for OneCare 3.0.
Even with all of these pieces in place, we will have wait and see how Microsoft handles its licenses. OneCare provides licenses for three computers. One of these three computers can be put in charge of monitoring all three computers, designating it the hub for a circle of care. This circle of care also shares the Live ID that is required for managing the OneCare licenses. Add a fourth computer to your network and you need to start a new circle of care with a different Live ID. I have not been able to try the OneCare for Server beta, but it is hard to imagine a small business wanting to juggle multiple Live IDs so hopefully this has changed with OneCare for Server and we can expect OneCare for WHS to monitor a circle of 10 installations with a single Live ID. Otherwise, OneCare for Windows Home Server, when it finally comes, may be more trouble than it is worth for many WHS users.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Hi, Matthew.
I also wonder about the future of WHS and OneCare for Server. As I understand it, the client installs in the SBS environment are licensed by seat with SBS, so not restricted by the 3 copy per LiveID limitation. There really isn’t a technical reason for the 3 copy limit - it is licensing only. The ability to add licenses to a home subscription is missing due to a limitation of the Billing system.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
If you are running Windows without anti-virus you are not in fact a geek, you are a lunatic!
Your idea of locking the ports and avoiding the dark areas is at best uneducated as a strategy, but seriuosly annoying when you post such drivel as bravado.
If you dont run AV on a workstation that is exposed to such malicious code on a daily basis, what is the point of having it on a fileserver???
I am really unsure what the point of your post was, but if it was to annoy Information Security professionals, you made a good start.
July 17th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
skalie, i think that for the most part matt is right. Think about it, no one browses with their server, most people i would think use it for backup and storage. lets be honest, most people get viruses about 2 ways, “entertainment” websites and spam. Steer clear from those, use an online scanner if you need it and you’ll be fine at home.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
As someone who loathes both Norton and McAfee as bloatware (AVG is headed this direction too) I have to say I am not a fan of AV Software. And… I still run it. As someone who knows just enough to get themselves in trouble and has been through cleaning up malware/adware/virii, I can say that even as security minded as I am, Avast STILL found a virus on my machine during a screen saver scan a week ago. Soo… The product paid for itself in that one instance alone. The performance hit is miniscule and the upside is VERY beneficial. Why WOULDN’T you run a decent, low resource AV? I don’t get it. What are you doing on today’s hardware that needs every last hz of power? And if you are using such antiquated stuff that you can’t afford the performance hit… why? With the cost of upgrading being so cheap I would think some resources could be spared. If the point is to use old hardware, wouldn’t linux be the way to go? And if you have non-paranoid wife/kids at home… well, not running AV sounds dangerous at best.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
WHS is not based on SBS - both SBS and WHS are based on the same version of Windows Server 2003 for Small Business Server. similar name, not the same product as SBS2003.
July 17th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
@Kevin Royalty
Thank you for the correction. I’ve made that mistake before and need to be more careful about being specific in the future.
@skalie
I appreciate the passion of your response. I am hardly the first person to admit to not running a resident AV scanner. (See Patrick Norton and Steve Gibson for two notable examples that come immediately to mind) I was not trying to brag, but rather set the stage for what got me thinking about the future of OneCare and WHS. However comfortable I might be running without AV, I’m obviously not comfortable letting my family do the same as I pointed out that I have OneCare installed on their computers and do use the OneCare online scanner among others. If anything, my story should serve as a warning to others because the moment I let my wife use my laptop, it was as vulnerable to the dark side of the Internet as any other computer. As to the value of running AV software on WHS, Kyle B neatly pointed out that a WHS machine is not surfing the Internet. Even if every AV vendor offered a version for WHS, there be absolutely no consensus on the necessity of using such a product. Indeed, I see the greatest value for Avast or OneCare or any other security product on WHS to be the further consolidation of home network management. Finally, if my post annoyed you…sorry. I thought it was clear that the whole point of the story was that I had allowed bad stuff to happen and that I wish Microsoft had a better product to help protect me from myself.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Who cares about one care… where is the final version of the corruption bug fix!
July 17th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
hear, hear!
July 18th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Matt, Iv gotta say I personally believe that you should not write up bad practices on a website like this one.
Im not going to argue with you about your choice not to use antivirus. Its your choice.
As you said yourself you would not let your family not use Antivirus. So you must agree that using Antivirus is best practice.
Now think about the target Audience for Windows home server.
Now think about the implications of what you have written.
People see you an an authority on the matter when your write up makes it to the front page of the website, And your basically telling them its ok not to use AV if your carefull.
July 18th, 2008 at 4:46 am
@Jason
As I pointed out to Skalie, if anything my story should serve as a warning to others.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I see nothing with what Matt wrote up at all. I use AV myself but I understood what Matt`s point was. I don`t see what the big deal is.
July 18th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Edited for repost….I see nothing wrong with what Matt wrote up at all. I use AV myself but I understood what Matt`s point was. I don`t see what the big deal is.
July 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I agree, and if anything, Matt’s pushing for *more* users to use an anti-virus with Windows Home Server!
July 18th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Currently, I do not have AV on my WHS. And it does make me rather nervous. I just keep hoping the MS will come out with OneCare for WHS, as I get it free from my ISP (portal: Qwest dsl. ISP: msn.com). I think that is how you would term it…
I tried the Avast Beta, but it seemed to use many resources to keep it installed. Might just as well have had a virus(s) ilo of Avast…
July 19th, 2008 at 1:02 am
I have Avast on my WHS and it seems to be running very good. I also currently run the free Avast on one desktop and MS One Care on 3 other systems. I am happy with how all of them run. The only issue I have is the 3 license limit with One Care. If MS doesn’t change the limit I will be switching over to the AVAST PRO FAMILY PACK which includes 10 licenses plus a WHS license and thats only like $80 for one year versus One Care at $50 for one year. I feel Avast is very good so it is only common sense to me to switch over unless MS changes.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:27 am
I used Avast on my main computer. I thought it did a very good job. Once OneCare was offered by my ISP, I switched simply because of the all-in-one concept.
I may have tried an early beta of Avast for WHS. I’m sure it is much improved, now.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:56 am
You are right, the all in one is the perfect thing thats why I like it. But to limit it to 3? What were they thinking? I would think the average household would have maybe 4 pc`s mom, dad, and two kids. At least thats true in my case. Oh well off my soapbox
July 19th, 2008 at 4:09 am
That 3 PC limit is also my biggest issue with OneCare right now. As Stephen pointed out above, Microsoft has long held that this limitation is a billing issue, but hopefully OneCare for Servers will offer a workaround. It would be a shame if Microsoft never comes up with some solution for regular OneCare users though.