# AVG 2011 is now out.



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

I just learned the other day that AVG 2011 is now out.

Has anyone here upgraded from AVG 9 to AVG 2011 yet? I'm in the process of upgrading my mom's computer now. 

Peace...


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

did it a few days ago . i have had no problems ,yet.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

I noticed the download file size between AVG Free 9 and AVG Free 10 jumped from 89 MB to 135 MB.

I'm not using it anymore, so I'm curious as to what additional features were added to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

since i don't have the old 9 installed not sure if these are new.

identity protection
anti root kit
pc analyzer [haven't run it but it looks like a pc tune up ]


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

flavallee said:


> I'm not using it anymore, so I'm curious as to what additional features were added to it.


What are you using now? Why did you stop using AVG?



golferbob said:


> since i don't have the old 9 installed not sure if these are new.
> 
> identity protection
> anti root kit
> pc analyzer [haven't run it but it looks like a pc tune up ]


Yep, those are the main new features, in the free edition, I know of.

The upgrade on my mom's machine went well and the only issue I'v encountered thus far was with the e-mail scanner. The upgrade process didn't update the ports used for the AVG defined mail servers so Thunderbird wasn't able to connect. That was easy to fix.

I haven't scanned the system with it yet but have run the PC Analyzer. I'm not sure why that was added to the free edition as that seems more like a paid version kind of feature.

Peace...


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> What are you using now? Why did you stop using AVG?


I decided to switch to *Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0.375.0*. 

---------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Hello, tkat! Always pleasant to see you online! I don't have much experience with the new version, except that I had some trouble navigating the new interface last week when I needed to disable it while running ComboFix. In order to kill an infection AVG hadn't caught either proactively or in an on-demand scan. My overall impression was that it was their same old crummy AV software with a makeover. With a long track record of being second-rate AV software, it would take a lot to make me change my mind about the product.


----------



## Cheeseball81 (Mar 3, 2004)

Didn't know it had officially been upgraded. Haven't downloaded it yet.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

Cheeseball81 said:


> Didn't know it had officially been upgraded. Haven't downloaded it yet.


Yep. It was released about 5 days ago.

http://www.filehippo.com/download_avg_antivirus_32/tech/

http://www.majorgeeks.com/AVG_AntiVirus_Free_Edition_d886.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

Hope this thread keeps going with opinions from people I trust here. I noticed the upgrade but am undecided on what to do yet as I can't find any reviews to look at ...... am greatfull they decided to release it without it being pushed through the in prog updates (at least for now)


----------



## Cheeseball81 (Mar 3, 2004)

I think I will wait for more reviews/feedback before I download it.


----------



## joelharon (Oct 4, 2010)

Long back I used their free antivirus solution. Now I am using Kaspersky Internet Security 2011


----------



## keonichavez (Aug 19, 2010)

Hi everyone, this is Keoni Chavez, Junior Community Manager with AVG. I've noticed some wondering in this thread about our new AVG 2011, and thought I'd make myself available to answer questions. Feel free to send along your feedback, and by all means give our free version a try for yourself!

Best,
Keoni


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

So far, it's been running fine on my mom's computer. The only issue I've had thus far is the one I mentioned above.

I'm planning on upgrading another machine soon.

Peace...


----------



## keonichavez (Aug 19, 2010)

That's great to hear, Tom! You manually updated the port yourself, then?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Yep. The other system I'm planning on updating is a bit more complicated since there are multiple e-mail accounts defined to Windows Mail (this system is running Windows Vista Home Premium Edition) and there's a mixture of SSL and non-SSL POP3 and SMTP connections I'll have to deal with. The main issue here is the system owner might not remember all of the e-mail account passwords since Windows Mail was set to remember them for her. 

In any event, I'll report any problems I have with that system, after the upgrade, on the AVG support forum.

One question I have is: why was the PC Analyzer added to the free edition of AVG? It appears to only report what it finds but not provide a way to correct the "issues". Is this intentional? Does the paid version provide a way to correct the "issues" found by the PC Analyzer?

Thanks!

Peace...


----------



## keonichavez (Aug 19, 2010)

That's intentional. It's to highlight the fact that we now offer a new application, PC Tuneup (http://www.avg.com/eu-hu/avg-pctuneup), which takes care of those issues that the analyzer identifies. Currently, PC Tuneup is a separate program, not bundled with the paid version of AVG 2011.

Thanks for using AVG; we look forward to any feedback you provide in our forums.

Best,
Keoni


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

it's been just over a week since i updated to the new avg and iam happy to report no problems.


----------



## keonichavez (Aug 19, 2010)

Hi golferbob, that's great! Always nice to see a happy user!


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, I'm going to ask a question I probably shouldn't ask.  lol

What is Grisoft's position in regard to the relatively low or poor detection rates AVG tends to get in anti-virus application comparison reports, like the one posted at AV Comparatives? I fully understand no anti-virus application will catch ALL threats and I understand anti-virus application vendors are constantly trying to keep pace with new threats as they arise.

Yes, AVG has won various awards and certifications, such as Virus Bulletin 100, but how does Grisoft feel about the relatively low or poor detection rates AVG is developing a trend of having? By "relatively poor", I mean detection rates less than 95% or higher.

Thanks!

Peace...


----------



## Macboatmaster (Jan 15, 2010)

Keonichavez

My question is, why would AVG wish to even consider marketing a registry cleaner.
Surely, we all know, that however many un-needed entires are in the registry, to suggest that cleaning the registry is going to increase performance is absolute rubbish. Even if over 1000 entries were in the registry that were no longer needed, removing them would so increase speed of loading that less than .45 second would be gained.
The chance however of AVG`s PC TuneUP removing entries that it perceives as un-needed when in fact they are, is extremely high. 
It is I thought, accepted that the surest way to damage the registry is to use such a tool.
A corrupted registry that needs repair is a different matter, but to suggest that it can be done effectively by some "catch all" one click program is so ridiculous, as to be unworthy of discussion.

*Your product states*
_A similar tool cleans up your Windows registry by rewriting it to eliminate fragmentation, slack spaces and structural defects_
I just do not believe that this is possible - without risk.

As most of these so called registry programs are associated with companies whose reputation is certainly not as good as Grisoft`s (AVG Technologies) I cannot help wondering why you would wish to have such a product.


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

I ran the PC Analyzer feature after the initial install, but there was no way that I was going to remove the registry "errors" that it claimed to have found. 

------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Macboatmaster said:


> KeonichavezThe chance however of AVG`s PC TuneUP removing entries that it perceives as un-needed when in fact they are, is extremely high.


To be fair to Grisoft, we don't *know* if this is the case at all. We have no idea what criteria Grisoft has programmed into their registry cleaning component. I've run the registry cleaner in CCleaner on several systems with no adverse or negative effects at all. Does the risk of corrupting the registry exist? Sure, but that risk exists ANYTIME some mucks with the registry, either manually or with a tool.



> *Your product states*
> _A similar tool cleans up your Windows registry by rewriting it to eliminate fragmentation, slack spaces and structural defects_
> I just do not believe that this is possible - without risk.


Well, giving the AVG PC TuneUP a shot at doing this is certainly one way to find out.  Of course, I don't know how to measure the success of this kind of operation other than the system continuing to run properly after the registry has been rewritten.



> As most of these so called registry programs are associated with companies whose reputation is certainly not as good as Grisoft`s (AVG Technologies) I cannot help wondering why you would wish to have such a product.


Cleary, such a product offering is to induce people to pay for the product since it has more "stuff". Having the TuneUP in the free version doesn't make much sense to me since those installing the free version are looking for an anti-virus application, first and foremost. I can see the TuneUP listed as a "feature" of one of the paid editions when looking at a product version comparison table of some kind.

Peace...


----------



## Macboatmaster (Jan 15, 2010)

> Well, giving the AVG PC TuneUP a shot at doing this is certainly one way to find out.


I am sure it is, please let us know when you have tried it.!
I certainly will not be doing so - trying it.
I would be amazed if Flavalee has registry errors, of any sort - on his computer - so what did it find.? 
Perhaps a few that were no longer actually needed.
As you say to be fair to AVG we do not know how the program works. What we do know is that any registry cleaner (make your computer go faster rubbish) is unwanted and un-needed and for AVG to be marketing such rubbish is disappointing to say the least.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Macboatmaster said:


> I am sure it is, please let us know when you have tried it.!


Well, I don't have the paid version and I'm not planning on buying it just to give the registry re-writing function a try. If the TuneUP utility is available as a standalone app that's available for a trial download, I might give it a try to see if rewriting the registry actually makes any difference in system performance. I would consider the registry rewriting as being like a "defragmentation" of sorts, which some defragmentation apps for Windows advertise as doing.



> As you say to be fair to AVG we do not know how the program works. What we do know is that any registry cleaner (make your computer go faster rubbish) is unwanted and un-needed and for AVG to be marketing such rubbish is disappointing to say the least.


I disagree with this. A registry cleaner might not be perceivably effective and in some instances it might cause harm or damage to the registry but to state a cleaner is "unwanted" is an overstatement, IMO. Some might want the sense their system is fully optimized or tuned, including having a "clean" registry. This might be a false sense but it won't be the first time I've run into false senses when talking about these kinds of things. 

If the addition of the TuneUP is an indication Grisoft wants to broaden the scope of its product offerings to areas other than anti-malware protection and malware removal, then one has to wonder if they are wanting to get too big. On the other hand Comodo offers a variety of products, including a firewall, anti-virus application, web browser, and digital certificates for signing code, etc. Their products (at least the firewall) maintains a good or great reputation despite Comodo developing apps other than their firewall.

I dunno, just thinking out loud. 

Peace...


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

i see this morning a new avg 2011 out ,i uninstalled and download and installed the new one. i don't know but maybe avg will update to the new one.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/AVG_AntiVirus_Free_Edition_d886.html


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

That appears to be a bugfix release.

Peace...


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

golferbob said:


> i see this morning a new avg 2011 out ,i uninstalled and download and installed the new one. i don't know but maybe avg will update to the new one.
> 
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/AVG_AntiVirus_Free_Edition_d886.html


There was no need to uninstall 10.0.1120 and then install 10.0.1136.

The update occurred automatically after you started your computer today, then you would've been prompted to restart your computer.

----------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## ealby (Oct 12, 2010)

Ok i installed AVG 2011 yesterday, the new version. Guess i'll be the first to say i'm having serious problems now. Using Firefox or IE now locks up the computer. Made sure i have 32-bit version. 

XPSP3, 2GB RAM, everything conceivable is latest version.. 

Removed it and things worked again. Added it back and problem started all over. Have had AVG since 2007 and really liked it. Any suggestions? Am somewhat puter savvy but not in the mood to do anything heavy. I suspect is one of those new features in AVG. But which one...


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

If *AVG 2011* is going to cause you grief, switch to *Microsoft Security Essentials*. It's more light-weight and more user-friendly.

-------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## ealby (Oct 12, 2010)

apreciated tho that's a little fast to cut n run to ms. what do we know of that ms's prevented that leaders didnt? just curios, cos avg's caught everything that mcafee or symmantec failed to for me. wld rather figure out what component's blowing the ram thru the roof, else wait for a new rev. had awful probs with one batch of zonealarm, went to windows and didnt like the lack of granularity. got back to a newer za some months later, all goot. 

disabled privacy protect. no help. only the link scanner and one other thing. pretty sure i had the link scanner on in avg9.

grrrrrrrrrr


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Microsoft Security Essentials has earned a reputation for being a good, free anti-virus application.

One of the main reasons I continue to use AVG is it offers e-mail protection as well as the link scanner for "sniffing out" links in search engine results.

If you don't care about those other features, switching to Microsoft Security Essentials, or Avira AntiVir, or Avast! might be the best option if AVG 2011 doesn't want to "play well" on your system.

Peace...


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

It froze my pc 
i couldnt uninstall it or use system restore 
Now that really made me mad lol

its all gone now with the help of revo installer


----------



## BlueCrystalMan (Oct 15, 2010)

I had the exact same problem... installs, then locks up the machine... initially on reboot, but now it can't even finish installing. Machine is a pristine XP SP3, 2 Gb RAM. Install AVG intially, it needed a reboot, machine came back up and locked right after AVG icon appeared in system tray. Hard booted the machine, same thing.

Booted to safe mode, everything worked, rebooted, locked up again. Rebooted to safe mode and uninstalled 2011 and the machine came up fine. Rebooted again for good measure, reinstalled, got to the finish screen on the installation and it locked up again.

Hard booted to safe mode, uninstalled, rebooted, reinstalled AVG 9, no problems.

Suggestions anyone?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

BlueCrystalMan said:


> Suggestions anyone?


Yeah, either wait for another bugfix release of AVG 2011 before trying to install it again or switch to another product. 

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

I ran also AVG 2011, because I was ever an AVG-user myself, but its full scan didn't detect anything, not even a tracking cookie, but no false positives and that is a pluspoint.
I uninstalled it afterwards, because I can't use an AV-scanner that doesn't detect anything. I'm still looking for the first scanner that detects anything.
Sorry AVG-fans, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.


----------



## BlueCrystalMan (Oct 15, 2010)

Why would you want it to detect something that wasn't a virus? That's what spyware detection is for.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ErikAlbert said:


> I ran also AVG 2011, because I was ever an AVG-user myself, but its full scan didn't detect anything, not even a tracking cookie, but no false positives and that is a pluspoint.
> I uninstalled it afterwards, because I can't use an AV-scanner that doesn't detect anything. I'm still looking for the first scanner that detects anything.
> Sorry AVG-fans, I hope I didn't hurt your feelings.


I believe AVG 2011 is configured NOT to scan tracking cookies, by default. This is probably for performance reasons. The rootkit scanning function is also disabled by default. AVG most certainly can and does scan and detect tracking cookies. 

Peace...


----------



## BlueCrystalMan (Oct 15, 2010)

So you enabled it the tracking cookie scan and it still didn't pick any up?


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

BlueCrystalMan said:


> So you enabled it the tracking cookie scan and it still didn't pick any up?


Yes, I had to test everything, especially dangerous tracking cookies, boot-virussen and rootkits.


----------



## Cheeseball81 (Mar 3, 2004)

I upgraded to 2011 last night. So far no problems. Only thing I have noticed is my laptop takes alittle longer to boot up now. Not too happy about that.


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

after the update on mon oct 11th avg would not play well with my comodo firewall. so after may trys i have gone back to avg 9.0.862 . will wait and see if avg comes out with a new update soon.


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

Upgraded to AVG 2011 mid week, the upgrade went seamless (didn't install link scanner) no problems were encountered at all (it carried over all my settings from v9, didn't rebuild its cache .. used the one from v9). Like cheeseball I'm noticing a slightly slower boot but the full system scan is significantly faster (even with the new "enable thorough scanning" enabled). One oddity I did see is that the 64 bit version installed to the x86 program folder 



ErikAlbert said:


> Yes, I had to test everything, *especially dangerous tracking cookies*, boot-virussen and rootkits.


Eric, a question. I've never considered cookies, tracking or otherwise, to be particularly dangerous. Yes I delete tracking cookies, only allow cookies from trusted sites I visit regularly to leave cookies on my computer. Even regularly flush flash cookies (every time my browser closes). Oops ... almost left the question out. How can something as easy to control and get rid of as cookies be classed as "dangerous"?


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

> How can something as easy to control and get rid of as cookies be classed as "dangerous"?


Tracking cookies can track you across sites. Sometimes they are issued by advertising companies, from the ad banner. They are not dangerous per se, but it is a violation of privacy, because the ad company can now see that you visited such and such sites where they have a banner display.


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

lunarlander said:


> Tracking cookies can track you across sites.... They are not dangerous per se, but it is a violation of privacy ....


 I get all this, and thats why I don't allow 3rd party cookies and dump most (except for ones from sites I deem trustworthy) on browser close. I just find people panic over cookies to much, they aren't dangerous just a nuisance that is easily dealt with.


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

i use this small free program to delete flash cookies.

http://majorgeeks.com/Flash_Cookie_Cleaner_d6268.html


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

golferbob said:


> i use this small free program to delete flash cookies.
> 
> http://majorgeeks.com/Flash_Cookie_Cleaner_d6268.html


No need for a standalone program if you're using firefox, I use the BetterPrivacy add on to look after flash cookies


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

I use advanced methods to keep my system "tracking cookie free" and without needing CCleaner or Cookie software or scanners. No superfluous object is able to survive in my system. If you think long enough, you can change and improve the old-fashioned methods. 
It's too late for you, because your computer is already installed.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> I use advanced methods to keep my system "tracking cookie free" and without needing CCleaner or Cookie software or scanners. No superfluous object is able to survive in my system. If you think long enough, you can change and improve the old-fashioned methods.
> It's too late for you, because your computer is already installed.


And you avoided my questions in another thread . So, again...... how do you determined what is safe to save versus not safe to save....and what is safe to install versus what was not safe to install if you don't have any apps to test for malware?
For all I know, you are just booting up malicious software each time you boot that 'advanced method'.
Unless, of course, you never save anything or install anything.
Sounds risky to me not using anti-virus, anti-trojan and anti-malware apps .


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

DarqueMist said:


> No need for a standalone program if you're using firefox, I use the BetterPrivacy add on to look after flash cookies


I second that addon.

Hi DM


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Stoner said:


> And you avoided my questions in another thread . So, again...... how do you determined what is safe to save versus not safe to save....and what is safe to install versus what was not safe to install if you don't have any apps to test for malware?
> For all I know, you are just booting up malicious software each time you boot that 'advanced method'.
> Unless, of course, you never save anything or install anything.
> Sounds risky to me not using anti-virus, anti-trojan and anti-malware apps .


Hi Jack,

I just use Linux - no special security other than a software firewall, i.e. no AV although ClamAV is available for Linux, no anti-trojan nor anti-malware apps although AppArmour is available. I use a Live CD environment where the Live CD is read-only, and the hard disks are not mounted. When I power down, if any malware gets into my system - can it tell the difference between a file system on hard disk and a file system in memory? - nothing in RAM survives. I save to hard disk when I download something that looks interesting - technical articles, major software releases, etc., otherwise, the hard disks are not mounted, and I always disable the network when I mount the hard disks, and do the reverse before I reenable the network. Oh, and did I mention - I pay $0.00 for security, the OS, and software - no annual software costs. Can't beat the price, nor the security. No security problems since ditching WinXP Pro SP2 and paying for Trend-Micro's PC-cillen and Webroot's SpySweeper.

-- Tom


----------



## DarqueMist (Jan 16, 2001)

Stoner said:


> I second that addon.
> 
> Hi DM


hey Stoner ... I can thank you for finding the BetterPrivacy add on, it was a post by you in another thread that had me check it out :up:


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

lotuseclat79 said:


> Hi Jack,
> 
> I just use Linux - no special security other than a software firewall, i.e. no AV although ClamAV is available for Linux, no anti-trojan nor anti-malware apps although AppArmour is available. I use a Live CD environment where the Live CD is read-only, and the hard disks are not mounted. When I power down, if any malware gets into my system - can it tell the difference between a file system on hard disk and a file system in memory? - nothing in RAM survives. I save to hard disk when I download something that looks interesting - technical articles, major software releases, etc., otherwise, the hard disks are not mounted, and I always disable the network when I mount the hard disks, and do the reverse before I reenable the network. Oh, and did I mention - I pay $0.00 for security, the OS, and software - no annual software costs. Can't beat the price, nor the security. No security problems since ditching WinXP Pro SP2 and paying for Trend-Micro's PC-cillen and Webroot's SpySweeper.
> 
> -- Tom


I keep watching to see if several of the apps I need are ported over or something written close in function.....then I probably will take a new interest in Live CDs.

Paperport, MS Money and voice recognition are several important apps for me and I've yet to see anything close to their function/performance under a Linux distro.........yet. Someone is active in running Dragon under Wine from what I read about a year ago.....so it's worth keeping an eye open.

Sometimes when I'm in the mood.....I'll boot up my Slax Live CD and do a little browsing.
I've even used it several times in the distant past for trouble shooting Windows driver issues.

Currently, I'm using only free security apps with XP and Win7.
The only problem I've had was with Asquared and XP ( didn't install it on win7) ....a lot of conflicts and false positives.
My last install of XP is now 2 years old and survived a motherboard swap.....all with no known malware issues.
I think Sandboxie has helped a lot.

I do like the MS hand holding, though


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

DarqueMist said:


> hey Stoner ... I can thank you for finding the BetterPrivacy add on, it was a post by you in another thread that had me check it out :up:


Glad to help


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Stoner said:


> And you avoided my questions in another thread . So, again...... how do you determined what is safe to save versus not safe to save....and what is safe to install versus what was not safe to install if you don't have any apps to test for malware?
> For all I know, you are just booting up malicious software each time you boot that 'advanced method'.
> Unless, of course, you never save anything or install anything.
> Sounds risky to me not using anti-virus, anti-trojan and anti-malware apps .


Well, I consider WinXPproSP3, MS Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, COMODO Firewall, Sandboxie, Adobe Reader, ... as safe. Do you really want a full list of popular, known software ? Do you consider these software as unsafe ?
Why would I use and install unknown software, that aren't even useful to me, when I read what they do.
I don't waste my time on useless software or gadgetry, like screensavers and I'm not a collector of anything. I just surf, read, look on the internet and think about it.
I have the possibility of creating 8 additional test-computers and I can archive them. This way I can archive hundreds of different computers and recall them later, when I need them. Of course I don't do this in practice, but I have the theoretical possibility.
I already explained you how I clean my computer, getting rid of tracking cookies is just a small part of the total cleaning, maybe you still don't understand how I clean my computer. You must be able to think theoretically (not practically) to understand how I clean my computer. I use the same method for removing superfluous objects, cookies, tracking cookies, temporary software and malware, there is no difference between a cookie and malware in theory, they are all superfluous objects that need to be removed.
*I don't remove superfluous objects because they ARE there, but because they WEREN'T there.  Maybe my English isn't good enough.
*


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> Well, I consider WinXPproSP3, MS Office, Thunderbird, Firefox, COMODO Firewall, Sandboxie, Adobe Reader, ... as safe. Do you really want a full list of popular, known software ? Do you consider these software as unsafe ?
> Why would I use and install unknown software, that aren't even useful to me, when I read what they do.
> I don't waste my time on useless software or gadgetry, like screensavers and I'm not a collector of anything. I just surf, read, look on the internet and think about it.
> I have the possibility of creating 8 additional test-computers and I can archive them. This way I can archive hundreds of different computers and recall them later, when I need them. Of course I don't do this in practice, but I have the theoretical possibility.
> ...





> Adobe Reader


Safe? 
Good one 



> Do you really want a full list of popular, known software ? Do you consider these software as unsafe ?


I use a fair amount of software downloaded from the internet, so it is important to be checking it's integrity, malware wise.
Have I ever downloaded a bad package? Yes...several times.
But I didn't install them because........I had an AV scanner that caught the problem.

I was lurking at this web site when I saw an application recommended and joined to notify the poster that it carried a trojan. And that's how I became a member.



> Why would I use and install unknown software, that aren't even useful to me, when I read what they do.


I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea why you do what you do 



> I don't waste my time on useless software or gadgetry


I don't either.
But I do know you downloaded DVD Shrink and if you google it against malware/trojans.....you'll find the search exposes people having countless problems with the sources providing infected versions......and I am aware DVD Shrink has to be used with an up to date ripper app because DVD Shrink's development stopped years ago and won't decode a recent commercial movie.....and you are probably downloading that from somebody, like Slysoft.
So....you are downloading and installing apps off the Internet........with out any means to check them for malware at the time of the permanent install.



> I just surf, read, look on the internet and think about it.


Ha! See above 
And Tom's method of using a live CD is a lot easier and cleaner than your....'method'.... if all you want to do is surf the 'net 



> I have the possibility of creating 8 additional test-computers and I can archive them. This way I can archive hundreds of different computers and recall them later, when I need them. Of course I don't do this in practice, but I have the theoretical possibility.


Everyone has that possibility if they want ....all they need to do is use a drive imaging app like Acronis to save a distinctive OS configuration on/of the same computer......no big deal. And irrelevant.



> I already explained you how I clean my computer, getting rid of tracking cookies is just a small part of the total cleaning, maybe you still don't understand how I clean my computer.


Oh....I understand what you are doing.....what I'm commenting on is your irreverent attitude towards getting infected from unscanned downloads and the up time between boots.
Deepfreeze and Returnil sound interesting........but not the way you use them.



> You must be able to think theoretically


Well, then why aren't you addressing my concerns about not using a scanner to check downloads and installs?
If you permanently install an infected application, with out conventional antimalware, you are giving it permission to run unchallenged, and unchallenged at each reboot........because you don't run an active fulltime scanner.



> I use the same method for removing superfluous objects, cookies, tracking cookies, temporary software and malware


* "superfluous objects, cookies, tracking cookies, temporary software "* are irrelevant to the discussion.
What you can not say is that downloaded software you install permanently with out scanning ......isn't a vector for repeatedly booting up an infected OS.



> there is no difference between a cookie and malware in theory


...unless you install malware permanently in your OS configuration....... because you aren't using a scanner 

That could get a lot of people in trouble.
A false sense of security.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

@Stoner,
During the past 5 years, I'm trying to find a scanner, that proves I'm wrong in other words a scanner that detects malware on my system.
I ran in those 5 years the best scanners available, each time a full scan, none of them couldn't find anything. If my approach is so bad like you are trying to tell me, why I'm still malware-free according all these scanners ?
Every user can have only ONE AV-scanners, WOW one AV-scanner, I'm stupified that is very safe and when this AV-scanner says "No malware found" every user believes he his malware-free, because his AV-scanner can't fail. They are not running NOD32, they are running GOD32. I'm really impressed by the classical security.
While each forum is spending its time on helping malware-victims, I have a malware-free computer every day, that's the difference. Who is the mocking bird ?
Name any log and I will give it to you, try to prove I'm infected. I take the challenge. I'm tired of running scanners anyway, they bore me to death. Let us stick to the FACTS in stead of blablabla.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> @Stoner,
> During the past 5 years, I'm trying to find a scanner, that proves I'm wrong in other words a scanner that detects malware on my system.
> I ran in those 5 years the best scanners available, each time a full scan, none of them could find anything. If my approach is so bad like you are trying to tell me, why I'm still malware-free according all these scanners ?
> Every user can have only ONE AV-scanners, WOW one AV-scanner, I'm stupified that is very safe and when this AV-scanner says "No malware found" every user believes he his malware-free, because his AV-scanner can't fail. They are not running NOD32, they are running GOD32. I'm really impressed by the classical security.
> While each forum is spending its time on helping malware-victims, I have a malware-free computer every day, that's the difference. Who is the mocking bird ?


What works for you is not necessarily a formula that will work for most.
As you claim, most of your online activity is just looking around. (  )
Mine's quite a lot more compared to your claimed activity and there are many here in this forum that have uses that surpass what I do.
So.....any recommendation you project should encompass as many users as possible, not just limited to yourself.
I counted the number of free apps I have installed and it's over 28.....not counting games or visual themes.....actual useful applications from drive imaging to motherboard monitoring.
To not scan them for malware upon permanent installation would be reckless.



> I ran in those 5 years the best scanners available


Irrelevant..........that's anecdotal evidence and only expresses your experiences under certain limited conditions that aren't likely to exist in the majority of users.
The issue isn't that you use an app like Deepfreeze......it's that you argue to not use safe security behavior along with the concept.



> Every user can have only ONE AV-scanners, WOW one AV-scanner, I'm stupified that is very safe and when this AV-scanner says "No malware found" every user believes he his malware-free


And that's why the layered security concept is advantageous.
It has worked well for me.....and I'm not arguing to ignore apps like Deepfreeze......I'm presenting my concerns that the method you use of ignoring malware will statistically negatively impact users that follow your suggestions of not running scanners.



> I'm really impressed by the classical security.


I am, too. I use it successfully.



> While each forum is spending its time on helping malware-victims, I have a malware-free computer every day


As I posted before....you don't know that unless you never install a downloaded app into your system.....and I know you do. That's one issue. If you invite installed malware into a system that has no defenses....it is unchallenged and will replicate each time you, ErikAlbert, reboot your computer.
Did you really install DVDShrink with out scanning it for malware? Maybe you got away lucky.....but all those that download infected versions wouldn't if they didn't scan their downloads.
Deepfreeze would just keep replicating the malware each time they reboot.

This isn't about 'you'......it's about the general population that uses computers differently to you, emulating your solutions.
That sir, is the concept of a 'mockingbird'. You want the general user to copy your efforts. And I see reasons why that could be unsafe for many computer users.

So far, you haven't been able to provide any logic for the elimination of security software other than you've been lucky.....

For all you know.....you've got a nasty bios/hardware based rootkit booting up ahead of your 'special method' as a silent OS that windows can't see and some 13 year old kid is sitting patiently in front of his monitor, waiting for his keylogger to relay your bank account numbers


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Stoner said:


> What works for you is not necessarily a formula that will work for most.
> As you claim, most of your online activity is just looking around. (  )
> Mine's quite a lot more compared to your claimed activity and there are many here in this forum that have uses that surpass what I do.
> So.....any recommendation you project should encompass as many users as possible, not just limited to yourself.
> ...


Let us stop this silly discussion. You do your thing, I do mine and what the rest of the world does, doesn't matter. Your posts and my posts are nothing but information, it's upto each member to make his own decisions. Who cares anyway. Within a month all our posts are forgotten already, like any other post.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> ...


Looks like I left you speechless


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> Let us stop this silly discussion. You do your thing, I do mine and what the rest of the world does, doesn't matter. Your posts and my posts are nothing but information, it's upto each member to make its own decisions. Who cares anyway. Within a month all our posts are forgotten already, like any other post.


I see you made an edit 



> Let us stop this silly discussion.


I don't see it as silly.....I do see serious concerns with some of your methodology....particularly the one of not running an active scanner and not scanning downloads.



> You do your thing,


I intend to, within the rules of TSG, of course.



> I do mine and what the rest of the world does, doesn't matter.


I don't agree with that. If the world went completely lax on security, there would likely be more malware issues traded back and forth among Internet users.



> Your posts and my posts are nothing but information, it's upto each member to make its own decisions


True....and, IMO, they....the members..... need to carefully decide any security decision they make.
That's why I ask questions of you....to learn more that might be of use.



> Who cares anyway.


Obviously we both do or our conversation would never have begun....and the view count is rather high signifying that non participants also have an interest in this thread.



> Within a month all our posts are forgotten already, like any other post.


You can start deleting yours any time soon 
But, no......these conversations are a written record that's searchable .
I have used the search function to read up on certain issues, myself.
Anything that benefits improved security is beneficial to the 'community' here.
Anything that improves understanding of security is beneficial, also.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Stoner said:


> Looks like I left you speechless


I consider this as a waste of time. This was a problem *5 years ago*, it isn't worth to talk about and the results are there. Case closed.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> I consider this as a waste of time. This was a problem *5 years ago*, it isn't worth to talk about and the results are there. Case closed.


Anecdotal evidence based on luck is hardly a logical argument, ErikAlbert.


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

Stoner said:


> Anecdotal evidence based on luck is hardly a logical argument, ErikAlbert.


Wow! This thread has really gotten off topic! It's become much more interesting than a discussion of AVG's latest offering could ever be. I'm certainly in the Stoner camp here. dude. When someone says, "I've never had a virus in 5 years, and I don't use AV software!" that statement is unprovable. My view on the state of anti-malware products is that they are all inadequate to deal with 100% of current real world threats. But that just means I'm going to do everything I can to insure that I have the best protection available. If my antimalware product proactively blocks only 50% of new threats, that's a whole lot better than 0%!

Downloading any software always carries some risk. There have been so many instances of legitimate sites hacked over the years that I doubt I need to recap them all here: that means you can't be 100% assured of a clean download from _any _source. That's true even if you restrict your downloads to the publisher's site. Still, just for a reference point, do a search for "microsoft security essentials" or "combofix" and see just how many questionable sites show up.

You can't always trust reviews. Often, searches for reviews of a given product return page after page of ratings from either unknown, or obviously bogus sites; many of which are operated by the same organization that provides the software in question. I agree that a good dose of "online paranoia", research, and common sense is important to Internet safety, but the importance of good antimalware software can't be overemphasized.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Snagglegaster said:


> When someone says, "I've never had a virus in 5 years, and I don't use AV software!" that statement is unprovable.


Is your point that one would have to run some kind of A/V application in order to prove their system hasn't been infected with anything or is it that you really can't prove any given system has never been infected with anything, regardless of an A/V application being used or not?

I can see temporarily installing and then uninstalling an A/V app to check any given system as one way to sort of determine if that system has been infected with anything (false positives not withstanding).

Still, I also agree some protection is better than none at all even if "safe surfing" practices are strictly followed.

As for running Linux as an alternative, in theory it sounds perfect. In practice, it's not and that's coming from a Linux user. 

Peace...


----------



## golferbob (May 18, 2004)

i see we have a new updated avg free out today.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/AVG_AntiVirus_Free_Edition_d886.html


----------



## Snagglegaster (Sep 12, 2006)

tomdkat said:


> Is your point that one would have to run some kind of A/V application in order to prove their system hasn't been infected with anything or is it that you really can't prove any given system has never been infected with anything, regardless of an A/V application being used or not?
> 
> Peace...


I really meant the former, because retrospective detection and removal rates approach 100% (with some companies responding faster to newly identified malware than others), so even if your AV software doesn't _proactively _block a new nasty, the chances of AV software blocking an infection or cleaning an already infected system are much higher after the signature of the new pest has been added to the on demand/on access database. Simply stating "my system isn't infected because it doesn't show any obvious systems" isn't the same thing as being free of infection. After all, the scariest malware isn't intended to exhibit obvious symptoms.

But your point about never being sure if you are infected or not is the reason I use other antimalware tools to supplement my AV software; because saying "my system isn't infected because I run The World's Best AV Software" isn't sufficient.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Snagglegaster said:


> I really meant the former, because retrospective detection and removal rates approach 100% (with some companies responding faster to newly identified malware than others), so even if your AV software doesn't _proactively _block a new nasty, the chances of AV software blocking an infection or cleaning an already infected system are much higher after the signature of the new pest has been added to the on demand/on access database. Simply stating "my system isn't infected because it doesn't show any obvious systems" isn't the same thing as being free of infection. After all, the scariest malware isn't intended to exhibit obvious symptoms.
> 
> But your point about never being sure if you are infected or not is the reason I use other antimalware tools to supplement my AV software; because saying "my system isn't infected because I run The World's Best AV Software" isn't sufficient.


Cool. We're on the same page. :up:

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Here are the scanning results of AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition 2011.
Do you see any reported malware or tracking cookie ?


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Nope. I can post a screenshot or a report of a scan on my mom's computer, where tracking cookies are usually detected.

First, have you enabled the scanning of tracking cookies as part of your manual or scheduled scan?

Second, different apps will consider any given tracking cookie as being something worth detecting and removing differently. SUPERAntispyware will or can detect tracking cookies Spybot or some other anti-spyware tool won't detect because those apps won't consider those cookies to be anything worth worrying about (and vice-versa). Malwarebytes doesn't bother with tracking cookies at all.

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

@tomdkat,
I marked every option and it was a full scan : system and data.
I can run any scanner, it's always the same result : no malware found.
I don't use any scanner. I don't remove malware by recognition like a scanner, I remove malware because it changed my system and it doesn't matter if the malware is known or unknown.
I live without scanners, already 5 years and my computer is malware-free and superclean.
I don't need CCleaner or any registry cleaner, I do a much better job.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, cool. I'll gather info on my mom's computer and then get some links to some legit sites you can visit and see if there's any change in what gets detected by AVG or anything else you scan with, when you do decide to scan.

I DO know BlueMountain.com (the electronic greeting card site) drops cookies that AVG, Spybot, and SUPERAntispyware like to remove so maybe you could visit that site, look at some free ecards and then scan and see if anything is detected.

EDIT: By the way, you've got a fast system, based on that scan time. 

Peace...


----------



## RuthK (Oct 28, 2010)

Hello Everyone - I am a new member here and I upgraded to the new AVG.

Here are my issues with the NEW AVG UPGRADE: 

1. Upon upgrading I now have t LOW RISK pop-up window from NVIDIA FIREWALL that I CANNOT 
get rid of. 

The pop-up window comes up with File Folder "system 32".... I have "Denied" it and "Allowed" 
it and I still cannot get rid of them.

2. Also, the new update with AVG, keeps popping up an AVG "Resident Shield" window that I cannot 
find out where to deactivate this pop-up. 

Even when I click the "Open Resident Shield History" it shows tracking cookies. 
I have emptied the list

4. The ANTI-ROOT Kit shows 45 "whatever's lol" ... I don't know what these means and they don't 
say what they are so, I emptied the list and now there are more tracking cookies... and all of 
them are to this link: "Found Tracking cookie.Fastclick";"c:\Documents and Settings\Ruth\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\h5hz5zan.default\cookies.sqlite";"";"10/28/2010, 11:23:43 AM";"file";"C:\Program Files\Webroot\WebrootSecurity\SpySweeper.exe"

I have no idea who h5hz5zan is?


3. Then a day later Microsoft had updates and then I couldn't SEND emails from Microsoft Outlook.
I run FREE AVG; Webroot - SpySweep and have run these two programs for about 3 years with 
no problems unless Microsoft does an update and then it messes up my system and I don't know
how to fix the issues.

When I call my service provider, they can't help because they saw it is an issue with Microsoft 
Outlook and/or Webroot or AVG and they don't support them.

4. I have done the following:

- Turned off the Firewall on Microsoft; 
- All 13 of 13 Recommend Shield are active in Webroot
- My AVG E-mail Scanner Settings are "check" for scanning income/outgoing messages. 
Would this be blocking me sending email messages? 
I have no problem receiving email messages.

I apologize in advance for all these questions but, I could really use your advice on how to fix them.
I thank you in advance for your help.

Ruth


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

tomdkat said:


> EDIT: By the way, you've got a fast system, based on that scan time.


I don't really know if my computer is fast, but there is an option to make AVG faster, it's a kind of sliding bar, which can be increased horizontal with the mouse. Yes my english sucks LOL.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Welcome to Tech Support Guy, Ruth. 

First, you can disable popups in AVG by doing this:

Open the main AVG window
Click "Tools" at the top of the window and then "Advanced"
When the Options window opens, there will (or should) be a "Notifications" option on the left. If you click that, the right side of the window should show you the various notifications you can enable/disable. Here, you can turn off all notifications (if you want).
Those might not be exact instructions, since I don't have AVG installed on this computer, but they should be close.

As for the firewall popup, you might have to train the firewall to permit the AVG processes to connect to the Internet or to other system resources. Since AVG 2011 is "new" on your system, the firewall won't necessarily know its activity is legitimate and should be permitted. I've gone through iterations of that with both the ZoneAlarm and Comodo firewalls. (I didn't know nVidia even made a firewall! ).

"h5hz5zan" is internal the name of your Firefox profile and that's nothing to be worried about.

Until you get the AVG e-mail scanner properly setup, disable it for now. If you use SSL connections in Outlook to contact mail servers, you'll need to configure SSL mail servers in AVG for the e-mail scanning to work properly.

You can get more info on this here.

EDIT: There is also an AVG Free Edition Support Forum where you can get additional help if you can't get your issues resolved here. 

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ErikAlbert said:


> I don't really know if my computer is fast, but there is an option to make AVG faster, it's a kind of sliding bar, which can be increased with the mouse.


Ah, did you adjust the scan priority? Between that and the cache it uses, that might explain the performance you're getting.

Peace...


----------



## RuthK (Oct 28, 2010)

Thank you Eric for such a prompt reply.

Murphy's Law that what should be there isn't (laughing)

1. Under TOOLs; Options - there was no "notifications".

2. Thank you for the infor about h5hz5zan....
An obvious "tracking cookie" lol... good to know it is safe

3. Is it "Safe" to disable the Resident Shield in AVG ?

4. I will have to check into NVIDIA more on this one 


Thank you again
Respect
Ruth


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

RuthK said:


> Thank you Eric for such a prompt reply.
> 3. Is it "Safe" to disable the Resident Shield in AVG ?


Disabling the Resident Shield in AVG is a BAD idea, never do that. 
You need AVG or any other AV-scanner, because that is an important part of your security. You also need minimum one AS-scanner, like SUPERAnti-Spyware.
I wouldn't use AVG, I think MSE is a little better, but that is just a thought without scientific proof.


----------



## RuthK (Oct 28, 2010)

Oh... I have Enabled it again. Thanks

Oh by the way .... Tomcat.... I DID find the Balloon Tray Notification ... I hope
It is under "Language Section"

Thank you Everyone...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

RuthK said:


> Thank you Eric for such a prompt reply.
> 
> Murphy's Law that what should be there isn't (laughing)
> 
> 1. Under TOOLs; Options - there was no "notifications".


It's "Appearance". Here are some instructions from the AVG FAQ.



> 2. Thank you for the infor about h5hz5zan....
> An obvious "tracking cookie" lol... good to know it is safe


The "Fastclick" tracking cookie is probably nothing really to worry about, but that's not related to "h5hz5zan". When you create profiles in Firefox, it names them with "random" names internally and that's where your extensions, cache, cookies, and other data gets stored.



> 3. Is it "Safe" to disable the Resident Shield in AVG ?


Disabling the Resident Shield will prevent AVG from blocking any real-time threats it's able to detect. Disabling the resident shield notifications is different from disabling the resident shield, itself. See if you can disable the notifications without disabling the resident shield itself. See how your system behaves.

Good luck!

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

tomdkat said:


> Ah, did you adjust the scan priority? Between that and the cache it uses, that might explain the performance you're getting.
> 
> Peace...


Yes that's the one I adjusted to HIGH (I think). I uninstalled AVG already, because scanners aren't a part of my security. I only use scanners to verify my approach, I'm waiting for some hard proof, that my approach sucks and I only understand scanners, not the other tools like HJT/OTL/GMER/DDS.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, that's cool. I don't necessarily have any particular beef with your approach to security (since I don't know what is specifically is) but I'm not sure how to prove your approach actually works, such that your system is kept free from malware infection. I know, it sounds funny but I'll explain. 

So, you installed AVG 2011 and it didn't detect anything, not even tracking cookies. Cool. Is that, in and of itself, indicative of anything? At the very least, it's indicative of AVG not detecting anything *it* determined to be a "threat" of any kind. To truly detect the effectiveness of AVG's ability to detect tracking cookies, you would need to have a known "bad" cookie on the system, in an area AVG would scan, and see if it detected it. If it did, then AVG is working as it should. If it didn't, then AVG isn't working as it should and is either deficient as a tool or it's database just needs to be updated. The same would go for just about any "scanner" (using your classification) out there.

Now, when talking about anti-virus applications, scanning the system is only part of the protection it can or will provide. Preventing infection is another part of that protection. When people compare anti-virus applications, they expose those applications against "known" threats (threats known to the tester) to see if the application will detect that same threat. If it does, it passes that test. If it doesn't, it (the anti-virus application) obviously doesn't pass that particular test. Exposing a system not known to have any specific threats on it (either through an actual infection or through a file that is infection) doesn't necessarily prove the effectiveness of that particular anti-virus application. I have AntiVir installed in my Windows 2000 installation in VirtualBox and I do NOT have any firewall installed and I use IE6 to browse as many questionable and "prone to infect your system" websites as I can find and have yet to get infected. I mean AntiVir doesn't warn me about anything, and scans with multiple apps yield nothing. Every now and then, I'll intentionally expose an installer of malware to my Windows 2000 environment and then AntiVir and the other apps "come to life" and quarantine the threat as soon as it's detected, even while it's trying to install itself.

Without knowing your specific approach to security, I would think a better way to verify your approach actually works is to expose your system to known threats and see what happens. With good security tools installed, the idea is they will protect your system from getting infected. How your approach would fare, I have no idea.

So, I think in this case all you have proven is your system doesn't have any files on it AVG 2011 determined to be bad or malicious.

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

Ok, attached are some screenshots of AVG 2011 detecting tracking cookies on my mom's system.

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

tomdkat said:


> Ok, attached are some screenshots of AVG 2011 detecting tracking cookies on my mom's system.
> 
> Peace...


Yes, that's because your mom's system doesn't have Sandboxie, which would sandbox her browser.
AVG will still report these cookies but you will notice on the report that these cookies are stored in the sandbox (not in C:\Documents and Settings) and isolated from the rest of your mom's system. Depending on the settings of Sandboxie, the sandbox will be cleaned, when her browser is closed or cleaned on demand.
If the sandbox is cleaned, AVG won't report them anymore.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ErikAlbert said:


> Yes, that's because your mom's system doesn't have Sandboxie, which would sandbox her browser.
> AVG will still report these cookies but you will notice on the report that these cookies are stored in the sandbox (not in C:\Documents and Settings) and isolated from the rest of your mom's system. Depending on the settings of Sandboxie, the sandbox will be cleaned, when her browser is closed or cleaned on demand.
> If the sandbox is cleaned, AVG won't report them anymore.


That's true. The point of posting the screenshots is to demonstrate AVG 2011 certainly DOES and WILL detect and remove tracking cookies it deems worthy of detecting and removing, using whatever criteria it's programmed to use. I could also configure Firefox to delete cookies each time the browser is closed, so there wouldn't be any cookies laying around while the browser isn't running either. Or, Firefox could be configured to start in "Private Browsing" mode each time which would not leave any cookies laying around either.

Fortunately, tracking cookies aren't a "live" threat in that they aren't "running" and the particular cookies found on my mom's computer aren't affiliated with any questionable sites because she doesn't access any.

So, the fact that AVG 2011 didn't detect any cookies on your system means there either weren't any cookies present for it to inspect or the cookies it did inspect didn't pose any kind of "threat" to warrant removal of said cookie. If you look at the summary screenshot, you'll also notice some scans report in no cookies being detected and others report different numbers of cookies being detected and removed. All of that is based on my mom's surfing habits, of course.

If your position is AVG didn't detect anything on your system because there wasn't anything there to detect, your apology in a previous post to "AVG fans" doesn't make sense (at least to me). If your position is AVG didn't detect anything on your system you felt it SHOULD have detected, posting the output from another scanner would have better illustrated a deficiency in AVG.

Peace...


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

@tomdkat,
A scanner removes malware because it "recognizes" the malware.
My method removes malware because it "changed" my system, not by recognition.
AVG didn't detect anything because the malware was already removed by my method.
I'm trying to find a scanner that proves my method sucks, but I can't find one.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> @tomdkat,
> A scanner removes malware because it "recognizes" the malware.
> My method removes malware because it "changed" my system, not by recognition.
> AVG didn't detect anything because the malware was already removed by my method.
> I'm trying to find a scanner that proves my method sucks, but I can't find one.


The biggest risk I see you take is assuming that you don't get infected during a session because you reboot a fresh image .
As you don't run active malware scanners, you can't say you positively have no malware intrusions.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Stoner said:


> The biggest risk I see you take is assuming that you don't get infected during a session because you reboot a fresh image .
> As you don't run active malware scanners, you can't say you positively have no malware intrusions.


Jesus, you are really haunting me. Each post I write, you are there. LOL
So what ? Malware-intrusions are removed anyway, because they changed my system.
Is your one-AV-scanner approach so much better, that it prevents any malware intrusion ? In your dreams maybe.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> Jesus, you are really haunting me. Each post I write, you are there. LOL
> So what ? Malware-intrusions are removed anyway, because they changed my system.
> Is your one-AV-scanner approach so much better, that it prevents any malware intrusion ? In your dreams maybe.





> Jesus, you are really haunting me.


It's just your paranoia 



> So what ? Malware-intrusions are removed anyway, because they changed my system.


Well, if you do online banking or credit card purchases......some 13 year old hacker might just be enjoying life by capturing your account numbers  and driving a new red vette on your dime ....when he gets his driving permit 
Simply.....you allow risk to exist where it could be reduced.



> Is your one-AV-scanner approach so much better


I use more than one type of malware scanner, a keylogger, a firewall that challenges unknown executables, A sandbox for browsing, security plugins in Firefox and a backup plan if any of that fails.
That's my XP computer.
I do notice you use several of the above precautions, but reject active scanners.
That rejection will likely always be the security weakness of your 'method'.

But I've posted all this before....and you keep repeating yourself as if it's never been mentioned.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

If Avg is detecting tracking cookies as a threat im glad i dumped it 

ello Jack


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Hi Donna


----------



## Frank4d (Sep 10, 2006)

AVG 2011 has an option in the Advance Settings to disable or enable scanning of tracking cookies. I disabled it as I don't consider tracking cookies a threat.

I found one issue with AVG 2011 about a week ago in post #3 here: http://forums.techguy.org/all-other-software/958211-solved-ie8-super-laggy.html
I haven't checked yet to see if there is a fix for it.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ErikAlbert said:


> Jesus, you are really haunting me. Each post I write, you are there. LOL
> So what ? Malware-intrusions are removed anyway, because they changed my system.
> Is your one-AV-scanner approach so much better, that it prevents any malware intrusion ? In your dreams maybe.


Taking a step back, I think you've nailed the difference between your approach and the "pro scanner" approach to protecting a system from a malware infection.

Using the "pro scanner" approach, if you have good or great real-time protection, threats can be prevented from infecting the system, in the first place. A threat that never gets installed is one that never has to be removed.

Using your approach, your system is vulnerable to infection but you don't really care because you effectively "reset" the entire system when you start it again the next time, I guess the only real problem you face is getting infected with something that trashes your system to the point where you can't "reset" it but have to rebuild it completely. This scenario has greater potential in your case, since you're not protecting your system from any threats and as such if something really nasty grabs hold of it, you've got to really be on the ball to keep things under control. With a great proactive scanning tool, like a paid Malwarebytes, this "nasty" threat could or would be blocked from being installed, in the first place, so the system is not at risk of being trashed.

I don't really see anything "wrong", per se, about your approach given that it's something YOU do but I think your method of using scanners to "prove" your method is "wrong" is wrong. What you need to do is point your system at the most nasty of threats out there and see how reliably you're able to recover each time. The anti-virus comparisons are done that way. Anti-virus apps are exposed to various threats to see how effective they are at dealing with them.

Peace...


----------



## Noyb (May 25, 2005)

Frank4d said:


> I disabled it as I don't consider tracking cookies a threat.


They're only a tool to statistically track your habits for the purpose of making money ... 
Why support them by not erasing them ???

I erase them several times a day .. and always before a scan ... I never find any


----------



## Chelsea-Buns (Oct 28, 2010)

Can someone help me? I posted what is wrong with my desktop, I need help a.s.a.p. I am currently doing online schooling and I cannot download my exams and modules


----------



## Chelsea-Buns (Oct 28, 2010)

Can you help me with my computer issues plz!!


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> .............
> 
> Using the "pro scanner" approach, if you have good or great real-time protection, threats can be prevented from infecting the system, in the first place. A threat that never gets installed is one that never has to be removed.
> ...................................


Indeed.

Hi Tom


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Chelsea-Buns said:


> Can you help me with my computer issues plz!!


I can't help....sorry....only members certified in malware removal can respond to requests for help in that forum and I'm not experienced in indepth malware removal and system repair.

Bring attention to your thread by posting a 'bump' so that it's seen again on the first page.
As you can see they are busy in that forum and you were likely overlooked.


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

tomdkat said:


> Using the "pro scanner" approach, if you have good or great real-time protection, threats can be prevented from infecting the system, in the first place. A threat that never gets installed is one that never has to be removed.


Yes, but FirstDefense isn't my only protection, besides Sandboxie, I have also Anti-Executable (AE).
http://www.antiexecutable.com.au/aestd.html

AE allows only authorized executables, based on a whitelist, that is created during installation on a clean system.
Executables are files like : .exe .msi .com .scr .bat .dll .sys .ocx and many more (80+)
All these executables are vital and keep a system running and are a target of most malware.

Each authorized executable has a quintuple verification :
1. File Size
2. File Type
3. File Location
4. Creation Date
5. Code Sample
No malware is able to change authorized executables.

Any unauthorized executable is removed IMMEDIATELY without asking the user.
I can't download unauthorized executables.
I can't install unauthorized executables.
Nothing or nobody can install unauthorized executables on my system.
If I unzip a compressed file and it contains one or more unauthorized executables, they are removed immediately before my eyes.
If I visit a website and it tries to download an unauthorized executable, AE warns me immediately and stops the executable.
AE is also protected by a password.

Of course Stoner doesn't mention that, because his only goal is to break my approach. It's not about security anymore, it's about ME.
What Stoner doesn't use is BAD. What Stoner doesn't understand is BAD. He is so narrow minded.
If I would use AVAST, I would be his best friend, but AVAST didn't detect any malware on my system.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> Yes, but FirstDefense isn't my only protection, besides Sandboxie, I have also Anti-Executable (AE).
> http://www.antiexecutable.com.au/aestd.html
> 
> AE allows only authorized executables, based on a whitelist, that is created during installation on a clean system.
> ...


Same old song and dance :.
Erik, it is about you.
You recommend a 'method' that reduces security.
It's not about what you use, it's about what you recommend at this forum.
We each have applications that provide much the same security from limiting executables run to drive imaging.
However you keep insisting and promoting that av/malware scanners are worthless and insist they not be installed.

You have an unusual amount of resistance in your argument concerning a particular application that does no harm in being installed and does provide additional security.
You argue it's a waste of precious minutes updating it, but you argue with me for days _.
Apparently you have argued with others for days _......maybe even months 

Yes...it's all about you .................. 

I hope you have a backup computer


----------



## ErikAlbert (Oct 14, 2010)

Talk about software man, not about me. Only the software matters, not us.
Anti-Executable is worthless or what ?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

ErikAlbert said:


> Talk about software man, not about me. Only the software matters, not us.
> Anti-Executable is worthless or what ?


The software has already been 'talked about'.......now it's all about your attitude towards security.
You made it that way, not I 
It's all your fault


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

ErikAlbert said:


> Yes, but FirstDefense isn't my only protection, besides Sandboxie, I have also Anti-Executable (AE).
> http://www.antiexecutable.com.au/aestd.html
> 
> AE allows only authorized executables, based on a whitelist, that is created during installation on a clean system.
> ...


Thanks for the additional information. As I stated previously, I don't know what your specific approach is so I don't know all of the tools you employ. Anti-Executable sounds like a great tool and one that would work well with those who use apps on the whitelist. I don't know who maintains the whitelist but if someone wanted to install an application that wasn't on the whitelist, what would happen? Would it silently quietly prevent this application from being installed or would it ask you what to do or would that be based on the software configuration?

It sounds a bit like a "firewall" of sorts and many hate having to deal with the "intrusiveness" of a firewall frequently asking them if this process or that process should be allowed to access the network, etc.

As for Stoner's persistence in responding to your posts, I think his main issue with your posts is they are sort of misleading. You state you don't use any of the "traditional" anti-maiware applications (this includes anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware, etc. software) because you implement a security system that doesn't need to use such tools. The implication here is the "traditional" tools are "not really needed" if one takes a "different approach to security". However you neglect to get into the nitty gritty of that approach and as that approach is slowly unveiled, it becomes clear it gets a bit convoluted, if not plain awkward, and something most wouldn't have the expertise, time, or even interest to implement. Sure, it might be effective, at least for you, but to present your approach from a "traditional scanners are just not needed" kind of perspective *without* clearly presenting your alternative can mis-lead others more than help them.

Previously in this thread, lotuseclat79 mentioned running from a Linux LiveCD. I believe he has a method of creating his own Linux LiveCDs such that they are current, have the software he needs installed and configured the way he wants such that he doesn't bother with Windows at all. Being a Linux user myself, I would tend to agree with him that simply not running Windows is VERY effective at not getting infected with malware targeting Windows, which is the most prevalent malware out there, but I wouldn't recommend his LiveCD approach as a "practical" alternative for running a "secure" system because it's far too involved for those who would need the most protection from the threats out there. This doesn't mean I think his approach sucks or anything, just not something I would advocate to the "average" Windows user out there.

I'm sure Stoner will correct me, with a smile, if I'm wrong but I'm thinking that's why he continues to "follow you around" here. He's wanting to "poke holes" in your philosophical approach to security since I think, at least, you're presenting in a somewhat misleading manner.

Peace...


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

tomdkat said:


> .............................
> 
> I'm sure Stoner will correct me, with a smile, if I'm wrong but I'm thinking that's why he continues to "follow you around" here. He's wanting to "poke holes" in your philosophical approach to security since I think, at least, you're presenting in a somewhat misleading manner.
> 
> Peace...




No need to correct you, Tom.....I think we're on the same page.
It might look like I'm following Erik....but I've been reading these forums for a while.

I have apps that function in many of the same ways as Erik's 'list', so the issue isn't the concepts he uses, it's the logic in the manner of using them that results in arguing not to use an active AV/malware scanner as another layer of defense ......that I question.
Erik is responsible for his computer, not me 
But.....there is responsibility associated with recommendations offered to the membership.
I find it irresponsible to be recommending a method that intentionally deletes.... defending potential intrusion.

It might be interesting to have a moderator split off this discussion and similar ones on the same topic..... and start a new thread in Civilized Debate about running with out AV/malware scanners rather than interrupting this forum, which isn't designed for debate.


----------



## peterjhn (Nov 4, 2010)

AVG antivirus 2011 version is very useful with new prtetive cloud technology with network installer and enhanced report which enhance the security of the system.


----------

