# BitDefender 9 (Started just for this program)



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

I didn't want to keep hijacking the Norton thread, so I started this one..

Several independant tests have rated BD the highest for AntiVirus software.. 
http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124475,00.asp

Some of this is a continue from the Norton Rootkit thread..
http://forums.techguy.org/reviews/438330-norton-admits-installing-rootkits.html


hewee said:


> Now if you go to the uninstall and click on BitDefender your get 3 options.
> Install, repair and uninstall.
> Not sure if the uninstall will let you uninstall will let you take off other things or not.
> 
> So did you do a custom install and just pick the AV?


It's "BitDefender 9 professional plus".
Custom install, and left out the Firewall, and the anti-spam add on's...

Yes under add/remove I have the option to "Modify, Repair, and Remove"
Full install will give AV, Firewall, Anti Spam, and Update...

I installed only the AV and the update stuff.. Says it's 22MB right now..



Maestro99 said:


> I did some research and I found that some are complaining that the Free Edition is slow while scanning. Maybe that's the case with the Free Edition, but for me, the Standard Edition is not slow to a snail. PC World said second to last with a time of about 10 minutes. TopTenReview I believe said 1.5 gigabytes in ten minutes. The only problem I find is that they both don't say the # of files it scanned. For example, a full scan can mean different things to different antivirus applications. Therefore, in the future, both should conduct a customize scan (checking the C drive, and everything in and between it) and report their findings with the # of files scanned. I'll bet you, one antivirus will say 10,000 files, and the other 8,900 files.


I forgot how many files.. Well over 10,000.. I think it was like 40,000+.... 
Something like 15gigs of info.. and it scaned it in about 30min..

It scaned inside ziped and other compressed files, So I think it went quite well.. 
It even checked my huge GTA3.img file.. over a gig in size..

It reported the Keylogger in 3 places.. One was the link to the program, the program it self, and the ziped form of the program.. 
It even warns me when I open the sub-folder the link is in..

It's in a trainer for the game GTA SA.. So I know it's there, and I know why it's there..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Sounds good to me.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

My Internet computer....... I didn't disable my firewall.....

*Customize Scan:*

Antivirus > Scan
*check* C:
Settings:
Scanning options: *check* on all

*BitDefender Virus Scan*

Time:
Scan time: 14:09

Statistics:
Root sectors: 2
Files: 28,331
Folders: 426
Archives: 259
Packed programs: 1,558
Total: 30,576

Results:
Identified viruses: 0

I said 15 minutes in the other thread.......


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Super-D-38 said:


> http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/


It should be noted that the links to buy their "top" 5 picks are all paid referalls/affiliate links.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi Super-D-38,

For the most informative information on AVs from an independent AV testing website which uses over 400,000 tests against about a dozen or so of the best AVs, checkout:
http://www.av-comparatives.org Use the Comparatives link in the left-hand panel and the August and November (different tests) are the latest information.

-- Tom


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Good link lotuseclat79... It rates BD 8 as an "advanced +".
Maybe ver 9 will improve a bit on that 49%..

So far I've updated twice, and each time BD shuts down and restarts... 
I guess that's just how it works..

So, brendan, your saying they aren't independent?.... Yeh, I can belive that.. Oh well, it does seem to match other tests though..

Just out to show others it a great program, (Better than Norton), and seems much less intrusive in your system than Norton or F-Secure.. Cheaper too. :up:
Those are the only ones I've tried recently.. 
Years back I tried PC Cillin...

*Edit*: Ran my own scan again... Wow, I under estimated too.. 
Scan C:

Time 00:32:20
Boot sector 2
Files 166,420
Folders 1,938
Archives 3,749
Packed Programs 14,754

Infected 3
Moved 2
Identified virus 1 (Keyloger in a game trainer)


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Super-D-38 said:


> So, brendan, your saying they aren't independent?.... Yeh, I can belive that.. Oh well, it does seem to match other tests though..


I don't know but they might not be. Nod32 usually gets better ratinsg than that.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Anyone use Nod32?... How is it as far as system slowdown?
What are it's scan speeds? Given what was posted about BD..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yes BD shuts down and restarts after a update. You can get many updates a day too.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Still going.. 
I know I won't name names, but..................
BitDefender 9 seems to slow P2P programs.... If not the program, it seems to slow the whole PC while they are running... By "they", I only tested one.. 

Shouldn't use'em any way, but since this is like a review, I just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## lotuseclat79 (Sep 12, 2003)

Super-D-38 said:


> Still going..
> I know I won't name names, but..................
> BitDefender 9 seems to slow P2P programs.... If not the program, it seems to slow the whole PC while they are running... By "they", I only tested one..
> 
> Shouldn't use'em any way, but since this is like a review, I just thought I'd mention it.


Hi Super-D-38,

Think about it - BD9 is checking the incoming, so its not slowing the P2P, just the receipt of the payload - kind of like standing in line waiting to get your airplane ticket and having to go through all of the security checks. Its only as quick as the servers can service the requests given the current load where the line is the transport mechanism which is capable of being loaded up to a point. So, depending on what you are downloading, the shorter the line, the quicker it exits because there is little load, which means that high load times are distributed around for all of the waiters in line behind the current one being serviced. Different story when the line is small and there is no load.

At any rate the end-to-end service time for a request will be higher with BD9 than without regardless, and how much depends on the current load at the server and the load on the Internet bandwidth at the time which will vary.

-- Tom


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Ah Ha... OK turned that off then.. 
Found an option for incoming P2P.. set it to "user defined" and didn't define anything. 
I can just scan it after it's down loaded.. 

Course I'm getting out of the P2P stuff, so my activities are very limited now.. 
Just out grew the "high" I guess.. 

So some day I'll test the P2P again, and see if it's no longer slowed.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

I do not have any chat or P2P programs on my PC or will I ever put them on my PC. But P2P programs have holes in then and things can happen so having the protection from BD9 is a good thing.

I just seen "Warriors of the Net, How the Net works"

The Movie

Here you can find the movie Warriors of the Net in several different languages. The movie is 12 minutes long. It is about an IP packets journey through net past routers, firewalls and transatlantic cables. It is available for free donwload for non-commerical use.

http://warriorsofthe.net/movie.html

I downloaded it to my PC and played it full screen. 71.2 MB so not for dial-up.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

I'm DLing it.... 
Servers must be full or slow... 106k a sec.. :down:
Gaaah... down to 75k/s...


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Ok see yea tonight after the movie.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Good flick there hewee. 

I like the voices for the routers and switches.. The firewall was cool too..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

It was cool D-38.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Super-D-38 said:


> Anyone use Nod32?... How is it as far as system slowdown?
> What are it's scan speeds? Given what was posted about BD..


Super-D-38,

Back in 2004 I installed NOD32, and it was OK. I was having software conflicts NOD32/Spy Sweeper. Everytime Spy Sweeper would launch, everything came to a complete halt. The computer didn't freeze, but cursor movement was almost dead to slow. When I disabled NOD32, everything went back to normal. It had to do with the shields......

I made a comment about NOD32 in my previous posts.

The fun begins  ... I never tried Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal, so I decided to install Kaspersky today  yesterday (I'm here at TSG at 11:45PM - as I'm typing it's AM)....and since no one responded to your questions concerning NOD32, I installed NOD32 as well........


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Thanks for the info.. But having multiple AV's won't really tell how they do on system performance.. 

Even disabled, they load drivers in the back ground, and that's what kills most speed. ( I think)


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

_Oops, I was typing and by accident I hit the Submit button at the start of my message (delete and start over...)_

NOD32, Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal and BitDefender 9 [own BD9]

What I did:

1. Installed NOD32 and updated both the signatures (definition files) and program.
2. Installed Kaspersky and updated both the signatures (definition files) and program.
3. Once I finished updating all the necessary updates I ran a scan. The reason why I did it this way is because there would be no discrepancy with the # of files scanned. Obviously, if I installed one AV and ran a scan....installed the second AV/scan - the second AV would have more files to scan. Therefore, I installed everything...updated...and performed a scan. ***Also, I copied all the doc and jpg files on my computer to a CD-RW because these small files will slowdown the speed/performance of the hard drive virus scan. [Called 'scan speed' - example, 40 doc files @ 100KB each = 4,000KB (slow) vs 1 doc @ 4,000KB (fast) ..btw, BD9 monitors scan speed.]

***My Internet computer......I didn't disable my firewall***

Scan Results:

*NOD 32 version 2.51.20*

*Scan #1*

Virus signature database version: 1.1405 (20060213)
Virus signature database build: 6775

* NOD 32 > Run NOD 32 > (Scanning Targets) C: > Setup: Scan - check on all entries (Files, Boot sectors, System memory, Archives (e.g. zip/rarfiles), Self-extracting archives, Runtime packers, Email files)[ThreatSense scanning options - Default Settings] > Extensions.. check Scan all files*

Scanning Log:

NOD 32 version 1.1405 (20060213) 
Checking CRC of NOD 32.EXE: Status OK
C:\PROGRAM FILES\ESET\NOD32.EXE - is OK
Operating memory is OK.
MBR sector of the 1. physical disk is OK.
Active boot sector of the 1. physical disk is OK.

Date: 13.2.2006 Time: 16:24:39
Scanned disks, folders and files: C:
BASE4.CAB >>CAB >>ebd.cab - next archive volume not found
DRIVER11.CAB >>CAB >>hpscntst.dll - next archive volume not found
NET7.CAB >>CAB >>strn.dos - next archive volume not found
PRECOPY1.CAB >>CAB >>suwin.exe - next archive volume not found
21.CAB >>CAB >>tvxdup.001 - next archive volume not found
WIN386.SWP - error opening (File locked) [4]
APPLOG\NOD 32. ~~C - error opening (File locked) [4]

Notes: 
[4} File cannot be opened. It may be in use by another application or operating system.
_[Commentary: These files are nothing threating: cab files and swap. I get the same with Spy Sweeper...... 
Session log
Warning: Failed to open file "c:\windows\win386.swp". The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process.
Warning: Failed to open file "c:\windows\application data\webroot\spy sweeper\temp\ss.....". The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process....... 5 entries in total.]_

Number of scanned files: 22,356
Number of threats found: 0
Time of completion: 16:29:30 Total scanning time: 291 sec (00:04:51)

*Scan #2*

*NOD 32 > In-depth analysis*

Scanning Log
NOD 32 version 1.1405 (20060213)
Checking CRC of NOD 32.EXE: Status OK
Operating memory is OK.

Date: 13.2.2006 Time: 16:46:14
Scanned disks, folders and files: C:
(Same as above)

Number of scanned files: 22,357 _(*One extra because of log file created.)_
Number of threats found: 0
Time of completion: 16:51:58 Total scanning time: 344 sec (00:05:44)
--------------------------------------
*Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal Version 5.0.388 ...... Current anti-virus database was released today (2/13/06) and contains 165,807 records.*

*Scan #1*

*Protection > Scan objects > check My Documents, System memory, Startup objects, Disk boot sectors, Mailboxes, C: [No check mark on Floppy A: and CD/DVD D:]*

Protection > View reports > Statistics 
Start time: 2/13/06 5:28:21 PM
Completion time: 2/13/06 5:58:00 PM

No dangerous objects detected
Scan time: 00:29:39
Objects scanned: 44,187
Dangerous objects detected: 0
Viruses disinfected: 0
Objects deleted: 0
Objects quarantined: 0

*Scan #2*

*Protection > Scan My Computer (Default settings) A full scan oyf your computer is in progress....*

Protection > View reports > Statistics 
Start time: 2/13/06 6:18:07 PM
Completion time: 2/13/06 6:35:28 PM

No dangerous objects detected
Scan time: 00:17:21
Objects scanned: 26,653
Dangerous objects detected: 0
Viruses disinfected: 0
Objects deleted: 0
Objects quarantined: 0

---------------------------------------
*BitDefender 9*

*Antivirus > Scan > check Local Drives C: > Settings > Scanning options: check on all (Scan boot sectors, Scan files, Use heuristic detection, Detect incomplete virus bodies, Scan for riskware, Prompt for reboot)*

Virus Signatures 259,056
Engine Version 7.05689

Time:
Scan time: 15:48

Statistics:
Boot sectors: 2
Files: 32,486
Folders: 501
Archives: 344
Packed Programs: 1,592
(Total: 34,935)

Results:
Identified viruses: 0

*Note: BD9 Default settings are the same (Scanning options: check on all)*
--------------------------------------
Results:
NOD32
Scan 1: Number of scanned files: 22,356 Time: 4:51 [Customize: all C:] 
Scan 2: Number of scanned files: 22,357 Time: 5:44 [Their definition of a full scan.]

Kaspersky
Scan 1: Objects scanned: 44,187 Time: 29:39 [Customize: all C:] 
Scan 2: Objects scanned: 26,653 Time: 17:21 [Their definition of a full scan.]

BitDefender 9
Scan: Files: 32,486 (Total: 34,935) Time: 15:48 [Customize and their definition of a full scan.]

Explanation/Commentary ..........


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

As you can see, different results with different scanning options......



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by pcworld.com/review
> ......although its scan speed was sluggish.
> 
> ...





> My quote:
> 
> PC World said second to last with a time of about 10 minutes. TopTenReview I believe said 1.5 gigabytes in ten minutes. The only problem I find is that they both don't say the # of files it scanned. *For example, a full scan can mean different things to different antivirus applications. Therefore, in the future, both should conduct a customize scan (checking the C drive, and everything in and between it) and report their findings with the # of files scanned. I'll bet you, one antivirus will say 10,000 files, and the other 8,900 files.* #33
> http://forums.techguy.org/reviews/438330-norton-admits-installing-rootkits-3.html


For all three applications everything was disabled except for my firewall .... No virus shields enabled - only performing the scan. Also defragged the hard drive before running the scans...(forgot to defrag the hard drive - last defrag 2 months ago )

As for NOD32, I made this comment....



> Some scan better than others....definition files (database)...and some skip (don't open) files - always check the antivirus logs to see if all the files you scanned (full scan) were opened. It will say something like couldn't open xxxx file - NOD32 couldn't open/scan/check some of the files on my PC. #15
> http://forums.techguy.org/security/436299-norton-antivirus-continuos-pop-up-trojan-vundo.html?highlight=vundo


Back in 2004, some files like JAR and another extension that needed to be zipped wasn't opened - error opening. Today's version, in comparison to 2004, is a much better product. User interface is very simple....for beginners navagating within the program could be overwhelming (a lot of options)...but I like it....
Spy Sweeper and NOD32 still conflict.
Didn't use the shields to see if there is a slowdown in performance.

Kaspersky:
First time using it and I like it. Very simple to use. Didn't use the shields to see if there is a slowdown in performance.

Only used Kas/NOD for their scan/performance and results (# of files/time).

Oh, and btw, the 1+ hours scanning my computer - No I didn't waste my time sitting in front of my computer  ate, watched TV and every 15 minutes I checked the scan status....


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

So, Nod is faster at scans, but have you noticed any slow down in your system?... 
Boot time?
performance?

I ask that because, I'm into the better of todays games, and at my current specs I need all the CPU and RAM I can get..


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Very good info and reporting though. :up:
You get a gold star and an A+ for today..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

virus.gr test several anti-virus, anti-spyware and, anti-trojan programs

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

*First...*


Maestro99 said:


> Back in 2004, some files like JAR and another extension that needed to be zipped wasn't opened - error opening. #21


It should be..Back in 2004, some files like JAR and another extension that needed to be *un*zipped wasn't opened - error opening. _Not sure what the file extension was..ARJ? Not sure._

*Second...*

It's only fair that I use the exact terminology when it comes to _'shields'_ used by NOD32 and Kaspersky - modules and filters (NOD32), and real-time protection (Kaspersky). BitDefender uses the word shields.

Defined in the help files:

*NOD32*

Resident modules and filters:

The Resident modules and filters are the scanners that remove existing virus infections and prevent new ones from entering your computer.

1. *AMON* - File system monitor, is a memory-resident (working in the operating memory after each restart of a computer) file scanning program. AMON, the real-time, memory-resident, antivirus scanner, monitors all potentially dangerous actions performed by either the system or the user.

AMON is the most important line of antivirus defense. It is critically important to keep it running at all times using the most current version of the virus signature databases. AMON monitors all potentially threatening actions on protected computers such as opening, executing, creating, or renaming files.

Running and enabled (Loaded in memory and performing on-access scanning).

2. *DMON* - Document / ActiveX Scanner. DMON is a plug-in for NOD32 antivirus system that serves for scanning Microsoft Office documents and files downloaded automatically by Internet Explorer (e.g. Microsoft ActiveX elements). DMON provides an additional level of protection to AMON.

3. *EMON* - Mail Scanner for Microsoft Outlook. EMON (E-mail MONitor) provides scanning of incoming and outgoing email in Microsoft Outlook as well as in Microsoft Exchange Extension-compliant mail clients.

4. *IMON* - Internet Monitor for POP3 / HTTP. The IMON module serves as an anti-virus monitor of traffic between the system and the outside world (Internet).

_Option to enable/disable File system monitor (AMON) enabled
Option to enable/disable MS Office document monitor (DMON) enabled
Option to enable/disable Internet Monitor (IMON) enabled
Option to enable/disable MS Outlook email monitor (EMON) enabled_

NOD32 - On-demand scanner is used to perform scanning of specific targets upon request of the user.

*Kaspersky*

Real-time anti-virus protection - performs an anti-virus scan of all objects being run, opened or saved.

Real-time protection is enabled from the moment your operating system has started until you turn off your computer.

Immediately after the system is started, Kaspersky Anti-Virus scans its own application modules, RAM and all startup objects. Then the application performs the scan of objects being opened, saved or run.

Objects being opened, saved or executed on your hard drive and removable drives that are potentially infectable will be scanned, including:

- disk boot sectors (these objects are scanned immediately after the system startup);
- packed files and objects linked or embedded into files (OLE objects);
- incoming email messages.

_Right-click Kaspersky's icon in the Windows system tray to enable - this means that all files on your computer are monitored by Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Or apply settings within the application.

Settings > Configure Real-Time Protection_



Super-D-38 said:


> So, Nod is faster at scans, but have you noticed any slow down in your system?...
> Boot time?
> performance?
> 
> I ask that because, I'm into the better of todays games, and at my current specs I need all the CPU and RAM I can get..


It's hard for me to give you an accurate read/assessment on performance because it's best to *install only one AV* and try it for at least 14 days to get a better understanding on PC stability and speed.

Yesterday/today running the system monitor/protection (Nod32 and Kaspersky (running NOD32 for about 20 minutes disabling/closing it...and running Kaspersky for about 20 minutes), I noticed a slight slowdown with NOD32, and Kaspersky seemed a bit more slower..a tab slower than NOD32. With Kaspersky, I noticed that the applications would take a little longer to launch, and surfing the internet with NOD32 was a bit slow (perhaps internet traffic ??).

Let's not forget, anything running in the background .... system monitor/protection/shields will slow the computer to some degree. How much depends on computer hardware: CPU, memory, etc., and all programs running.

How's BD9? Experiencing any slowdown? I'm pretty sure my computer has slowed down somewhat installing BD9 or any AV, because I've been using AVs for a long time that I don't know what the _'original'_ speed of my computer was like. The get-use-to factor.

For BD9 did you disable the activity bar?
General > Setting *uncheck* Enable activity bar.... Don't need it. It wastes computer resources. ...Oh, and btw, that graph shows you that BD9 is working in the background.

Here's something about speed in the Kaspersky help file.........

Frequently asked questions:

Why does Kaspersky Anti-Virus cause a certain decrease in server performance, noticeably loading the CPU?

Virus detection is a computationally intensive mathematical problem requiring structural analysis, checksum calculation and mathematical data conversions. Processor time is therefore the main resource consumed by the anti-virus software, and each new virus added to the anti-virus database increases the overall scanning time. This is a necessary sacrifice for the security and safety of your data.

Other anti-virus products speed up scanning by excluding both viruses which are less easily detectable or less frequent in the geographic location of the anti-virus vendor, and file formats that require complicated analysis (e.g. PDF) from their databases.

In contrast, Kaspersky Lab believes that the purpose of its anti-virus applications is to establish real and complete anti-virus security for its users. We believe that "partial protection" is even worse than no protection at all, because it forces users to take personal precautions.

Kaspersky Anti-Virus gives its users maximum protection. Experienced users can, of course, accelerate anti-virus scanning to the detriment of overall security by disabling scanning of various file types, but we do not recommend doing so for users who want the best protection.

For maximum user protection, Kaspersky Anti-Virus recognizes more than 700 formats of archived and compressed files. This is essential for anti-virus security, because harmful executable code may be hidden inside files of any recognized format. However, despite the daily growth in the number of viruses detected by Kaspersky Anti-Virus (approximately 30 new viruses appear daily) as well as the ever increasing number of recognized file formats, each subsequent version of our product functions faster than the previous one. That is achieved through the use of new, exclusive technologies, such as iChecker and iStreams, developed at Kaspersky Lab.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Maestro99 said:


> How's BD9? Experiencing any slowdown? I'm pretty sure my computer has slowed down somewhat installing BD9 or any AV, because I've been using AVs for a long time that I don't know what the 'original' speed of my computer was like. The get-use-to factor.
> 
> For BD9 did you disable the activity bar?
> General > Setting uncheck Enable activity bar.... Don't need it. It wastes computer resources. ...Oh, and btw, that graph shows you that BD9 is working in the background.


BD seems great. My boot times are about the same as it was without any AV, so I like that.. 
I do see the "shields" that have loaded, though I haven't played many games since the install. The ones that load use about 20MB of system RAM. Not alot, I know, but with only 512 to start with.. 

Yes the bar is disabled, and so is most everything else. I have Virus Shield enabled along with Registry Control, and show warning when virus is found..

If I download something I will scan it, I don't like all the automatic stuff, it just gets in the way.

So far I like it, it's much better than Norton.. Man that one is slow. :down:


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Still going well. Haven't tried my highest game yet.. (GTA SA)
I haven't relly noticed any slowdown.. 

So I still give it a :up:


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Good to hear Super-D-38.


----------



## WhoCares (Feb 25, 2006)

Hey everyone,

I've had the BD 9 Pro Plus edition (build 9) for about six months and until a couple of weeks ago it started to remain turned off after an update  . So I have to restart my computer but if it updates again right away, it'll turn off and never turn back on. Has anyone experienced this?

Thanks a lot!

P.S.: I only have the AV and Update installed, and I use ZA as my firewall.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Welcome to TSG! :up:

Hmm, that's the version I'm using..
Is it off or just the icon gone from the tray?.. 

You can see if it's still running by hitting ctrl + alt + Del .
In win XP under processes you should see the BD9 programs running, if it is... 
"bdss.exe"
"bdmcon.exe"

and some others. 

I know one update changed a program in BD9 and my Zone Alarm asked for new permission.. ???? 

Is it still set to load when windows starts?
and to start minimized? 

Virus shield check box is checked? 

Sorry if some of this seems simple, but I don't know how good you are with a PC..


----------



## WhoCares (Feb 25, 2006)

Super-D-38 said:


> Welcome to TSG! :up:
> 
> Hmm, that's the version I'm using..
> Is it off or just the icon gone from the tray?..
> ...


All those are checked  . Hehe, I wouldn't say I'm Einstein but I'm not a n00b either  .

What happens is that after an update, the icon goes away and then comes back but it's gray, and if I try to enable it, it won't.

It just updated again and I checked the box to 'always' let the program run (didn't do that at the beginning  ), so I'll see what happens after the next update.

Thanks!


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

The only way I get a gray icon is if I disable the virus shield..

So for some reason yours isn't restarting huh?... 

Or may be, now that you changed something..


----------



## WhoCares (Feb 25, 2006)

Ok, it seems to be back to normal  . I guess it was because I just allowed it to use the internet, but never checked the box to 'always allow...' . Wow, I need to get some sleep!


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Just an update.. 
Had a BSOD yesterday.. 
Windows shut down and it pointed to a BD .exe file.. 
It crashed while playing GTA SA... 
I can't really blame BD, as I was changing SA quite allot lately..
Hasn't happened again, but haven't played much.

Still, other than that all seems well with BD9.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

What is the SA you was changing?


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Oh, SA is my short hand for Grand Theft Auto, San Andreas.. 
The game I've been modding and changing. 

It locked up, and as I was closing it, I got the BSOD and the blame fell to BitDefender..

Not sure who caused it, but the game has "crashed/locked" many times befor..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Ok thanks. Lets hope it was just one of those things that happens now and then and the fault is MS.  Or do you want to find out how to change the BSOD to another color?  Read someplace on how you can change that blue screen color to another.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

No, the color is OK, I just wish they were more specific.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Good you like the blue.  

I hate the bsod because times I have to hit my reset button if I get one.


----------



## Cid2 (Apr 6, 2005)

No offense, but I hate BitDefender. I already have Symantec Corp., but my parents installed it anyways, and this is what happened. WarRock (a free first person shooter game @ warrock.nexon.com) doesn't work. The Battle For Middle Earth 1 doesn't work. A lot of my games don't work, and it's screwed up a lot of my applications. Reinstalling these apps fixed the problem.

Then, my parents attempted to uninstall BitDefender, after I told them. There was a poweroutage like halfway through, so it just SCREWED it up totally. Now half of it works..like the updates don't work, the real time protection doesn't work..and I can't even uninstall it now. For some reason, Symantec is going CRAZY, and yeah that's what happened. I'll install BitDefender on the other computer, and see what it's like.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well, that doesn't sound like BD's problem.. Sounds more like it just wasn't set up right.. 
It does have a firewall, I didn't install mine because I use Zone Alarm.. 

As an ati-virus alone it is quite nice.. Boots way faster than Norton ever did..

Did you remove Symantec, before the install of BD?.. Two AV's can have major effects on a PC.

And loss of power on removal, isn't BD fault.. Any application would be goofed if it failed like that.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Continuation of post #20 and #21....

_Since I'm going to be busy for the next couple of months, I decided to use my free time and install Kaspersky's Beta version and give a review._

*Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal version 6.0.0.297b (Beta)
Signatures published: 3/12/06 11:51:30 PM
Number of signatures: 182092*

***I didn't disable my firewall***

Scan-speed results:

Kaspersky's Scan Options (Tasks):

*Scan #1*

_[Note: This was not my first scan. My first scan was a customized scan but I stopped it. See #4]_
*Scan Critical Areas (Kaspersky's default settings)*: completed

No threats detected

Scanned: 896
Detected: 0
Untreated: 0
Start time: 3/13/06 1:12:55 AM
Duration: 1:54
Finish time: 3/13/06 1:14:49 AM

*Scan #2*

*Scan My Computer (Kaspersky's default settings)*: complete

No threats detected

Scanned: 28090
Detected: 0
Untreated: 0
Start time: 3/13/06 1:17:42 AM
Duration: 18:52
Finish time: 3/13/06 1:36:34 AM

*Scan #3*

*Scan Startup Objects (Kaspersky's default settings)*: completed

No threats detected

Scanned: 708
Detected: 0
Untreated: 0
Start time: 3/13/06 1:41:02 AM
Duration: 1:18
Finish time: 3/13/06 1:42:20 AM

*Scan #4*

*Scan (Customize scan: checked My Documents, Mailboxes and C: drive using default settings)*: complete

No threats detected

Scanned: 8563
Detected: 0
Untreated: 0
Start time: 3/13/06 1:44:31 AM
Duration: 5:58
Finish time: 3/13/06 1:50:29 AM

_[Note: I did this scan first but I stopped it while it was scanning my files because it said 1% completed and the (estimated) finish time displayed was 3/14/06 (a day). I stopped it and started Scan #1. I don't think it would've taken a whole day because it was scanning inside CAB files and the scan speed dropped. Also, there's a big difference from Scan #4 (8,563 files scanned) and Scan #2 (28,090 files scanned) and the reason:

"Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal does not re-scan objects that had already been scanned during a previous scan and have not changed since then not only when performing real-time protection, but also during an on-demand scan. This feature considerably increases the speed of the program's operation."

With that said, *Tip* - don't do a customize scan first because it's going to take a long time, if time is a factor. First do the "Scan my Computer" and then do the customize scan second "Scan". This latter scan will check for the files that the first scan didn't. That's why there's a huge difference in the # of files scanned.]_

Kap v6.0 vs. Kap v5.0 (comparing):

Version 6.0 is way better. It's very easy to navigate within the program and with a cleaner looking interface, it's very user friendly.

Best of all, its default settings are set for most users. Easy for beginners.

For those who want to try Kap v6.0.0.297b, it prompts you to activate it. Version 5.0 required no activation. Perhaps you could use the "activate later".

When installing it you get this message:

*Activation:

You must activate your copy of Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 to have access to security updates and user support.

Options:
Activate using the activation code
Activate trial version (30 days)
Apply existing license key
Activate later*

After using Kap v6.0 for a couple of hours, I've noticed a slight hestitation when launching applications. This is similar to what I was experiencing with Kap v5.0. The reason is because of the real-time protection being enabled and running in the background.

Overall, I like it. Definitely better than Kap v5.0. [Mind you, I've only used Kap v6.0 for a day and a half.]

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

Something I tried. This is before installing Kaspersky......

For BitDefender 9, I decided to disable the shields and unchecked BD9 from loading up on Windows startup. Also I unchecked all BD9 entries in the Run > (type) msconfig > startup.......and I've noticed my computer running faster.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

*^*

In regards to the above comments concerning BitDefender 9.

If somebody wants to see how their computer runs without BD9, instead of uninstalling it - try the above. Disabling BD9 completely, made my computer run a lot faster. This is in regards to:



> I'm pretty sure my computer has slowed down somewhat installing BD9 or any AV, because I've been using AVs for a long time that I don't know what the 'original' speed of my computer was like. The get-use-to factor. #25


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

The realtime scanners can add to the slow down. So turning off parts of BitDefender 9 would help speed things up.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well, any AV will slow a system.. 
I know my system is faster with BD9 than it was with Norton or F-Secure.. 

I can't decide if my system slows or not, when I enable the "Scan accessed files" option..

I think I've noticed some "jump" in games, but other files/programs seem normal.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Now if you Disabling BD9 completely that is ok if you have a AV program running and only want BD9 as a backup AV then that is the way to run it because you only want one AV running all the time.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

*^*

True..true hewee

I just wanted to see what it would be like without BitDefender 9 or any AV. With no AVs my computer runs faster.

I always have two AVs installed on my computer (BD9 and AVG), but way back when I installed NOD 32 and Kaspersky v5.0 I uninstalled AVG. I never re-installed AVG back. Right now I only have Kaspersky v6.0 running and BD9 I uninstalled. (_I saw your message and I re-installed BD9 to post the entries in the startup:_

Run > (type) msconfig > Startup

BitDefender Virus Shield "C:\Program Files\Softwin\BitDefender9\vsserv.exe"
BitDefender Live Service "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Softwin\BitDefender Update Service\livesrv.exe"
BitDefender Live! Init "C:\Program Files\Softwin\BitDefender9\bdinit.exe"
BitDefender Communicator "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Softwin\BitDefender Communicator\\xcommsvr.exe"
BitDefender Scan Server "C:\Program Files\Common Files\Softwin\BitDefender Scan Server\\bdss.exe"

Even if you disable BD9 within the program, it's not completely disabled. The entries above still loadup.

(Btw, I'm going to uninstall BD9 and just run Kaspersky for awhile. Not sure, but in the future I might just use an online scanner as a substitute for my second AV.)


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

OK get something like WinPatrol and you can disable those things from BD9 from the startup if there are no options from within BD9 to disable. I think you can disable them or some of them from the setting in BD9.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

You keep making me re-install BitDefender 9 everytime I uninstall it.  

WinPatrol is good and it will do the job, but you can also manually uncheck the entries at startup (msconfig).

_"I think you can disable them or some of them from the setting in BD9."_

General > Settings *uncheck* Load BitDefender when Windows starts

General > Status *uncheck* Virus Shield is enabled [disabled] _or_ Antivirus > Shield *uncheck* Virus Shield is enabled [disabled]

Yes, but like I said (#42), even if you disable the two options above, those startup entries (exe) still loadup (msconfig). Mind you, BD9 will not start if you disable it within the program but BD9 is not completely disabled unless you uncheck all the entries in msconfig > startup.

I think it's a bug, not sure. If you disable everything from startup (msconfig) and double click the BD9 icon you get this message in about two minutes or less:

*Bdmcon*
This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
If the problem persists, contact the program vendor.

*BitDefender Report Wizard*
BitDefender 9 Standard has encountered a problem and needs to close.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.
If you were in the middle of something, the information you were working on might be lost.

*Please tell us about this problem.*
We have created a bug report that you can send to help us diagnose the cause of this error and improve the software.

*Btw, just in case somebody decides to disable BD9 completely [manually], make sure to put all the checks back in the box (msconfig) if you're planning to run BD9 again because you'll get an illegal operation and a bug report. Perhaps this problem is OS related or only one particular version of Windows.*

I like BD9. I'm just evaluating Kaspersky and also how my computer runs with no AVs.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

OK if you can not go to msconfig and completely disabled all you can in WinPatrol and you do not have to reboot. Plus WinPatrol shows more. I you delete anything in the startup in WinPatrol then it will not show up in msconfig. But your want to disable it and not remove it. Then you can always put it back again easy into startup.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

SpyBot SD can disable start up items as well.. 

At least I have with some, not sure how good with everything..


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

*^*

However there are known compatibility issues:



> Maestro99 #11
> 
> Take a look at:
> C:\Program Files\Softwin\BitDefender9\_enHTML\readme
> ...


You could also right click the icon in the system tray and disable the shields. I always use option #1 and *uncheck* Load BD when Windows start.

I don't have SpyBot running on my computer. I've used it in the past.
====================

How is BD on your computer? Did you buy it or are you still on the 30 day trial?

If you are planning to try another AV, try Kaspersky. Easy installation, nice appearance, user friendly and easy to navigate within the program. _*So far*_, I'm having no major problems with Kaspersky. The minor problem is launching applications. There's this hesitation when an app executes. Like I said previously, it's the protection running just like the shields in BD9.

Here's how to disable startup and protection if you ever decide on installing Kaspersky version 6.0:

Settings > Protection
General:
*uncheck* Enable Protection
*uncheck* Run Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 at system startup

You could also right click the icon in the system tray and disable protection.

I don't think I'll ever replace BD9. It's my favourite. Unless they do something stupid in the future and make a complete mess of it.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

BD is very easy to use so Kaspersky must be super easy to use.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

^^ BD is quite nice so far.. Honestly I don't "use" it much.. 
I've gone 5+ months without any AV, so over all my surfing habits have gotten much better..
I havent had a virus or major spyware for quite some time now.. 
It's just that I don't venture far from places I've been to.

I guess you can say I'm still trying it, as it has yet to find an actual virus.. 
It does find the "hotkeys_Hook" key loger, but I knew it was there, and know what it's for..
Even SpyBot would find that one..

As for BD, I love it over the other two I've had/tried.. Seems quite fast, well, system wise. 

One thing I'm thinking about is BD's FireWall.. I wonder how good it is, and if it causes any slow down.. I've run Zone Alarm all my internet life, and feel I know it pretty well.. Hard to step out and trust something new..


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Super-D-38,
:up: 

hewee,
They are both easy. Kaspersky's default settings are perfect for most users and that's why it's easy. I would say they are about the same when it comes to level of difficulty.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Thanks Maestro99


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Updated BD last night, and it said it was now including an anti-spyware scan... 

I had it disabled, so haven't used it yet.. Any info on it?.. Any better than SpyBot?.. Problems with SpyBot?.. 

I guess since I'm a reviewer I should check this stuff too..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

He hee we thought you was the tester.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well I will test it, but since I'm back to one hard drive, I'm overly cautious when it comes to possible crashes..

I'm not so up to date on my system back ups..


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Ok ran a full system scan with "riskware" and "spyware" scans enabled..

SpyBot had me as clean..

BD found;
One tracking cookie
One keylogger.. (that I knew about all ready)
And one "riskware"... (Found in "areslight.exe") Bad program I know, just mentioning it as found infected.

No known issues between SpyBot and BD so far..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Why do you have a keylogger you know about?

So what is areslight.exe?


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

The keylogger is part of a game trainer.. (cheat device)..
"ares light" is like "ares" with less junk.. It's a P2P program..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well if the logger is for you and not sending info off to others then that would be ok. I had something like that some time back. Forget just why I installed but i think to help see if it would log what other programs were getting use that we don't see woud show up in the log but i took it off. I wanted to find out if windows was doing other things we don't know about.  but it was a waste of time. Then after I uninstalled it later on in one of the spybot or adaware scans I seen it listed and freaked. But really it was what was just in the registry that was never uninstalled. 
Ok P2P and chat I would say is junk I will not put on my PC.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well, though my own fault, I got to test BD with a virus/spyware...

I can say BD is good.. My fault is I had some of the active scans off.. So shame on me.
spent the last 3 hours finding the last of what is show in the scan of SpyBot..

BD9 found and quarantined 10 files/items, and one .dll.. (.dll was " wininit.dll ")
SpyBot found 6 CWS entries, and two others I forgot.. but the files were.. " dfrgsrv.exe " and " ncompat.tlb ".. Both found in system 32 folder.

After searching the web for help, I got all of them.. I hope.  
Had to use "Move on Boot" to get rid of the .exe, once that was gone the .tlb file could be deleted. Renamed the .dll, windows made another, rebooted and deleted the renamed one. 
Had to delete a registry entry too.. It was from the .dll working with the .exe to keep itself registered. 
Once "Move on Boot" got rid of the dfrgsrv.exe all else went smooth.. 

BD may have caught all of those if I had my active scan set right.. But then again it did miss one... You might think one ain't bad, but who knows haw bad that one could have been.. 

With Zone Alarm, SpyBot SD (with resident running), and BD9 I feel kinda safe.. 
I could have avoided the whole thing if my brain had been working right in the first place..
The .exe that started it was "suspect" by BD.. Should have deleted it.. 
Oh well..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

How you get those things on your PC to start with? See why I don't use any chat or P2P programs. 

Also it sounds to me like you had trouble because the file was added to your startup. If you had WinPatrol that would of helped you out because you could of said no when you get a alert from winpatrol. Then even after then are installed and keep showing back up you can disable it and reboot and if it shows it is running again you disable it. Then it should remember that and it will keep the program out of startup.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well, It was a stupid download.... (And that's all I'll say) 

Spybot blocked one registry change.. Even BD has registry monitoring, but both missed the one.. Maybe because the .dll it used was identical to a real windows .dll.. 
Only spybot saw the .exe as bad, BD scanned it 3 times and said it was OK.. Even though many websites showed it as a trojan..
I would have though with all the updates for BD it would have been found.. Some of the sites were from 2004.. So BD should have known about it by now..

One poster said the BD online scan found it, but when I tried it didn't. 

Don't know, I guess you can't get all of 'em all the time.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Oh yeh, one more good thing about BD9...

When my machine boots and is in "normal use", surfing the net and other small tasks, BD's "bdss.exe" will use about 22MB of RAM... I've found that when I play a game that needs the RAM, BD will drop to only 216K or so.. 

A very nice feature.. Not sure if other AV's do that.

Or am I wrong and it's a windows thing?...


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well you know better then that and that's all I am going to say. 

Hey that is goo BD gives you the added ram when you need it. Most program keep what ever they take.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Well, while just looking, not even downloading, I got two more viral .exe's in my temp folder... 
Had active scan on this time.. BD stoped them, and told me about it, but I couldn't delete them. 
Not even move on boot could get rid of them. 
Only after I changed an option in BD to delete them did they go..

This was with FireFox too... I never said yes to a download, but still they "popped" in...
Sneaky buggers.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Did you have firefox open when you tried to delete them? It may be why if the download was tru firefox.

I would sure want to know how something is getting downloaded if you never downloaded on your own. Don't you have a download manager in firefox? I would look at it and it should show what was downloaded and the link it cam from. Some time the link you get the download from is not even from the site you was at when you clicked the download link so looking there is a better to know just where that came from.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Fire Fox was closed, even after a reboot they couldn't be deleted.

OK, I'll admit it was a keygen... Won't say any more.. Other than the two I looked at were viral..

In Fire Fox, I clicked the download, and the prompt screen showed.. The one that shows the name, and asks where to save or to open it.. When that window opened the Viral.exe's were downloaded to my temp folder... Even after canceling the download, and not saving the keygen... They remained.. Now I do know these things are often bad, and I'm not in any way asking for help with them, but this is a good way of testing my AV coverage..

Maybe it was a pre download, of the .exe I was looking at.. ?? Once downloaded, it would then have moved it..?? Not sure.. I just know I didn't say to download or save anything, and they got in anyway.

Advice... *Stay away from keygens*!!! They are evil, in two ways..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

See what happens. I know I was looking at them too but never download any because I do not trust things from those sites. 
Got a download once and it went to install the lop dail-up on my PC and it would of done more if it was not for Zone Alarm catching it wanting to get out. Nothing else popped up saying anything. I did a uninstall but it would come back on reboot. Took a little time to get it off my PC with some help but I got it. I had dail-up then too or had just got cable and may of had both for the one billing cycle after I canceled dail-up. Anyhow I unhook the phone line after that and deleted the dail-up accounts too. So I learned some things back then after that happen to me. 4 years ago and that was the last bad thing that has happen to my PC.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Yeh, but those ones I didn't download.. 
I did find out why I couldn't delete them.. Or at least why this other one seemed "locked".. 
BD9 locks them.. When I turned off the active scan I was able to delete the .exe..

This time it was hidden in a trainer for Half Life 2... No more keygens for me.. 

Yes, I was foolish at first with our dial-up.. got some nasties, and was reaching for cables like you wouldn't belive... That was how I learned how to track down viruses..
Bad at the time, but it taught me some good things.. :up:
Now with cable, the nasties come even faster.. ZoneAlarms "Stop All" feature is quite nice. :up:


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well that is good you know why they was locked and guess it is good too because it was protecting you. But sure be nice to know where the files came from?

I have to download and install things on my own. I can install plugins but still I have to give the ok before anything gets installed. 

He hee yes learning by going to bad site can get you into trouble. Bad thing was at that one site I got the bad things from to get to where I wanted to go it would not show up in netscape 4.7 so i used IE. But it keep popping up asking me if I wanted to ad it to the trust zone. Well the one time I was clicking to fast and hit yes and it was added to my trust zone. I did not even know how to deleted it fron the trust zone back then. 

But got to love ZA for letting me know I had gotten something bad on my PC so I could hit the STOP button right away. Don't know if it would of been even better if I had WinPatrol or not back then because I can't remember just how it was starting up but I say winpatrol would of seen it getting added to startup and I could say NO. 

I find it best to say away from those sites these days and stay safe.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Still going strong.. Did have trouble a few days ago.. (Some sneaky bugger got in, didn't have active scan on.) Can't say BD was any trouble, but it did miss a few things.. I would have thought with all the updates it might have found more, but over all it is a great AV program..

Even with active scan on, I don't notice much slow down with games. Maybe it too stops if the system needs the RAM..


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

He hee I think you do things you should not so your lucky BD is a good program.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Who? Me?.. What would that be?.. 

My last problem showed up just coming to TSG..
I kinda expect things from "keygen" sites, and even some game trainers..
But when they popped up from TSG, that one really took me by surprise..

I know it wasn't TSG's fault, but somehow it either came from an ad, or was triggered by one..

Much thanks to Cookie, for helping me track down all the hidden nasties.. :up:


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yea you  

Just good that you do know more then most and do have ways to control more then most so are able to stop most all things but when you play with fire thengs happen. 

So yes it was great that Cookie help clean up the fire.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Leave it to Super-D-38 to put BD9 to the ultimate test!   

Super-D-38,

The problem you had is because you didn't configure your firewall properly. That is ad blocking and mobile code control.


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

??... Huh?.. 
I have Spyware Blaster running too..
But you mean this stuff?


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Yup...you should have animation checked.

How about mobile code?


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Aww... I like animation. 
You mean this stuff?


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Now you're scaring me.  

-------
ZA help files:
Malicious mobile code, however, can copy files,.... 
Block mime-type integrated objects Blocks objects whose MIME-type indicates that they are applications. 
Note: This option also blocks legitimate executable files sent through the browser, including downloads that you may want to allow. When this occurs, you'll see the error "This object has been blocked" in the browser. For downloads initiated by you, it is safe to disable the Block mime-type integrated objects feature. 
-------

I've noticed a few people getting viruses when this is unchecked and when downloading applications at unsafe websites where small packets get through. Including ad generated sites.

Yours are checked. Scary. 

It's possible the virus(es) were sitting in your computer and needed a restart to execute, or there's some other explanation. Also, there are viruses that attack vulnerabilities in certain applications like firewalls and AVs and escape detection.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

It's getting late. Take care Super-D-38.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Will the safe list is really for IE because using the other setting do not effect netscape like it does IE. 
I have Netscape so a .gif plays tru one time. 
Have very large hosts file that blocks most ads. I have a batch file to kill flash.

Hey try this here on ZA Super-D-38

I got this from a good friend of mine.



> A friend at another forum I frequent wrote these tips for me to help me
> increase the security of my ZoneAlarm Pro firewall, and so I am thinking
> that some of you guys might find it usefull as it turns the humble
> ZoneAlarm Pro into a force to be reckoned with. Actually, I think it was
> ...


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Yeh, I really don't see any ads being blocked for FireFox.. 

So you want me to close all my "ports"?.. 
Will I starve? No commerce entering or leaving? How will this effect my economy?...

oh....
Wait..
I went into a civ debate mode there for a sec. 

Oh, maestro... I checked them before the pic.  they werent checked..
Well, the mobile code ones anyway.  So don't panick, and lose all faith in ZA. 

good ideas there hewee, but how will that effect my... shall we say.. more "shady" of "transfers"..  I guess I would need to skip certain "port" numbers.. 

Anyway, if I had BD's active scan on, all that may have been avoided.. I'll never know.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Well a good hosts file is needed to block bad sites and ads.

Just try it. Backup ZA and all the setting. Then make the changes. I think if you click the "reset to default" your also go back to where you was too. But seeing how your doing more and I have not yet done this I am not sure. But restoring a backup I know does work.

You may have to have some ports open for chat or playing online games with other players but I don't do those things so no worry there.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

Super-D-38 said:


> Oh, maestro... I checked them before the pic.  they werent checked..
> Well, the mobile code ones anyway.  So don't panick, and lose all faith in ZA.


A trickster.  I had a feeling you didn't check 'Block mime-type integrated objects'.

Panic? No. I was only joking. That's why I used p ). I'm not scared because I have no personal information or important documents on my Internet computer. It's strictly for surfing and downloading. My other computer has all my important documents and information, and it's where I do all my work, but it has no Internet connection.

I forgot you use Firefox. I always use IE6. But for this site (TSG) and a few others I use Firefox.

As for 'Block mime-type integrated objects' make sure you check this when visiting sites that are considered unsafe even if you're using Firefox. This setting is not only for IE. If you don't believe me go to majorgeeks.com and try downloading anything from that site having 'Blocked mime-type...' checked. You can't. *"This object has been blocked."* Or try any software developers site like Spy Sweeper, ZA, Ad-Aware etc. You can't. However, at CNET (download.com), in some instances, it by-passes the block. 

If you visit sites that are classified as high risk and unsafe, the odds of getting your computer infected is high when downloading. It's not only the files you want (which could be contaminated with malicious files like viruses, trojans etc.), but the possibility of hidden malicious files being dumped without your permission - (and there's no dialog box asking you where you want the file saved or run - you have no clue.)

The developers of these sites are crafty and they know exactly how to by-pass security settings on your computer. Be extremely careful when you're downloading at these high risk sites, and be on guard when downloading - especially when the site starts displaying pop-up ads or directs you to two or three other sites while you're downloading - especially high speed (everything is fast.)

Where and how you picked up these nasties is a big question mark? From now on ssssshields up at these high risk sites. AV and firewall at max.

I seriously doubt you picked up the nasties here at TSG.


----------



## Maestro99 (Jan 5, 2006)

*^*

Keeping with the theme........



> CNET (download.com)
> 
> Security Center: Spyware Horror Stories
> Picture a porn attack
> ...


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Hmm... There are some sick people aren't there.. 
Can't find a good job for those skills, so they set out to kill other peoples machines.. :down:


----------



## snowyskies (Nov 25, 2005)

I'm thinking about trying bit defender 8 (the free one) or 9 (Standard). Do you happen to be familiar with the differences between the two?


----------



## Super-D-38 (Apr 25, 2002)

Nope.. Sorry. I started with 9.

(Man, I need to check my posts more often..  )


----------

