# free protection



## pcmoron132 (Mar 16, 2010)

Can someone tell me what the best free antivirus that I can get is? Also, will it protect against adware,spyware, and malware? Or do I need separate protection for those? Thanks from the pc moron.


----------



## James4630 (Mar 2, 2009)

I use the freeware versions of the following:

http://www.free-av.com/
http://www.malwarebytes.org/
http://www.superantispyware.com/superantispywarefreevspro.html
http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

All are highly rated.


----------



## Cheeseball81 (Mar 3, 2004)

Free antivirus you can choose AVG or Avast
AVG: http://free.avg.com/us-en/homepage
Avast: http://www.avast.com/free-antivirus-download

And for malware protection
MalwareBytes: http://www.malwarebytes.org/
SuperAntispyware: http://www.superantispyware.com/


----------



## pcmoron132 (Mar 16, 2010)

Thanks guys. More questions, will all these work together without conflicts with vista or with each other?


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

Only run one antivirus and one firewall. You can also run one anti-spyware program in real-time but it's not really necessary. Running the free versions of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and SuperAntiSpyware to scan your computer periodically, depending on your surfing habits, will be quite sufficient. 

SpywareBlaster is not a scanner. It's a good complement to install though.


----------



## James4630 (Mar 2, 2009)

One more thing, which Phantom010 alluded to. On-line protection should also include a good firewall. I use Comodo which also includes an anti-virus in the download. Comodo gives you the option of not including the anti-virus. I took that option because I like Avira better.

http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/

A couple of others:

http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/zonealarm-pc-security-free-firewall.htm

http://www.tallemu.com/products-online-armor-free.php


----------



## flavallee (May 12, 2002)

*COMODO* anti-virus is crap and gets poor ratings, so stay away from it.

*AVG* and *Alwil Avast* and *Avira AntiVir* are all good anti-virus programs.

http://www.filehippo.com/software/antivirus/

*Malwarebytes Anti-Malware* and *SUPERAntiSpyware* are the top picks for anti-spyware/anti-malware programs.

http://www.filehippo.com/software/antimalware/

Personally, I don't use a third-party firewall.

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


----------



## pcmoron132 (Mar 16, 2010)

Hey guys I have added Avast anti-virus, SpywareBlaster,and Malwarebytes. Am I covered now? Or do I need to add a firewall too?


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

pcmoron132 said:


> Hey guys I have added Avast anti-virus, SpywareBlaster,and Malwarebytes. Am I covered now? Or do I need to add a firewall too?


In my opinion, Windows firewall issufficient.
Remember the free anti malware programs are only as good as you are careful and update each time before scanning and the first thing a spyware program does is disable the spyware programs ability to update itself. So if you want to use free ones, update and scan frequently because you will be removing everything that gets in and the longer it is there the less likely you will be able to remove it.
I have never seen, imho the free antivirus programs find a single piece of spyware either even though they supposedly have that protection.


----------



## pcmoron132 (Mar 16, 2010)

Hello Rich-M. You say the free antivirus is not very reliable. What about the paid type? What do you use?


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

pcmoron132 said:


> Hello Rich-M. You say the free antivirus is not very reliable. What about the paid type? What do you use?


I would never rely on the FREE ones. The whole approach is different. I use Nod32 Antivirus 4.0 and Kaspersky Antivirus 2010 with Malwarebytes Pro (paid) personally, Win Patrol and Ad Muncher all of which play a role on my systems and client units. Bear in mind you cannot use Kaspersky and SUperantispyware Pro together unless you install Kaspersky first and until new version of Malwarebytes (1.45) is released shortly you cannot run Kaspersky and Malwarebytes Pro in XP thought they are fine in Vista or Windows 7 together.


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

pcmoron132,

I use and highly recommend Avira AntiVir for anti-virus. You can see a version comparison at:

http://free-av.com/en/products/2/avira_antivir_premium.html

I recommend this to all my clients because I have found Avira to be:
1.) extremely lightweight compared to other industry leading A/V
2.) accurate in it's A/V detection
3.) "free for personal use" version

I will caution you that the free for personal use version will pop up an advertisement for the "premium" version each day when it updates it's virus database.

It is my opinion based on literally hundreds of cases that Avira is at least as good as the big name brands (Norton, McAfee, NOD32, Kapersky).

If you are concerned about system performance then I would highly suggest that you run a lightweight A/V program. I would also encourage you to only run anti-spyware scanners as needed rather than using their "realtime" scanning capabilities. You can even create a task in the scheduler to run them once a week.

It is my experience that no amount of virus or spyware protection will suffice if you are engaging in risky online behavior. In the end it is up to the end user to stay away from unscrupulous sites which harbor spyware and viruses. It is also extremely important that you keep all your software up-to-date. If you use firefox (which I recommend over Internet Explorer), make sure you are always running the latest stable release. Make sure all your windows updates are installed successfully.

When I suspect a spyware infection, I use the following anti-spyware products in the following order:

1.) Malwarebytes'
2.) Lavasoft Ad-Aware
3.) Spybot S&D

I then uninstall Ad-Aware and Malwarebytes' as I do not need their "realtime" protection. If you have a particularly nasty infection you will need to attempt a manual removal of spyware components which can be very complicated and risky to your system. If this is the case, please seek professional assistance.

Sincerely,
Nate


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

I used to recommend Avira to those that could not afford to pay for protection, but my new attitude after finding it in residence scanning away on many totally infected pc's that I could not even save, is that it is no better than any of the others, is inexperienced users can't afford not to buy decent protection.


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

Rich-M said:


> I used to recommend Avira to those that could not afford to pay for protection, but my new attitude after finding it in residence scanning away on many totally infected pc's that I could not even save, is that it is no better than any of the others, is inexperienced users can't afford not to buy decent protection.


Here is the problem with anti-virus and anti-spyware scanners:

They are ALWAYS one step behind the bad guy. They are purely reactionary to problems, not (generally) pro-active. It doesn't matter if it's Norton, McAfee, NOD32, Avira, Kaspersky, AVG, Avast, etc. etc. etc.

Sure, most modern A/V scanners have heuristics which allow them to detect new unknown threats. But any decently savvy virus writer will test their virus against all the big name A/V scanner before they release it and will know that heuristics and the up-to-date virus databases will be inadequate.

Really the only defense against viruses and spyware is an educated end user. Use up-to-date, secure software whenever you can. Internet Explorer has been proven time and time again to be full of gaping security holes. So why do people still use it? Use Firefox. Or try out the new Google Chrome. I'd even recommend Opera over IE.

And yes, in the end, some viruses will still infect your system (Blaster Worm for example).

In just half an hour I can have a novice computer user set up with software and hardware that protect them from the vast majority of Internet threats out there. I tell them this:

1.) Install a router and keep your computers behind it
2.) Use Firefox for browsing
3.) Don't download or install software unless you know for sure that it is safe (ask an expert)
4.) Don't go to questionable sites


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> Here is the problem with anti-virus and anti-spyware scanners:
> 
> They are ALWAYS one step behind the bad guy. They are purely reactionary to problems, not (generally) pro-active. It doesn't matter if it's Norton, McAfee, NOD32, Avira, Kaspersky, AVG, Avast, etc. etc. etc.


Actually not so...Kaspersky, Bit Defender and Nod32, repel "at the gate", the others let in and then try to remove. Huge difference in method and why I made the switch actually.



> Really the only defense against viruses and spyware is an educated end user. Use up-to-date, secure software whenever you can. Internet Explorer has been proven time and time again to be full of gaping security holes. So why do people still use it? Use Firefox. Or try out the new Google Chrome. I'd even recommend Opera over IE.


I could not agree more, unfortunately they don't listen well, even after they have had their units destroyed by malware...


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

Rich-M said:


> Actually not so...Kaspersky, Bit Defender and Nod32, repel "at the gate", the others let in and then try to remove. Huge difference in method and why I made the switch actually.
> 
> I could not agree more, unfortunately they don't listen well, even after they have had their units destroyed by malware...


But how can a virus scanner "repel at the gate" when it doesn't even know what it's looking at. Are you saying that these protection suites block all executables from being downloaded? Because that would be the only way to stop all viruses and spyware.

For example, if one were so compelled, they could write a virus right now that there exists no definition/signature for. They could write it in such a manner that heuristics cannot pick it out from a legitimate application. Then this person could e-mail it to an unsuspecting person who would download and run it. Since the virus scanner doesn't know what it is looking at, it won't block it or detect it.

Perhaps I am wrong (and now I am going to go research this in detail because I am curious) but I am hard-pressed to believe that there exists a program so sophisticated that it can accurately weed out good applications from bad applications 100% of the time. If this were the case, we would have programs that would detect spam from non-spam 100% of the time with 100% accuracy.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> But how can a virus scanner "repel at the gate" when it doesn't even know what it's looking at. Are you saying that these protection suites block all executables from being downloaded? Because that would be the only way to stop all viruses and spyware.


By using their superior heuristics to block the site all together, something Malwarebytes paid version is now doing also.



> For example, if one were so compelled, they could write a virus right now that there exists no definition/signature for. They could write it in such a manner that heuristics cannot pick it out from a legitimate application. Then this person could e-mail it to an unsuspecting person who would download and run it. Since the virus scanner doesn't know what it is looking at, it won't block it or detect it.


An antivirus program with acceptable heuristics can block suspicious behavior without knowing for sure what it sees. But your freebies and Norton, MacAfee and Pc Cillan have the least heuristic ability so that's why they are almost uselsss against these incursions.



> Perhaps I am wrong (and now I am going to go research this in detail because I am curious) but I am hard-pressed to believe that there exists a program so sophisticated that it can accurately weed out good applications from bad applications 100% of the time. If this were the case, we would have programs that would detect spam from non-spam 100% of the time with 100% accuracy.


100%, no of course not but the game today is in sensing danger and preventing a user from going to a particular site and that is where Kaspersky, Nod 32 and Bit Defender have it all over the others and only Malwarebytes has also moved in this direction recently.


----------



## Perkyclouds (Mar 29, 2010)

I recommend avg antivirus free edition
http://free.avg.com/ww-en/homepage


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

I would just like to cite some information directly from Kaspersky's website regarding heuristic scanning abilities:

http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=207575720

According to their own website, in 2009, Avira AntiVir detected 71% of "unknown" malware threats presented by the well respect AV-Comparatives over the four week testing period. Kaspersky also detected 71% of "unknown" malware threats during this time. Avira, however, bested Kaspersky in the initial first week of testing by detecting 67% of "unknown" malware threats as compared to Kaspersky which detected 60%.


----------



## WandersFar (Mar 26, 2010)

Personally, I don't run an antivirus. I find they slow my system, and are generally ineffective. (Lots of false positives, and the last time I did get infected with a virus nearly a decade ago, my antivirus didn't catch it at all.)

I use online scans at Trend Micro and Panda occasionally, but otherwise the only program I use regularly is CCleaner, which is more of a registry cleaner than anything else.

http://www.ccleaner.com/

CCleaner is lightning fast, and it can clear out not just bad / obsolete registry entries, but tracking cookies and other nasties in your browsing history. Also there's a section for killing startup items, which can greatly reduce your startup time if you've accumulated a lot of programs.

It is free, but pay attention when you install so you don't get stuck with an annoying toolbar. (I forget if it's Yahoo or Ask's toolbar, but it's pointless and is just there to pay the bills. Uncheck the option and you'll be fine.)



phyrtech said:


> ... the only defense against viruses and spyware is an educated end user.


I could not agree with this more. In practical terms, don't open e-mails, or worse, attachments, from senders you don't recognize. Use Firefox or Chrome, and make it your default browser (so IE doesn't open up unintentionally in other programs). Update frequently. Avoid suspicious sites, and consider using ad-block plus or noscript (Firefox extensions) to prevent yourself from getting bombarded with links to suspicious sites in the first place. Be careful when installing third-party programs from the internet -- choose the open-source option if it's available. When in doubt, don't download it.

Lifehacker recently reported that Chrome was the only browser not to get hacked at this year's pwn2own competition. Still, I prefer Firefox for the great variety of extensions that are available, but if you don't want or need these features, Chrome is your best option.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

phyrtech said:


> I would just like to cite some information directly from Kaspersky's website regarding heuristic scanning abilities:
> 
> http://www.kaspersky.com/news?id=207575720
> 
> According to their own website, in 2009, Avira AntiVir detected 71% of "unknown" malware threats presented by the well respect AV-Comparatives over the four week testing period. Kaspersky also detected 71% of "unknown" malware threats during this time. Avira, however, bested Kaspersky in the initial first week of testing by detecting 67% of "unknown" malware threats as compared to Kaspersky which detected 60%.


Thats for the paid version of avira....the paid version detects unknown virus behavior free doesnt*.

http://www.free-av.de/en/products/1/avira_antivir_personal__free_antivirus.html

*


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

The first attachment is a screenshot of Avira AntiVir Personal with heuristics enabled on my computer which I took just now.

The second attachment is a screenshot of the webpage you a referencing showing that the free version does in fact offer heuristics (AHeAD stands for Advanded Heuristics Analysis and Detection).


----------



## phyrtech (Mar 22, 2010)

I looked directly at the AV-Comparatives site and they used the premium version of Avira for their tests. It still stands, however, that Avira scored higher. I was attempting to defend Avira as a viable A/V option and the free version is better than nothing.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

phyrtech said:


> The first attachment is a screenshot of Avira AntiVir Personal with heuristics enabled on my computer which I took just now.
> 
> The second attachment is a screenshot of the webpage you a referencing showing that the free version does in fact offer heuristics (AHeAD stands for Advanded Heuristics Analysis and Detection).


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

phyrtech said:


> I looked directly at the AV-Comparatives site and they used the premium version of Avira for their tests. It still stands, however, that Avira scored higher. I was attempting to defend Avira as a viable A/V option and the free version is better than nothing.


Its not bad for free at all i used it for a long time myself


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

phyrtech said:


> I looked directly at the AV-Comparatives site and they used the premium version of Avira for their tests. It still stands, however, that Avira scored higher. I was attempting to defend Avira as a viable A/V option and the free version is better than nothing.


Yes but to suggest it is equal to Kaspersky in a category it doesn't even have is misleading and we always need to remember that new inexperienced users read these posts and to recommend something that is better than nothing vs being any good at the task is to mislead the readers I'm afraid.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> Personally, I don't run an antivirus. I find they slow my system, and are generally ineffective. (Lots of false positives, and the last time I did get infected with a virus nearly a decade ago, my antivirus didn't catch it at all.)
> 
> I use online scans at Trend Micro and Panda occasionally, but otherwise the only program I use regularly is CCleaner, which is more of a registry cleaner than anything else.
> 
> ...


I am sorry but this is terrible advice. Just because you don't value your system, and you may well have enough knowledge to survive out there though in today's environment I doubt it, you need to remember we have inexperienced users here who best not heed your advice for a bunch of reasons.

Ccleaner has a reg cleaner in it which is the worst possible thing you can suggest for users to use. It is a hard drive cleaner mostly yet there is no evidence that with today's huge and almost unused hard drive space, there is even a reason that use of this doesn't slow down a hard drive rather than speed it up as the heavy boulder picks up speed rolling down a hill and actually makes the bigger drive move faster the "heavier it is".

To believe that an occasional use of an online scan suffices and to suggest they are barely necessary does a great disservice to everyone on this forum as the prime threats today are spyware and these barely even touch those. To me I'm afraid your post sounds more like advice from the purveyors of malware, than a plan to use for safe computing.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Its is pretty easy to get nailed on the internet...it doesnt have to be porn sites anymore...innocent serach terms can get you as well..I got hit looking up diagnostic codes for automobiles...another time regarding cookies {the kind you eat}...if you have windows have some real time protection


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

aka Brett said:


> Its is pretty easy to get nailed on the internet...it doesnt have to be porn sites anymore...innocent serach terms can get you as well..I got hit looking up diagnostic codes for automobiles...another time regarding cookies {the kind you eat}...if you have windows have some real time protection


Today....while trying to search out a claim that sandboxing wasn't very efficient with XP, the fourth url of a google search triggered my Avast! and blocked the site as it was trying to download a trojan.
Having Avast! in place stopped that infection.

real time protection---------------> :up:


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Rich-M said:


> ......................
> 
> Ccleaner has a reg cleaner in it which is the worst possible thing you can suggest for users to use. ......................


Agreed.
Against my advice, several years ago my sister used the reg cleaner in Ccleaner and wound up with a laptop that wouldn't boot.
Fortunately she had a drive image to fall back on.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Rich-M said:


> I am sorry but this is terrible advice. Just because you don't value your system, and you may well have enough knowledge to survive out there though in today's environment I doubt it, you need to remember we have inexperienced users here who best not heed your advice for a bunch of reasons.
> 
> Ccleaner has a reg cleaner in it which is the worst possible thing you can suggest for users to use. It is a hard drive cleaner mostly yet there is no evidence that with today's huge and almost unused hard drive space, there is even a reason that use of this doesn't slow down a hard drive rather than speed it up as the heavy boulder picks up speed rolling down a hill and actually makes the bigger drive move faster the "heavier it is".
> 
> To believe that an occasional use of an online scan suffices and to suggest they are barely necessary does a great disservice to everyone on this forum as the prime threats today are spyware and these barely even touch those. To me I'm afraid your post sounds more like advice from the purveyors of malware, than a plan to use for safe computing.


Dear Rich-M,
Touche' . Expressing personal opinions in this site will mislead the security-conscious that 1) An A-V is not"very" necessary,

2)Registry cleaning is safe, and more importantly,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)A third party software firewall is unnecessary. In fact, it is your first line of defence and you should install one and CONFIGURE it properly,so that it can do it's job.

A walk to your neighbourhood bank is good exercise and i still do it, but to a near-by ATM! A Diabetic's daily constitutional,i suppose!


----------



## Juli007 (Feb 22, 2010)

> Rich-m:I use Nod32


 I agree.I use ESET Smart Security and I think is very,very,very good.Bit-defender is in the first place winning the gold cup(very good),than comes Kaspersky Anti-Virus which wins the silver cup(good),and ESET with the bronze cup(not bad).AVG and avast has no cup!(bad)


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Stoner said:


> Today....while trying to search out a claim that sandboxing wasn't very efficient with XP, the fourth url of a google search triggered my Avast! and blocked the site as it was trying to download a trojan.
> Having Avast! in place stopped that infection.
> 
> real time protection---------------> :up:


Thats a long ways from porn!
Did you find out if sanboxing is inefficient with xp?
I have been using sandboxie as part of defense for the desktop here with xp


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

aka Brett said:


> Thats a long ways from porn!
> Did you find out if sanboxing is inefficient with xp?
> I have been using sandboxie as part of defense for the desktop here with xp


I've been using sandboxie for a while, but to be truthful, I have no idea how effective it is as I didn't have many malware issues before I installed it. In the past, I've read it's effective but like most security concepts, not 100% absolutely foolproof.
I picked up comments at a help site by one 'Bob Primak' that sandboxie wasn't efficient on an XP system.
He gave referrals and reasons but dodged posting links.
When I started searching the names he was referring to against sandboxie......I quickly came up against a malicious web site.

I've also had Firefox intercede several times this month warning that a connection might damage my computer.
Those were car and motorcycle topics.

BTW....about a year or so ago, a hacker inserted some script into a USAToday web page that infected visitors.
As I remember..... it was placed in some advertising.
It happens even with 'proper' sites.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Stoner said:


> I've been using sandboxie for a while, but to be truthful, I have no idea how effective it is as I didn't have many malware issues before I installed it. In the past, I've read it's effective but like most security concepts, not 100% absolutely foolproof.
> I picked up comments at a help site by one 'Bob Primak' that sandboxie wasn't efficient on an XP system.
> He gave referrals and reasons but dodged posting links.
> When I started searching the names he was referring to against sandboxie......I quickly came up against a malicious web site.
> ...


Now you have me interested in how effective sandboxie is.
After your ordeal...Do I need to run in a sandbox to search sandbox related terms?...
Ironic indeed...perhaps the only way to find out is to try.

We need someone to give it a try that uses a virtual machine just for these purposes,,,,,could then use the bad links you found and hit them and see what happens


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

I'm wondering just how effective software like Returnil or Acronis True Image's Try & Decide mode really are. Theoretically, they should be 100% sure. But, I don't think there are such things as 100% sure.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Only way to truly find out is to try and catch an infection....we need a guinea pig.


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

Any volunteers?


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

I think someone will volunteer,,just a matter of the right people finding the post


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

I'm a big user of sandboxie, and trust it highly after running real malware in it many times before,
There have been occasional holes found in it (none by me) of course like any program,
But in the past year I've only heard of about 2 or 3 actual holes where malware was able to write out of the sandbox, They have already been fixed.
I sandbox all my threat gates all the time and trust it's protection much more for securing my computer than any antivirus since it doesn't need signatures etc to protect.
I woudn't be afraid of being a guinea pig. 

I don't think I've ever heard of it not being effecient on an XP machine though....
I know it's not as secure on x64 OS but that's the same with any security program because of patchguard.

I actually feel so secure using sandboxie along with my other 2 security measures that while I still have common sense I ignore it often anyway. 



Phantom010 said:


> I'm wondering just how effective software like Returnil or Acronis True Image's Try & Decide mode really are. Theoretically, they should be 100% sure. But, I don't think there are such things as 100% sure.


Nothing is 100% some things just get you a little closer than others. 
There have been malware that could breakthrough those programs in the past,
A good idea to make those programs much stronger would be to use a Non-Administrator account (I'd recommend that with any setup actually) so that malware can't get the same permissions as the security programs and bypass them.



aka Brett said:


> Thats for the paid version of avira....the paid version detects unknown virus behavior free doesnt*.
> 
> http://www.free-av.de/en/products/1/avira_antivir_personal__free_antivirus.html
> 
> *


That AntiVirProActiv is a new feature in version 10 that was just released, So that test was likely done with the older version before AntiVirProActiv so it should match with the free version which has the same heuristics as far as I know.
The AntiVirProActiv (a behavior blocker) in theory should give it a higher detection now.
Though I've never tested it personally so I don't know how effective it is.
[WEBQUOTE="http://www.softpedia.com/progChangelog/AntiVir-Personal-Edition-Changelog-6527.html"]Avira AntiVir ProActiv :
· Avira AntiVir, version 10 is now equipped with a brand new host-based intrusion prevention system called Avira AntiVir ProActiv. AntiVir ProActiv constantly monitors the behaviour of the system in real-time and looks for unusual events.

· An integrated rule-system is able to decide proactively if a certain event (or a combination of events) indicates that the system is currently under attack from a new or unknown malware.

· If a rule matches the user is then able to decide what to do with this suspicious file, i.e. to trust it, to block it once, to block it always or to ignore it.

· Part of this new technology is the Avira AntiVir ProActiv community that allows every Professional customer to take an active role in Avira´s world-wide battle against viruses and malware by automatically sending unknown malware samples to Avira. Those samples are then analysed and the results are fed back into the ProActiv module.[/WEBQUOTE]
And I remember hearing people say it would be included in the free version I'm not sure if they changed ther mind or if it will be put into the free version eventually since at the bottom it says.



> Avira AntiVir ProActiv is not available for the Avira AntiVir Personal in Q1-2010.


And that ends my long post.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

I think we found a volunteer


----------



## antimoth (Aug 8, 2009)

If we believe the stats, as many as 2 out of 5 PC's are infected and walking around like zombies trying to eat the brains of the remaining machines out there.

Back on Election night (USA) in 2008, I was reading the ChicagoTribune site and Avast caught one of the off links as containing malware. I run Firefox with noscript add-on, so there might have been some protection had Avast missed it, at long as I didn't allow the script. That is one drawback with a script blocking add-on. Most sites use scripts so you have to allow them to view it. No problem with a trusted site, but you can get hit with an unknown site. Avast also recently stripped the .exe attachment out of a phishing email for me. I would have deleted it anyway, but nice to have AVast do it.

I also have Kaspersky 2010 suite on one PC and have run Firefox and IE8 under its saferun feature, which is like a sandbox. Unwilling to be a guinea pig, I went to some safe sites and sure enough, any images or programs I deliberately downloaded under saferun disappeared after the session was over. Dunno about an unwanted download though. They say it will block them.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

aka Brett said:


> I think we found a volunteer


Dear Gizzy,
i have been out of the loop for a while, and wow!----> you are the LIBRARY MANAGER now! Congrats,man! :up:Have you written any article on "Sabdboxieing", since i know for a fact that you are one who has been successfully using it and knows the intricacies of the program!

The "security Zone"in KIS2010 also offers a "sort of (??) sandboxing. I SEEK THE PERMISSION OF THE ADMIN/MODS, to say this: as a test, i installed MU torrent and put in it the KIS2010's security zone, and placed all four browsers in that zone, 1)FF ,) Google Chrome,3) IE and 4) Safari. Then, i opened a torrent website in the browser (?) secured by the zone and chose to download a movie----"Dancing with the wolves". My "MBAM and Mamutu just went crazy in the task bar. 

Since it was only an experiment on the efficacy of the "zone" offered in KIS2010, i was not impressed. As a comparison, i used the "SANDBOXIE" to sandbox mutorrent, and no torrent was even allowed to ENTER INSIDE THE BOX! :up::up:

The Sandboxie guys are sharp and when i tried to download it a second time courteously informed me,"can you kindly wait for a few days before re-installing the FREE VERSION AGAIN"? That's what i call "killing softly with words"!


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> Dear Gizzy,
> i have been out of the loop for a while, and wow!----> you are the LIBRARY MANAGER now! Congrats,man! :up:Have you written any article on "Sabdboxieing", since i know for a fact that you are one who has been successfully using it and knows the intricacies of the program!


Hi perfume, Thanks for the congrats. 
Just 2 articles related to sandboxie I wrote awhile ago, [library=Sandboxie and System Restore]Sandboxie and System Restore[/library] and [library=Stop Keyloggers In Sandboxie]Stop Keyloggers In Sandboxie[/library].


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

Hi Stoner,

What is that web site address that tried to pwn your system? I will setup a virtual machine, harden it and go there and see if my setup is vulnerable.


----------



## antimoth (Aug 8, 2009)

perfume said:


> as a test, i installed MU torrent and put in it the KIS2010's security zone, and placed all four browsers in that zone, 1)FF ,) Google Chrome,3) IE and 4) Safari. Then, i opened a torrent website in the browser (?) secured by the zone and chose to download a movie----"Dancing with the wolves". My "MBAM and Mamutu just went crazy in the task bar.
> 
> Since it was only an experiment on the efficacy of the "zone" offered in KIS2010, i was not impressed.


KIS saferun will not block incoming malware unless (a) the KIS database has a matching signature or (b) the malware tries to run and its heuristic actions triggers KIS (hopefully). However, what is supposed to save your bacon is the malware isn't supposed to touch the OS even if it does because we are in virtual land.

My tests of KIS saferun were not as brave as your walk thru zombieland. I did note that Firefox updates under saferun did not stick. I had to get out and do it again later. I could download and view pics/video under saferun, but it all vanished when I left. Well, it didn't really vanish. KIS hides it in a folder that will overflow someday unless you find them and delete them.

So I think it has potential, and I should use it when just browsing, because as Stoner pointed out (and I have also found), hijacked and corrupt links capable of doing a drive-by download can turn up anywhere.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Gizzy said:


> Hi perfume, Thanks for the congrats.
> Just 2 articles related to sandboxie I wrote awhile ago, [library=Sandboxie and System Restore]Sandboxie and System Restore[/library] and [library=Stop Keyloggers In Sandboxie]Stop Keyloggers In Sandboxie[/library].


I had read about the keylogger info at a prior time ..good reading
The reading on the system restore also great:up:...I am going to use the method of changing folders


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

antimoth said:


> KIS saferun will not block incoming malware unless (a) the KIS database has a matching signature or (b) the malware tries to run and its heuristic actions triggers KIS (hopefully). However, what is supposed to save your bacon is the malware isn't supposed to touch the OS even if it does because we are in virtual land.
> 
> My tests of KIS saferun were not as brave as your walk thru zombieland. I did note that Firefox updates under saferun did not stick. I had to get out and do it again later. I could download and view pics/video under saferun, but it all vanished when I left. Well, it didn't really vanish. KIS hides it in a folder that will overflow someday unless you find them and delete them.
> 
> So I think it has potential, and I should use it when just browsing, because as Stoner pointed out (and I have also found), hijacked and corrupt links capable of doing a drive-by download can turn up anywhere.


Dear antimoth,
I am in total agreement with you, except that the downloaded program can be pinned down to it's destination folder!.I just downloaded "Recuva" using IE8 in "safe run" in KIS2010. The path, though tortuous,exists! Here we go--->C Drive->Doc.&Sett.->Applic.Data-->Kasp Lab-->Sandbox-->KLSB2-->Device-->Hard Disk Vol.1--> Doc&Sett.--> Admin.--> My Documents-->RECUVA.exe.

Safe run stands no chance compared to "Sandboxie". I would prefer a "Returnil" anyday! Can anybody throw light (ENLIGHTEN ME!) on how to divert downloaded material in "Safe run" to "Safe run shared folder" (purely out of academic interest)? Thanx!http://www.piriform.com/recuva/download/standard

The website link above is copied directly from the "safe run" IE8.No blocks!


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

aka Brett said:


> I had read about the keylogger info at a prior time ..good reading
> The reading on the system restore also great:up:...I am going to use the method of changing folders


Thanks, I'm glad you liked them.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear antimoth,
" Experience: long live the 6502 "! If you don't mind, what's with the long live the 6502?
The total adds up to 13! Not a very fav. number. I saw a movie about The Apollo Mission 13 which went horribly wrong. OR is it that you are free Mason?:up:

Is it true that in the US of A, in Hotels they name the 13th floor as "12+"?


----------



## antimoth (Aug 8, 2009)

perfume said:


> Can anybody throw light (ENLIGHTEN ME!) on how to divert downloaded material in "Safe run" to "Safe run shared folder" (purely out of academic interest)?


With Firefox, you just point your downloads there. You already know the path. I've never tried to do that with IE8. It's probably the same. It's interesting that Kaspersky generates in its sandboxes all the folders that would be changed in windows when something is executed under safe run. Like I said, that could be a lot of junk and they should make it easier to clean it out.



perfume said:


> What's with the long live the 6502?


Back in the early 80's, if you saw someone walking around muttering LDA $#99. STX $78, INC $29, NOP, NOP, NOP, you ran away. He or she was geeked out on the Atari 400, or Commodore VIC-20, or C64 6502 machine language, and probably connecting to a BBS with a 110 baud modem to play a star trek text game . Apples used the same chip too, as did the first Atari game console. I understand there are commercial products still being made that use a version of the 6502, maybe stuff like hamster robots and talking can openers.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear antimoth,
 Nice that you let me in on 6502! Thanx. Did you ever have the feeling that,when you were conversing ,you could feel your own speech coming from outside! I am frequently getting them. It's really enjoyable in a sense because you get to know how good/bad you sound and secondly, there's no reason for recording the French Anthem,this "para" translating into English as such :up::up:: Come, children of the Fatherland (Homeland), 
The day of glory has arrived! 
Against us, Tyranny's 
Bloody banner is raised, _(repeat)_ 
Do you hear in the countryside 
Those ferocious soldiers roaring? 
They come up to our arms 
To slit the throats of our sons and wives!


----------



## geex4 (Apr 8, 2010)

alright well throught my years of experence avg has never failed me here is a site to download it trust me its the best: http://free.avg.com/us-en/download-free-antivirus


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear geex4,
*As the saying goes"to each his own"! In this site, among the free ones,Avira rules the roost and is the first choice ( Excellent IMO,having used it), Avast comes second and AVG, i am sorry to say (as Kenny94 said) is way down south! Since AVG is doing a fine job for you, stick to it!Are you using any third party software firewall? :up:*


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear Stoner,
just a hunch! Can we combine Sandboxie and GesWall to protect a browser? Since both act via different methods, what's your take on it? Has any body seen Gizzy around?


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

perfume said:


> Dear Stoner,
> just a hunch! Can we combine Sandboxie and GesWall to protect a browser? Since both act via different methods, what's your take on it? Has any body seen Gizzy around?


Hello perfume 

I'm not familiar with GesWall.
Are you using it and if so, how well is it working for you?


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> Dear Stoner,
> just a hunch! Can we combine Sandboxie and GesWall to protect a browser? Since both act via different methods, what's your take on it? Has any body seen Gizzy around?


I'm around... lurking, just haven't had much time for posting. 

I'm not Stoner but.... I've tried that in the past using both sandboxie and geswall, They both appeared to work fine together, But I only did it as a test and not regularly since I see it as redundant running 2 similar programs, And by running similar programs there's always a chance of conflict that could decrease the security offered.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

Looks promising according to this review

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=mrizos#p/search/0/PBKNHBl-yos


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Gizzy said:


> I'm around... lurking, just haven't had much time for posting.
> 
> I'm not Stoner but.... I've tried that in the past using both sandboxie and geswall, They both appeared to work fine together, But I only did it as a test and not regularly since I see it as redundant running 2 similar programs, And by running similar programs there's always a chance of conflict that could decrease the security offered.


Dear Gizzy,
Thank you for your prompt reply!*

1)Isn't GesWall just an "Intrusion Prevention System"?

2) Whereas, Sandboxie works by "blending into the OS" and not only the browser! Even the registry is protected as described below in the FAQ on Sandbox! I am using Sandboxie regularly now and am a "die-hard convert" to the program! If Gizzy stands for the presidency, i will be on the donors list(the primary in New Hampshire ,i will fund)!

" **How does Sandboxie protect me, technically?* Sandboxie extends the operating system (OS) with sandboxing capabilities by blending into it. Applications can never access hardware such as disk storage directly, they have to ask the OS to do it for them. Since Sandboxie integrates into the OS, it can do what it does without risk of being circumvented. 
The following classes of system objects are supervised by Sandboxie: Files, Disk Devices, Registry Keys, Process and Thread objects, Driver objects, and objects used for Inter-process communication: Named Pipes and Mailbox Objects, Events, Mutexs (Mutants in NT speak), Semaphores, Sections and LPC Ports. For some more information on this, see Sandbox Hierarchy. 
Sandboxie also takes measures to prevent programs executing inside the sandbox from hijacking non-sandboxed programs and using them as a vehicle to operate outside the sandbox". :up:


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

perfume said:


> ...........................
> Sandboxie also takes measures to prevent programs executing inside the sandbox from hijacking non-sandboxed programs and using them as a vehicle to operate outside the sandbox". :up:


Hi perfume 

I have set options to only allow several applications to run in the sandbox and only allow Firefox access to the Internet from the opened sandbox, preventing any other app within Sandboxie to connect.

Have you seen or read any info on how effective that is?


----------



## EmilyRTM (Apr 22, 2010)

If you install much more anti-spyware software in your computer, it will take you much space to slow down your computer. So choose one excellent to use


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

EmilyRTM said:


> If you install much more anti-spyware software in your computer, it will take you much space to slow down your computer. So choose one excellent to use


Dear EmilyR TM,
so, what have you on your PC and what's your experience with it? Kindly be frank,because we need most of the times more than one anti-spyware to sniff out the ,Surete,CIA,MVD,RAW,ISI and the overseas intelligence collecting arm of China!


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

BobPrimak said:


> I offer........... to post a webliography so that anyone can look into the strengths and weaknesses of Sandboxie and see how it best fits into an overall security setup. ....... to help promote understanding, not to bash Sandboxie


I am interested


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

aka Brett said:


> I am interested


Hello there, AKA Brett,
Add my name too ! KIS2010, has also added a"safe zone"for browsers but it's :down:! Once i got "infected"WHILE downloading GesWall, but those were the days when i was a click,click guy (tab-happy,like in trigger-happy?)! Sandboxie is generous, saying that you can use it (with a fewer functions) forever, as long as you don't break the rules! *If you pay a single life-time fee, it's a marv!:up:*


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

Getting back on topic, the original question was:



pcmoron132 said:


> Can someone tell me what the best free antivirus that I can get is? Also, will it protect against adware,spyware, and malware? Or do I need separate protection for those? Thanks from the pc moron.


To get a good overview off who's better and who's best, check out Virus Bulletin's recent AV comparatives chart:
http://www.sophos.com/blogs/gc/g/2010/04/14/antivirus-products-compared-proactive-test/
I reference the Sophos site, as there are no registration or subscription hoops to jump through there to see the data. Thanks to Woody Leonhard's blog ( http://www.askwoody.com ) for posting this link.

Another take (in PDF format) can be found at AV-Comparatives:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144&Itemid=152

And for firewall comparisons, there's always the Matousec Firewall Challenge: 
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php#products-ratings

I hope these independent comparisons will help folks select the products which might best suit your needs. I will not offer my personal preference, as this would lead to endless debating, and such debates seldom end with a clear winner. Just choose products which perform above average, and you will probably be well on your way toward good home user computer security.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> 1)Isn't GesWall just an "Intrusion Prevention System"?


Geswall is actually a mix, For example there's Defensewall which is a policy sandbox it works by restricting what programs in the sandbox can do where as sandboxie is a virtual sandbox it lets programs in the sandbox do many more things but in a virtual environment.

Geswall uses a combination of restrictions and virtualization.



BobPrimak said:


> Getting back on topic, the original question was:
> 
> And for firewall comparisons, there's always the Matousec Firewall Challenge:
> http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php#products-ratings


Matousec isn't actually a good place to compare firewalls, their tests are aimed towards HIPS, which is why if you look they even changed the name of their tests to Proactive Security Challenge.


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

Gizzy said:


> Matousec isn't actually a good place to compare firewalls, their tests are aimed towards HIPS, which is why if you look they even changed the name of their tests to Proactive Security Challenge.


 Thanks for pointing that out. Is there any comparative aimed at firewalls which gives a more complete picture? I would be interested in checking out another resource.

Still, from what I have read, I haven't found Matousec to be very far off what some professional reviewers think are the relative merits of various Windows firewalls. Except the suites. There, Matousec seems to have missed something, right?

It wasn't only Matousec which convinced me to switch away from Zone Alarm to Comodo free firewall. I seem to have read a few folks at some of the tech publications who think Zone Alarm is losing ground lately. Please, don't everyone jump all over me for brand advocacy, as I do not recommend Comodo for everyone. The firewall and its Defense Plus alerts can be a real bear to manage. Zone Alarm, while not liked by Matousec, is still adequate, from what I've read.

And for those who are using Windows Vista or Windows 7, isn't the built-in Windows firewall for those versions good enough? Especially when combined with a good security router? I just wish the Outbound Firewall Controls were easier to configure.


----------



## antimoth (Aug 8, 2009)

BobPrimak said:


> And for those who are using Windows Vista or Windows 7, isn't the built-in Windows firewall for those versions good enough? Especially when combined with a good security router? I just wish the Outbound Firewall Controls were easier to configure.


The answer for Vista is no, because as you said ... the outbound rules are impossible for even an advanced user to understand or configure. So you have to get a third party program that puts a wrapper around it. At least one exists that I know of, but it still relies on the user to decide what goes out. In that case, I think most people are better off with a Comodo/OnlineArmor/Kaspersky/etc. With these, you also have to decide what goes out, but there are other features included like HIPS that make them superior in my opinion.


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

perfume said:


> Hello there, AKA Brett,
> Add my name too ! KIS2010, has also added a"safe zone"for browsers but it's :down:! Once i got "infected"WHILE downloading GesWall, but those were the days when i was a click,click guy (tab-happy,like in trigger-happy?)! Sandboxie is generous, saying that you can use it (with a fewer functions) forever, as long as you don't break the rules! *If you pay a single life-time fee, it's a marv!:up:*


I played with Geswall for a while yesterday it doesnt work correctly with UAC in W7...Plus I dont know what to do with all the untrusted files it builds up..So back to sandboxie it was.
I am going to keep Geswall on the xp desktop for a while though...see how long it takes to break.
I let company use the xp desktop and they managed to break sandboxie in 5 weeks.I fixed it but then this geswall caught my interest...I will see what happens.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

antimoth said:


> The answer for Vista is no, because as you said ... the outbound rules are impossible for even an advanced user to understand or configure. So you have to get a third party program that puts a wrapper around it. At least one exists that I know of, but it still relies on the user to decide what goes out. In that case, I think most people are better off with a Comodo/OnlineArmor/Kaspersky/etc. With these, you also have to decide what goes out, but there are other features included like HIPS that make them superior in my opinion.


I really hate to disagree but I have never found the aggravation of using any 3rd party firewall was worth the annoyance and have used Windows firewall since XP came out, one way and all.In Vista and now Windows 7 the same story now.I have never set a thing in the Windows firewalls and never will. In spite of what the paranoidal users say will happen, I have never been hacked nor have I had an annoying stupid message from a firewall that took time to rundown. My networks have always worked flawlessly as have every browser I have ever installed on 5 systems.
I once paid a professional hacker to penetrate me and he couldn't do it. I do use a top notch quality router (never pay under $150 anymore) with a hardware firewall and am at least an experienced user and everytime I read of a screw up with a ZA update or "I can't connect wirelessly any more", inside my feelings are reinforced even more!


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

antimoth said:


> The answer for Vista is no, because as you said ... the outbound rules are impossible for even an advanced user to understand or configure. So you have to get a third party program that puts a wrapper around it. At least one exists that I know of, but it still relies on the user to decide what goes out. In that case, I think most people are better off with a Comodo/OnlineArmor/Kaspersky/etc. With these, you also have to decide what goes out, but there are other features included like HIPS that make them superior in my opinion.


I presume you are referring to SphinxSoft's Windows Vista/ Windows 7 Firewall Control Panel? If not, here's the URL so people can decide for themselves about this product:
http://www.sphinx-soft.com/Vista/order.html Not being a Windows Vista/ 7 user (yet) I don't know how much of an improvement this is over the native Windows controls. And yes, the end user does have to make choices. Under Windows XP Pro, my Comodo Firewall and Defense Plus also makes me decide how to handle programs and processes, and now they have a "sandbox" feature. More decisions! 

Still, I like having more granular control than merely leaving everything set up as-is out of the Windows install box. Some programs are automatically blocked from doing important things if you can't or won't tweak the original outbound settings, so user intervention is required at times no matter which solution we use. ...Or so I have been reading. 

And *Rich-M*, I fully respect your point of view. A good security router will take over much of what Windows by itself does not cover, and is much simpler to maintain. Personally, I prefer a layered approach to Windows security, which means using some sort of software firewall, but hey, if your arrangement works for you, why should I criticize?


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

Stoner said:


> I've been using sandboxie for a while, but to be truthful, I have no idea how effective it is as I didn't have many malware issues before I installed it. In the past, I've read it's effective but like most security concepts, not 100% absolutely foolproof.
> I picked up comments at a help site by one 'Bob Primak' that sandboxie wasn't efficient on an XP system.
> He gave referrals and reasons but dodged posting links.
> When I started searching the names he was referring to against sandboxie......I quickly came up against a malicious web site.
> ...


The whole issue of Sandboxie and how effective it is or is not, would seem to be a good topic for further discussion in a separate thread. I have opened up a thread in the General Security Forum asking "Sandboxie -- How Effective?". Anyone can continue this topic there if you wish. I posted my links there. I would appreciate any updated links I could check out with technical analysis and evaluation of the current Sandboxie version. Or any sandboxing scheme, such as Kaspersky KIS Sandbox, Comodo Firewall's Sandbox, Zone Alarm Extreme Security, etc.

Yeah, Stoner, just posting names in a forum can lead people to do Google searches which can end up in strange and dangerous places. I got lazy there in not posting at least some links right there on the spot. That's one reason why I posted my links about the effectiveness of Sandboxie and other sandboxing programs in these forums (see above) for all to see and respond to. Thanks to everyone who has replied already in that thread.

Stoner, when I google on a name, I always use the full name as posted, and try to find out whether the person posting has listed any publications or web sites associated with that name. I recognize that many people are not that diligent in their searching, and they can get into a lot of trouble that way. That is unfortunately a case of where no security program can fully protect naive users from themselves. Beyond that, I won't argue with your findings regarding my post in another on line forum.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

BobPrimak said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. Is there any comparative aimed at firewalls which gives a more complete picture? I would be interested in checking out another resource.


I'm sure there is but unfortunately I don't know of any, I have heard it's more complicated and time consuming to actually test a firewall as in it's packet filtering, network control, etc.



> Still, from what I have read, I haven't found Matousec to be very far off what some professional reviewers think are the relative merits of various Windows firewalls. Except the suites. There, Matousec seems to have missed something, right?


Many places consider leaktests similar to matousec's a good way of testing firewalls these days so that's likely why they are similar to matousec's test,
Now there's nothing really wrong with that depending on what you want in a firewall since some of those leaktests test the outbound ability of the firewall and if you want a good HIPS then those leaktests can help.
But many people consider them the ultimate test for a firewall, Like with matousec even though they changed the name of the tests people still believe if it didn't do well there then it's not even worth trying.


----------



## antimoth (Aug 8, 2009)

BobPrimak said:


> I presume you are referring to SphinxSoft's Windows Vista/ Windows 7 Firewall Control Panel? If not, here's the URL so people can decide for themselves about this product:
> Not being a Windows Vista/ 7 user (yet) I don't know how much of an improvement this is over the native Windows controls.


Yep, I was thinking of Sphinx. I never tried it because I noted the developer is in China which scared me off. That's too wild and wooly of a place for software for me. On the other hand, I run Kaspersky 2010 on one PC and that's from Russia, home of the botnet masters.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

pcmoron132 said:


> Can someone tell me what the best free antivirus that I can get is? Also, will it protect against adware,spyware, and malware? Or do I need separate protection for those? Thanks from the pc moron.


Dear BobPrimack,
pcmoron's query was simple! Which is the best free AV out there AND will it protect me from ad,spy and mal---wares?

Avast has stood first in the free AV category in the latest AV Comparatives test, which answers her first question.

SAS (free or bought) and MBAM (free or bought) can tackle most of the "wares" without drilling a hole in the wallet! These two products are highly valued here and for good reason

Any firewall is only as good as you configure it! There is no magic remedy, except to read,understand and implement and if necessary to bend the firewall to one's needs.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

*Every FIREWALL IS BETTER THAN WINDOWS FIREWALL*


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

antech said:


> *Every FIREWALL IS BETTER THAN WINDOWS FIREWALL*


How about when you state something like that you go: IMHO
Because I totally disagree with you, but IMHO is the rule! I mean personally I find most virus less troublesome than a third party firewall.


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

Whats IMHO?
I cant recall what it means


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

I know they support COMODO but they have a good article here:
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/38214.aspx

And this:
http://www.brighthub.com/computing/smb-security/articles/38835.aspx


----------



## blues_harp28 (Jan 9, 2005)

IMHO.
http://www.acronymfinder.com/IMHO.html


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

blues_harp28 said:


> IMHO.
> http://www.acronymfinder.com/IMHO.html


He's got it!!!! "In My Humble Opinion".


----------



## antech (Feb 23, 2010)

Rich-M said:


> He's got it!!!! "In My Humble Opinion".


Thanks for the info guys


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Rich-M said:


> He's got it!!!! "In My Humble Opinion".


It could very well have been " In My Honest Opinion"! You have >20,000 posts to your credit, so you can afford to say"IMO"! When i came in as a new member, i had to use a slang dictionary to make out all this! IMHO,BTW,FYI, etc! One member taught me the lesson of my life, when he posted"GII"--->"Google it idiot"

PS: Many folks just post a query (HOH) without first trying to find a solution in Google or in our search site! AS we go along and if we are in the mood we too can make up "acronyms"--> Hand On Heart(HOH)!Admin., please excuse my youthful exuberance!:up:


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

True sincerity lies in 'IMMHO'.......

( in my most humble opinion )


----------



## aka Brett (Nov 25, 2008)

perfume said:


> It could very well have been " In My Honest Opinion"! You have >20,000 posts to your credit, so you can afford to say"IMO"! When i came in as a new member, i had to use a slang dictionary to make out all this! IMHO,BTW,FYI, etc! One member taught me the lesson of my life, when he posted"GII"--->"Google it idiot"
> 
> PS: Many folks just post a query (HOH) without first trying to find a solution in Google or in our search site! AS we go along and if we are in the mood we too can make up "acronyms"--> Hand On Heart(HOH)!Admin., please excuse my youthful exuberance!:up:


LOL
FWIW U R showing wut a noob may suffer
by having TMI but by using abbreviations its not enough TBH.


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

antimoth said:


> Yep, I was thinking of Sphinx. I never tried it because I noted the developer is in China which scared me off. That's too wild and wooly of a place for software for me. On the other hand, I run Kaspersky 2010 on one PC and that's from Russia, home of the botnet masters.


Don't let the Country of Origin scare you off. I use IOBit's Smart Defrag on my Windows XP Pro computer, and they are a China-based company. I wouldn't use AV or firewall products coming from China, but I think there are enough protections in Windows and Microsoft Security Essentials to prevent those Sphinx Controls from doing any spying or other nasty business. And this program does not regularly go out onto the Internet to get updates or anything. You just set it up once and use it as a front-end interface. Their paid version does more stuff, so I might be a bit leery of that version.

But to each his/her own. If there's another product which does the same things and is considered "safer", someone may let us know about it.


----------



## BobPrimak (Apr 21, 2010)

perfume said:


> Dear BobPrimack,
> pcmoron's query was simple! Which is the best free AV out there AND will it protect me from ad,spy and mal---wares?
> 
> Avast has stood first in the free AV category in the latest AV Comparatives test, which answers her first question.
> ...


I agree on all points, except that being a Windows XP user, I also add the Comodo Free Firewall with Defense Plus. And even this third-party firewall does benefit from a bit of tweaking every so often.

BTW, minor point, but there's no "c" in my last name. My older relatives from Poland used to use the "c", but not in recent generations.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear BobPrimak,
Now i've got it right! English letters are killers and when Shakespeare wrote all those great stories, there were only 15 letters in use! Sorry about the "C"! Some say Lord Bacon wrote all of them and SS simply sat on them till Lord Bacon flew away! Allow me to quote a Gem"what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"!:up::up:


----------

