# Are antivirus programs a waste of money?



## ablebaker (Apr 2, 2009)

What's the point of using these antivirus programs? (such as McAfee, Symantec, etc) I have been looking through the posts in the Malaware Removal forum, and it appears most of the folks with problems have some antivirus program installed. The only thing the antivirus software does is maybe identify the malaware. Most folks seem to know there is something wrong due to slow or strange behavior of their computers. I would be especially annoyed if I paid $30 a year and the product could not do as well or better than the human helpers on the support forum. I mean the customer is buying a PROGRAM!. It should be able to automatically carry out the steps that people do manually in the support forum. Don't the folks at McAfee, Symantec, etc bother to read these forums, see what the problems are, and fix up their products? Well, I thought I would provide a small rant on behalf of all the folks suffering malaware infestations that should be removed automatically by the $$$ antivirus programs.


----------



## PCcruncher (Oct 24, 2007)

Well, not having an AV leaves you wide open

I personally don't pay for an AV, but DO use Avast free and Commodo firewall.
Avast has stopped a lot of things from making it to my Pc, so it is woth it for me 

As far as McAfee & Symantec go, I think a lot of it is advertising, as from what I have seen they don't do a very good job.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

PCcruncher said:


> Well, not having an AV leaves you wide open
> 
> I personally don't pay for an AV, but DO use Avast free and Commodo firewall.
> Avast has stopped a lot of things from making it to my Pc, so it is woth it for me


This is interesting to me, as since I first used Comodo Firewall nearly 3 years ago, nothing has been detected by any of the AVs I have run alongside it, so nothing has needed removal.

Are you saying that Avast has alerted you to attempted intrusions before you received a warning from Comodo Defense+?

I am confident that the free Comodo Internet Security can stop anything unless you ignore alerts. For instance it defeats Conficker in three different ways.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Try going to the "Dark Side" of the web without an AV. Bet you become a believer real quick.


----------



## Noyb (May 25, 2005)

No AV is perfect and nothing protects you from Windows getting confused for no good reason.
... Most of my problems have been M$ updates anyway.

So .. Might as well use all the free protection that's available …
And spend you money on an external HD and some backup software.
http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-drive-imaging-program.htm
… Think Cure instead of Prevention.

I can reload a fresh install of Windows, mostly updated and fully configured the way I like it - in about 15 minutes.
Nothing beats a fresh install of Windows for tuning up a computer or fixing it.

Like you said .. the malware forum has to fix a lot of computers that have expensive AV ...
and it takes longer than 15 minutes to fix them.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

I know I ran for many years with no AV. Even now, I usually have it turned off for speed. I would imagine that some people would probably not need AV's, depending on their surfing habits. I connect other peoples' drives to my machine a lot and always find infections. If all I was doing was surfing safe sites, and never following links when I didn't know where they led, or downloading unknown programs to try out, I may seriously consider getting rid of it.


----------



## lunarlander (Sep 22, 2007)

First, no one single antivirus company can identfy ALL viruses. That's the whole reasoning behind VirusTotal, a web site that scans any file you upload with 37 antivirus engines. 
Second, a lot of people just invite disaster to happen when they install pirated applications from torrents and other P2P. Those places are crawling with viruses and spyware. Mind you, there are legit uses of torrents, for example many Linux distributions use torrents to distribute their DVD format installers. But one would be wise to stay away from the rest.


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

This is my opinion but I'm sure it's not far from the truth:

I think a large number, if not the majority of people coming here with malware infestations (even while using AV programs), have been running illegal file sharing applications and got caught in their own ignorance of the risks they involve. 

Most of them don't know much about safe Internet practices or don't update their security software or ignore Windows Updates.

If people would take careful consideration for all good free advice they get on forums like this one, perhaps an antivirus program wouldn't be as useful as it is.

My opinion


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

Phantom010 said:


> This is my opinion but I'm sure it's not far from the truth:
> 
> I think a large number, if not the majority of people coming here with malware infestations (even while using AV programs), have been running illegal file sharing applications and got caught in their own ignorance of the risks they involve.
> 
> ...


You've hit the nail on the head. Whether these things are needed is dependent on the user's habits.

But I know that the couple times I did get an infection, I needed other tools to remove it, anyway, so my AV did little but alert me to the problem, which I would have discovered, anyway.

I scan maybe weekly when Windows is not running and find a lot that running AV's can't see.

But the AV companies definitely do exaggerate the danger to the average, careful user.


----------



## PCcruncher (Oct 24, 2007)

A lot of good advice here.


Elvandil said:


> But the AV companies definitely do exaggerate the danger to the average, careful user.


Maybe somewhat, but I wouldn't go without one. I have had several flash drive infections coming from the local photo kiosk, which were stopped by Avast before entering my computer.
I am training at Malware removal, and so am very aware & on alert for things.



JamesFrance said:


> This is interesting to me, as since I first used Comodo Firewall nearly 3 years ago, nothing has been detected by any of the AVs I have run alongside it, so nothing has needed removal.
> 
> Are you saying that Avast has alerted you to attempted intrusions before you received a warning from Comodo Defense+?
> 
> I am confident that the free Comodo Internet Security can stop anything unless you ignore alerts. For instance it defeats Conficker in three different ways.


They take turns  Avast is faster on some things and protects me on web sites too, Commodo works good on others.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

With all the excellent free AV's out there, this question maybe should be about wasting time instead of money.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

I wouldn't want to be without strong protection, although I have never been near a P2P site and do not go looking for trouble.

I think that more and more perfectly innocent sites are being infected by others without their knowledge and that that is the main danger for ordinary web users.


----------



## Option (Jun 22, 2004)

JamesFrance said:


> I wouldn't want to be without strong protection, although I have never been near a P2P site and do not go looking for trouble.
> 
> I think that more and more perfectly innocent sites are being infected by others without their knowledge and that that is the main danger for ordinary web users.


This is exactly what happened to me. I keep Windows XP updated but never bothered to renew Mcafee after my free trial expired a few years ago. I used Internet Explorer and had no other AV software on my computer since 99% of my internet surfing occured on a handful of known sites. Unfortunately, one of those "known sites" contracted a bug of some kind and now my computer is having major internet connectivity problems. The few times I've ever had a similar problem in the past, I came to this site and found help getting it resolved. Now the forums seem so flooded that I'm thinking about just reformatting (I've already waited five days for a reply to my post and I can't put off using my computer much longer)


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

I haven't used an av for over a year so far or any scanner for that matter really, I'll just download a scanner to scan my computer every so often to make sure I'm still clean (_So far still safe_),

But I wouldn't recommend to not use any security at all, I instead use a combination of sandboxing/HIPS (_Sandboxie/Comodo's Defence+_) and sometimes virtualization (_returnil_), As well as I'm always changing things on my computer so I would notice if something new is running or has changed, And of course backups 

Even so I do still *strongly recommend* that people use an anti-virus (_I always make sure my mother and sister have an up to date anti-virus_) since it's about the simplest solution since everyone is used to them and they do offer good protection depending on which one you use, It's just that there's so much malware being created it's hard to keep up...So of course one of the best protections is always a nice image of the hard drive :up:


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

While it's OK for the experienced and careful user to do as Gizzy does, it is not really recommended for the average casual user. They are the majority of the victims of malware and most of them don't keep what defenses they have updated.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

akaHothead said:


> While it's OK for the experienced and careful user to do as Gizzy does, it is not really recommended for the average casual user. They are the majority of the victims of malware and most of them don't keep what defenses they have updated.


Yes, Even though I do what I do I still *strongly recommend* the use of 1 anti-virus, 1 firewall, and 2 other good scanners like SUPERAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware for example.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

While I seriously doubt an experienced user can be without an antivirus and antispyware program, but it is possible. However if some of you would only realize what your personal advocacy of running without and scanning every so often does to an inexperienced user, you would never suggest such a thing. When you are a Mod or high poster, you have to take into account that new users look up to you and take what you say as gospel, so we really need to caution those who suggest such behavior, for the good of everyone else.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Didn't mean as OK meaning OK. Just that their experience and caution makes them SLIGHTLY less likely to get caught up by something. 
For myself, it's like my MasterCard. Never go online without it.

to Gizzy.
You be careful now, hear.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 23, 2008)

Guys,

I recently bought a laptop with Vista on it (last weekend)

On my former XP machine, I ran SpyBoy, ZoneAlarm and NOD32 (which is by many standards, the best) on my machine for protection.

I was as happy as can be.

However, Vista doesn't allow NOD32. Its incompatible, the drivers. I had to do a system restore to get the machine back up to speed it was that bad.

My question is...whats the next best thing to NOD32 for Vista?

Thanks,
Marc


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich-M said:


> While I seriously doubt an experienced user can be without an antivirus and antispyware program, but it is possible. However if some of you would only realize what your personal advocacy of running without and scanning every so often does to an inexperienced user, you would never suggest such a thing. When you are a Mod or high poster, you have to take into account that new users look up to you and take what you say as gospel, so we really need to caution those who suggest such behavior, for the good of everyone else.


I understand what you mean about giving new users the wrong idea which is why in my posts I make it clear that I recommend the use of an anti-virus,

But even so if any users on TSG think I should delete my post then just post here or pm me 
I can only delete it within the 24 hours....after that I'd have to ask if a moderator/admin would be willing :up:



akaHothead said:


> to Gizzy.
> You be careful now, hear.


I will


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear ablebaker,
The recent A-V programs (some free,some bought) have "stop at the gate" ability otherwise called "Pro-active defense".If that function is active, i can bet my bottom dollar that 99 out of 100 times, you are protected. The 1% chance is when the virus database of the A-V does not identify the virus. Do you know what percent of the members of this site have been infected? It should be less than 1%! Out of the millions of computer users out there, how many visit or are members here? Must be very a small percentage. We all know how viruses enter a system, 1)websites, 2) software downloads, 3) Updates, 4) p2p and other means.

My personal conviction is to encourage a newbie to computers to adopt safe habits and that includes installing an A-V program. You have received enough advise from seniors to decide for yourself whether to have an A-V or not. My simple advise is to have it and update it!:up:


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear MarkATL,
It appears that all the compatibility issues have not yet been resolved between Nod32 and Vista. The next best is either a freeware-Avira Antivir, or a purchased one-Kaspersky A-V (?8 version). I use KIS 2009 and my love affair with a free A-V was with AVG and it was a disaster. KIS alerted and REMOVED two trojans when i was on-line. Best wishes!


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

PCcruncher said:


> A lot of good advice here.
> 
> Maybe somewhat, but I wouldn't go without one. I have had several flash drive infections coming from the local photo kiosk, which were stopped by Avast before entering my computer.
> I am training at Malware removal, and so am very aware & on alert for things.
> ...


I got Firefox with NoScript and it blocks out iframe so going to the very same page Avast did not have anything to alert me about. But nice to know that it does do that also because I did not know.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

MarcATL said:


> Guys,
> 
> I recently bought a laptop with Vista on it (last weekend)
> 
> ...


Huh? I have run Nod32 on 3 Vista 32 bit PC's for over a year. What you might be experiencing is there is a 64 bit version for 64 bit Vista pc's and it is a little hard to find.
http://www.eset.com/download/home-64bit.php


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

No matter how good you are with computers, you need an antivirus. If you don't want to use one, go with Linux!

If you're concerned with computer performances, go with NOD32 and you won't feel any slowing down, especially with today's monstrously high speed computers. NOD32 needs very little system resources to do its job.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Phantom010 said:


> No matter how good you are with computers, you need an antivirus. If you don't want to use one, go with Linux!
> 
> If you're concerned with computer performances, go with NOD32 and you won't feel any slowing down, especially with today's monstrously high speed computers. NOD32 needs very little system resources to do its job.


Really good points!!!!


----------



## E-7 (Mar 7, 2009)

akaHothead said:


> Try going to the "Dark Side" of the web without an AV. Bet you become a believer real quick.


This is true


----------



## PCcruncher (Oct 24, 2007)

hewee said:


> I got Firefox with NoScript and it blocks out iframe so going to the very same page Avast did not have anything to alert me about. But nice to know that it does do that also because I did not know.


I run Noscript and adblock plus with firefox too, but somehow Avast got it first.

I just went to that site again, and didn't get the popup, just an Avast message at the bottom.


----------



## cliffdodger (Apr 3, 2009)

Hi, good discussion.. but I must add a few thoughts:



> Try going to the "Dark Side" of the web without an AV. Bet you become a believer real quick.


AMEN... very true.



> You've hit the nail on the head. Whether these things are needed is dependent on the user's habits.


I strongly disagree with this. You could at any time be targeted by a hobbyist or amateur hacker from anywhere in the world for any reason, even just for fun or curiosity, vandalism of some kind.. or for your online banking info. As well there ARE spiders that crawl the web similar to google that poke around for vulnerabilities in peoples systems. When it finds a potential vulnerability the bot program may try some scripted intrusion methods or it may be programmed to send a notification to a hacker/script kiddie using the software alerting them of a potential system to hack into. Obscurity and a low profile do diminish your risk on the web but do not keep you safe.



> I haven't used an av for over a year so far or any scanner for that matter really, I'll just download a scanner to scan my computer every so often to make sure I'm still clean (So far still safe),


I used to do this and it was fine, until I started having important info (ftp/ssh users/passes) and until I started doing online banking for a change. If you do online banking I WOULD NOT recommend this because if there is a trojan on your system you may have no symptoms of having a virus. The trojan runs silently and will have already sent off any of your browsers or windows "saved passwords" to a hacker/script kiddie most likely. As well it may continue running a keylogger and periodically send logs back to home - next thing you know your bank account is empty. There are people who make their living doing this and nothing else. They can also watch your screen like in vnc viewer, and they may be able to watch your webcam depending on the trojan. The trojan that infects you is basically a stealthy server with as small a memory footprint as they can manage (7k even) I've infected myself with one I controlled to see what you can do with them... the above is all true.



> Even though I do what I do I still strongly recommend the use of 1 anti-virus, 1 firewall, and 2 other good scanners like SUPERAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware for example.


Amen - personally I go with Nod32, Zone Alarm free (though there's much better out there for personal firewalls but I like it's "outgoing" controls - this is where you can stop a trojan from calling home even if it gets past your anti-virus - this however is a pain for new users, too much manual control), spybot, and 'just in case', A squared free anti-trojan. Even the best anti-virus programs will ocassionally miss the latest trojans. No a/v is perfect - in their tests even when they do well detecting viruses in the wild they still miss a few.



> However, Vista doesn't allow NOD32. Its incompatible, the drivers. I had to do a system restore to get the machine back up to speed it was that bad.


 - as mentioned, you were probably just trying to install the 32 bit version and you need to download the 64 bit version.



> The 1% chance is when the virus database of the A-V does not identify the virus


New viruses will not be in the database.... this is why it's good to get an Anti-Virus program that has good Heuristic scanning. (like Nod32, exceptional) Dictionary based scanning relies on the virus being defined. Heuristic scanning relies on detecting similarities in code between known virii and whatever files you're downloading.



> If you don't want to use one, go with Linux!


This is a Myth! So is the myth that Mac's don't get viruses. And when Mac's do get viruses the results are often so bad that the Mac goes back to apple and they send you a new one. (not in all cases) So be happy you have a pc that you paid 1/2 the price for. There are a growing number of viruses targetting Linux. The bulk of viruses are still written for windows because that's what the majority of pc users are using. Linux is certainly a much tighter ship to break into but it's not impenitrable. ANY operating system can get viruses. It just depends if anyone's written a virus good enough to get into your system or devised a clever enough delivery method to trick you into infecting yourself.



> NOD32 needs very little system resources to do its job.


Is it just me or has it gotten smaller? On one system it used to take up about 30MB of ram but on this current system it's only using about 15MB. Compare this with Trend-micro and Norton who come in at 80-100 megs and AVG which I think comes in around 60Megs.

If you're tired of your virus scanner slowing down your computer then I highly recommend Nod32. Very small memory footprint, very fast scanning, great heuristic scanning, and it does a great job of preventing infections on your pc. (they have linux versions available too)

I hope you don't mind the long post.
Cheers

p.s. Kudos to ablebaker for asking this question. This is a great thread, it's good for people to know WHY this software is important.


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

> This is a Myth!


Not really. So very few people use Linux that hackers do not see a great interest or challenge in creating malware for it... yet. Besides, they don't have a beef with it, like with Micro$oft... Of course, some day, it will probably become a target as more and more people cross over to Linux.

May I add... 10 Reasons You Shouldn't Switch To Linux.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

to Phantom010
I use the Opera browser for precisely the same reason.My brother uses it and got me hooked on it. Now my browser of choice.


----------



## cliffdodger (Apr 3, 2009)

> Not really. So very few people use Linux that hackers do not see a great interest or challenge in creating malware for it... yet. Besides, they don't have a beef with it, like with Micro$oft... Of course, some day, it will probably become a target as more and more people cross over to Linux.


On the contrary...


> Rooting a linux box via MySQL Injection


 - http://milw0rm.com/ People try to automate things like this all the time, creating viruses.

This is back in 2001...


> new virus that has the uncommon feature of infecting both Windows and Linux binary executables


http://www.linux.com/feature/9942

Back in 03,
http://www.desktoplinux.com/articles/AT3307459975.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses
http://www.techthrob.com/2009/03/02/do-i-need-an-antivirus-program-on-linux/

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6229

Even the reasons "because it's there" or "since it's a challenge" or enough for people to want to write Linux viruses. True, it's not as crucial as it is in windows to have a/v but it's still a very good idea (and clam av is free)

I think the desktop app's and browser plugins are going to be the entry points for most of the next generation linux viruses.

Thing is that with Linux you really want to step beyond just the definition of Viruses. There are plenty of other types of Malware out there that you want a scanner for. It may not be self replicating like a virus but someone CAN hack your system through other vulnerable software and use that to try to run a rootkit or manually hack further, or leave bot scripts on your computer to try any number of nasty things or to use your computer in attacking others (which they don't need root access to do). I've seen this firsthand and emailed myself some of these malicious scripts - when I tried to download them Nod32 for windows detected them as Linux viruses, lol.

The filesystem is a big place.. you want something checking it. IMHO.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

It is a good discussion 

I still recommend the use of an anti-virus but for those that think it's an impossibility to run without an anti-virus should spend a little time at Wilders Security forum there's quite a few people without an av, That's where I learned a lot about computer security enough to realize for me an av wasn't needed,

I actually am willing to go on bank sites on this computer  perhaps a little dangerous yes, but I have my computer very locked down...for example


I use a router with NAT + SPI protection,

I use opera with javascript, plugins, frames, and iframes *off*,

I don't even have java installed on my computer,

I only browse the net with my browser sandboxed inside sandboxie (_It's a lot harder to find a hole in sandboxie then it used to be_),

in my sandboxie settings I have it set with the dopped rights feature so it's like my browser is running from a limited account,

I only allow certain programs to run in the sandbox with my browser so that if I pick up a keylogger or other malware while browsing it can't run in the sandbox so it's dead in it's tracks, Here's instructions I wrote though there's settings in the gui now so I need to update it --> http://library.techguy.org/wiki/Stop_Keyloggers_In_Sandboxie

as well as only letting certain programs run in the sandbox I have an even shorter list of which programs in the sandbox can connect to the internet so if some far off chance a keylogger could run in the sandbox it couldn't send any info back,

Before going to any secure sites like a banking site for example I empty my sandbox and start with a fresh one,

Comodo's firewall on my computer is not default settings the firewall settings on my computer are MUCH higher,

Comodo's defense+ on my computer is not default it is MUCH higher as well,

Using comodo's defense+ my threatgate programs (browser, email client, etc..) are locked down even tighter with my own custom settings... A [library=Behavior Blocker]HIPS[/library] is a very powerful tool once you learn how to use it,

I also use other programs to harden my computer like Security & Privacy Complete for example

I only browse a small list of sites normally, which doesn't really matter these days though, but even so I am also willing to go to the dark side and have before trying to find malware...some of which I've played with (*in a "virtual machine", NOT on my actual computer*)

And like I said in an earlier post I do download a scanner and scan my computer every so often to make sure I'm still safe and so far they haven't found anything,

So as you can see even though I don't use an anti-virus I have other means of securing my pc and I would have to say I'm much more secure than the average person with an anti-virus :up:

BUT I would never suggest not using any security at all, because as you can see I DO have security and lots of it just not in the _traditional_ manner. 

It took me a long time to learn how to use these progams to their full potential and get everything set up how it is, So let's just say I've done my research...:up:


----------



## cliffdodger (Apr 3, 2009)

That's some neat stuff Gizzy. I'll definitely check that out. And yeah, if you know how to lock things down that tight you can get away without A/V all the time, but still... I prefer to know I'm protected. Most users won't want to run a sandbox  Only us geeks.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

cliffdodger said:


> That's some neat stuff Gizzy. I'll definitely check that out. And yeah, if you know how to lock things down that tight you can get away without A/V all the time, *but still... I prefer to know I'm protected.* Most users won't want to run a sandbox  Only us geeks.


Yes I understand perfectly  it took me a lot of reading and learning before I actually decided to stop using one, and even afterwards it takes a bit of getting used to not having one...

I didn't just make that decision overnight 

Also I updated my above post, number 1 and 14 are new in case you didn't see them :up:


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear Gizzy,
Deep Freeze, Returnil and Sandboxie are top notch and i know you do use Sandboxie! Any tips on "visiting the dark side of the web"?lol. Using Sandboxie, of course! You are to be congratulated for making the point that Comodo Firewall needs resetting and the default settings may not be enough!:up:

I too use FF3(Latest version) with Noscript and Ghostery. Anybody used TOR in FF3? Though not perfect,the browsing can be made relatively safe using Wot. Visit www.mywot.com.(this is not a link)sorry!


----------



## Bichey (Feb 11, 2009)

Guys, don't forget to buy & use ACRONIS or NORTON GHOST.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

PCcruncher said:


> I run Noscript and adblock plus with firefox too, but somehow Avast got it first.
> 
> I just went to that site again, and didn't get the popup, just an Avast message at the bottom.


I changed to allow iframe and the Avast popped. I reload the page and no pop-up again but not sure on how it deals with the iframes. 
I think it is more of an "message only" then anything else because there is no added things to click on. It was just that one message box like you got. Where your other one on the first page had another message and the pop up warning.

Go to the eicar | THE ANTI- VIRUS OR ANTI-MALWARE TEST FILE and you can really test out your programs.
Avast does great and your know right away if you click to download any test file. Also if you do download using I think the default setting your get the download but it will be empty so your protected even better. You would have to go into your setting and disable and or close down parts of Avast to be able to download a working AV test file. The older AVG I had before about a year ago did not do anything and I had no trouble downloading any of the test files. Made it more easy to get the files to test other programs and email programs and online email accounts. But at the same time AVG let me download it and if it really was something bad it did not stop it like Avast did. 
I like the way Avast works because it makes it harder to get what it sees as bad and that only protects you. All you ever need to do is click cancel and it still downloads a file from a site because it's a bad a site and it will download the file even if you don't want it but with Avast it should turn up empty so that is great.


----------



## PCcruncher (Oct 24, 2007)

Hewee, I did not have iframe blocked with noscript so that is why Avast got it.

That is an interesting site, Commodo gets the first 2, with Avast getting the 2 zipped files. :up:


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

PCcruncher said:


> Hewee, I did not have iframe blocked with noscript so that is why Avast got it.
> 
> That is an interesting site, Commodo gets the first 2, with Avast getting the 2 zipped files. :up:


What ever Avast is great. I had a-squared Anti-Malware turned off because it screws up the Admin account so I had to disable parts of it. Can not find out why it acts up under the Admin account and works great under the user account.
But you get lots of alerts from a-squared Anti-Malware and I Online Armor that alerts you to things also. 
So not having the same programs it effects how fast or what one gets to the alert first. A2 and Avast are very fast at letting you know something is going on.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Gizzy, since you already use Comodo firewall and defense+, I am curious to know why you would not run the av component of CIS as well? It seems to have so little effect on CPU and memory use that I cannot see any reason to exclude it. The only thing that occurs to me is that the daily definition updates can be a bit annoying.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> Dear Gizzy,
> Deep Freeze, Returnil and Sandboxie are top notch and i know you do use Sandboxie! Any tips on "visiting the dark side of the web"?lol. Using Sandboxie, of course! You are to be congratulated for making the point that Comodo Firewall needs resetting and the default settings may not be enough!:up:
> 
> I too use FF3(Latest version) with Noscript and Ghostery. Anybody used TOR in FF3? Though not perfect,the browsing can be made relatively safe using Wot. Visit www.mywot.com.(this is not a link)sorry!


Oh yes I happen to love sandboxie :up:

If you really want tips for browsing the darkside then you can see some of the things I do with sandboxie in my above post,
as well as you already use noscript,
and sometimes I'll turn on returnil along with using sandboxie,
and also be very careful...and if you were just joking then never mind :up:



JamesFrance said:


> Gizzy, since you already use Comodo firewall and defense+, I am curious to know why you would not run the av component of CIS as well? It seems to have so little effect on CPU and memory use that I cannot see any reason to exclude it. The only thing that occurs to me is that the daily definition updates can be a bit annoying.


I figured I would be asked why I'm not using one, but to be honest I don't really have a *good* reason for not using one,

I have some small one's 

The _slight_ speed gain from not having something constantly scanning my computer, but it's not a very good excuse since I have a dual-core, but my ram is a bit low with less than a gig and all my programs I use to customize my computer,

The laziness of not having to update the scanner or perform the scans (_Though I do scan every so often_)

Didn't feel like I actually needed one after all my other steps I've taken, I prefer my protection since no av detects 100% and I believe my setup (_*When used properly*_) happens to protect very well against zero-day and other threats,

The AV on my computer (avira premium) never seemed to detect anything but false positives, Not because it was a bad av, but rather because I don't seem to be very good at finding malware, 

I prefer to have a small amount of security programs because of less system impact and less chance of conflicts, though I wasn't always this way, I see you hangout at wilder's check out what I think was my first post at wilder's, you don't have to read it all but just take a look at what security I used to use, 

Also the main reason I use comodo is I happen to like their HIPS for free it's very good,

Though I have been meaning to test out Comodo's AV but I haven't gotten around to it yet, I don't think I'll start using it regularly (_or any other av_) but I did want to test it out. :up:


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Gizzy said:


> I have some small one's
> 
> The _slight_ speed gain from not having something constantly scanning my computer, but it's not a very good excuse since I have a dual-core, but my ram is a bit low with less than a gig and all my programs I use to customize my computer,
> 
> The laziness of not having to update the scanner or perform the scans (_Though I do scan every so often_)


I just checked the memory use of the complete CIS program I have running and at this moment it shows
cfp.exe 7348Ko and cmdagent.exe 1712Mo. This is less than the previous Comodo Firewall used to use on it's own. I do not know how they managed that.

The av updates automatically, so it may use more then though. You can schedule scans for whenever happens to suit you.

I hope you give it a try to check it out, I think you would be impressed with it now.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

to JamesFrance
I use the older version(2.4) of the Comodo Personal Firewall. Currently, Task Manager shows cpf.exe at 5404K


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Hi akaHothead

2.4 was a good basic firewall and was the first Comodo program I used having had all sorts of trouble with some others. However it is no longer supported and I was meaning to compare with 3.0, which was the last one before the antivirus was added, but is fairly close to the current version. The current version is 3.8 and 3.9 is expected in a few weeks, so I doubt whether 2.4 is worth using now unless you have a pre XP version of Windows unable to run 3.8. There are many better firewalls available today.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

I don't see any reason why anyone would operate without an anti-virus program these days since there are so many choices and even decent free ones which are light weight and better than nothing regardless of other measures in place. 

It has been suggested that this thread be closed but I think it's a good discussion and hopefully users will learn about things like url iframe, javascript and other exploits you can encounter even on sites that are not malicious. This is an important issue as it's happening more frequently these days and the sites are not even aware their url has malicious code embedded in it so if you do come across something like this they should be informed so they can clean it up and prevent others from getting infected. Using Firefox with NoScript is a good method of protection as it will prevent these exploits from running. 

WOT (Web of Trust) has also been mentioned as a means of protection and McAfee has a similar product as well with Site Advisor. If you download these programs they will rate sites that come up in your searches as red or green before you even click on them. Or you can check the sites by entering the url in McAfee's Site Advisor, WOT or Norton Safe Web.

I also like to mouseover a link first and if I see another site embedded in the url you will likely be redirected there so I would check that out before clicking.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

perfume said:


> We all know how viruses enter a system, 1)websites, 2) software downloads, 3) Updates, 4) p2p and other means.


I'm just curious about which "Updates" you're referring to?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

akaHothead said:


> While it's OK for the experienced and careful user to do as Gizzy does, it is not really recommended for the average casual user. They are the majority of the victims of malware and most of them don't keep what defenses they have updated.


Just picked this thread up. I can't imagine why most folks would allow updates to lapse, even the free products automatically update their definitions and program modules. It's pretty mindless.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Good discussion here. But I would disagree with the post that most people with malware problems have done P2P and illegal things. I have a couple weird things going on my computer, and I don't use P2P or other illegal software. I do use an anti-virus, software firewall, and NAT firewall.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

Jason08 said:


> Good discussion here. But I would disagree with the post that most people with malware problems have done P2P and illegal things. I have a couple weird things going on my computer, and I don't use P2P or other illegal software. I do use an anti-virus, software firewall, and NAT firewall.


Well most does mean "not everyone" Jason so you may be in that category but you certainly don't have much company there.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Jason08 said:


> Good discussion here. But I would disagree with the post that most people with malware problems have done P2P and illegal things. I have a couple weird things going on my computer, and I don't use P2P or other illegal software. I do use an anti-virus, software firewall, and NAT firewall.


You obviously are correct about yourself but I clean pc's for a living and in almost every case of severely messed up pc's, I find "Limewire" or "Frostwire" onboard as the most common P2p source but there are others as well. I have never seen a pc that had Limewire onboard that was not literally destroyed with Trojans and all forms of spyware and I am including the "Pro" version.

A few months ago I added a torrent downloader to one of my bench machines and even though I never used it, that pc started acting so weird with all kinds of instability I finally removed it and everything I was seeing stopped. It was really an eye opener for me.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Cookiegal said:


> I don't see any reason why anyone would operate without an anti-virus program these days since there are so many choices and even decent free ones which are light weight and better than nothing regardless of other measures in place.
> 
> It has been suggested that this thread be closed but I think it's a good discussion and hopefully users will learn about things like url iframe, javascript and other exploits you can encounter even on sites that are not malicious. This is an important issue as it's happening more frequently these days and the sites are not even aware their url has malicious code embedded in it so if you do come across something like this they should be informed so they can clean it up and prevent others from getting infected. Using Firefox with NoScript is a good method of protection as it will prevent these exploits from running.
> 
> ...


I haven't tested many antivirus programs recently but I must add that Nod32 Antivirus has site warning messages as well and at times will even prevent you from going to sites it sense are dangerous or spoofed. I also believe Avg just added the same ability though I did not install it on a few pc's that had Avg 8.5 going on them, because Avg addons are usually so ineffective and obnoxious, so I'd be curious if anyone has any experience with this.


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

Rich-M said:


> I haven't tested many antivirus programs recently but I must add that Nod32 Antivirus has site warning messages as well and at times will even prevent you from going to sites it sense are dangerous or spoofed. I also believe Avg just added the same ability though I did not install it on a few pc's that had Avg 8.5 going on them, because Avg addons are usually so ineffective and obnoxious, so I'd be curious if anyone has any experience with this.


Oh there are definitely others and I didn't name them all. I'm running Kaspersky and it has that type of protection as well. I'm not big on AVG these days and feel that Avast is the better one but that's not speaking from experience (although I did run AVG many years ago), just from what I've heard and the features it has.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

ablebaker said:


> What's the point of using these antivirus programs? (such as McAfee, Symantec, etc) I have been looking through the posts in the Malaware Removal forum, and it appears most of the folks with problems have some antivirus program installed. The only thing the antivirus software does is maybe identify the malaware. Most folks seem to know there is something wrong due to slow or strange behavior of their computers. I would be especially annoyed if I paid $30 a year and the product could not do as well or better than the human helpers on the support forum. I mean the customer is buying a PROGRAM!. It should be able to automatically carry out the steps that people do manually in the support forum. Don't the folks at McAfee, Symantec, etc bother to read these forums, see what the problems are, and fix up their products? Well, I thought I would provide a small rant on behalf of all the folks suffering malaware infestations that should be removed automatically by the $$$ antivirus programs.


It's not hard to see your logic but look at it this way.... most of us are required to wear seatbelts in our cars by law but that's no guarantee that we won't get killed in an auto accident.

On the other hand using seatbelts has helped many many people in that their injuries could have been far worse or fatal had they not been wearing them.

That said with the quality of the free antivirus applications out there such as AntiVir PE I refuse to pay for a subscription to get updates when it clearly isn't necessary.

Some people will never learn and as a result experience continued infestations as they either refuse to improve their surfing practices or are under the misguided notion that because they have an antivirus installed that they are safe to hang out at questionable sites with impunity.

FireFox, AntiVir PE, SuperAntiSpyware, Windows firewall, CCleaner, and a router have kept me safe for a long time and continue to do so.

Resisting the urge to click on links offering cool freebies without first doing some research is a good place to start safe surfing.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

LoneWolf_53 said:


> It's not hard to see your logic but look at it this way.... most of us are required to wear seatbelts in our cars by law but that's no guarantee that we won't get killed in an auto accident.
> 
> On the other hand using seatbelts has helped many many people in that their injuries could have been far worse or fatal had they not been wearing them.


 Ha, funny you should mention that, because last month I did an essay in school that mentioned that.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

I think it is sad that new computer users buy a popular machine with pre-installed security software and they know no better than to believe the messages they get after 3 months which tell them they need to pay a subscription to keep safe on the www.

When I first got myself on the internet 4 years ago (having not previously had a phone line as I tend to live on boats), my ISP charged me 5 per month for security software which was installed along with their own programs from CDs. Being in a country with a language I was not familiar with, I thought this was an essential part of the contract and not an option. The program was a constant source of trouble, so I looked around for alternatives and quickly learned that there was no need to pay for good security and since then have never had anything bad on my computers.

I think that the most ridiculous quotation you ever see is 'You get what you pay for'.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Going back years ago I used Netscape when most others also used Netscape. Had IBM AV on the PC. It was told to Norton so got a free Norton AV. Update to them were free for life back then also but after 4 or so years they end the life of that software to get updates. 
Later MS had the fight with Netscape and then most all new PC's came with IE but no Netscape and your started to see more people post that got something online. IE default setting back then had you wide open to let anything happen. Even if you changed the setting most did not understand how or what to change.
With Netscape it was block 3rd party cookies and turn of the Java and Java Script and that was it. You could go just about any place and almost all web sites worked. 
Was told to get WinPatrol so I did and that was about when it first came out but I did not understand it because it was just setting there by the clock and never doing anything so I uninstalled it. I did no know it was working and I was not getting popups from it because nothing bad was going on.
Later it got to where you needed to turn on the Java and Java Script to get sites to work right.
Then you lost the protection of having Java and Java Script. 
More sites start using Java and Java Script and more bad things could also be done.
Later Firefox comes out and it had added options on rights you could give to sites so that was good.
Then the add-ons like NoScript that are a most have came out.
It can be hard to setup but worth it and you can do it in one night and then export the setting so your have a backup so you can start over easy.
It puts you back into control again and you can block out all the added things that are bad. 
iframe can be a bad one and with it blocked it can make some sites a pain to deal with or I think it is the iframe being blocked.
I have to do added things at hotmail to get to the email and to download any attachments.
But I will keep it that way because it keeps me in control of what happen at web sites and things are block so your not on a auto this and that that where all things run on there own and and good or bad thing can happen. 
I still WinPatrol Plus and would not go without it. It's a most have.
A good firewall is a most have. 
I was like some that used the older 4.x times version of Zone Alarm Pro for years and never updated it because after the first year of free updates I stopped. But I knew how it worked and it did what it was made to do and protected me.
Now I got Online Armor and it does more because it protects you from bad sites so it is something you want to keep update.
I guess you could say no to updates but then your on your own and you may do OK but you may not.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

JamesFrance said:


> I just checked the memory use of the complete CIS program I have running and at this moment it shows
> cfp.exe 7348Ko and cmdagent.exe 1712Mo. This is less than the previous Comodo Firewall used to use on it's own. I do not know how they managed that.
> 
> The av updates automatically, so it may use more then though. You can schedule scans for whenever happens to suit you.
> ...


Yes comodo always uses a small footprint with memory 

I am going to try it out eventually,

Though I just thought of another reason why I'm not using an av

An av combined with my other security measures makes it kind of boring (_for me anyway_)
but without an av I'm not letting the program decide what's bad or not, I need to stay more on my toes since I'm making the decisions of what happens on my computer and if I slip up then I'll be in trouble, it's more exciting 

Like I said I don't really have any *good* reasons since I don't really think there are any good reasons for not using one


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

to Gizzy
That way if you get infected, theres nobody but yourself to blame.
Same if you let someone else at your machine and they do something stupid. Who let them there? Right.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

akaHothead said:


> to Gizzy
> That way if you get infected, theres nobody but yourself to blame.
> Same if you let someone else at your machine and they do something stupid. Who let them there? Right.


Sure I like to take full responsibility of my computer,

And actually nobody ever wants to use my computer because of all the changes I've made to it between customizing it and the security I have on it I seem to be the only one that knows how to use it, :up:

Though if anyone ever wants to go on my computer I turn on returnil so any changes they make get's deleted after I reboot.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Sounds like you might have it covered>
My approach is to let no one at all(except repairmen) to be around mine> And even then, I'm standing right there.


----------



## techchic777 (Apr 6, 2007)

okay..is there such a thing as a good free anti virus protection? I just let a guy work on my computer and he told me AVG was useless, and that I had a worm infestation that wiped my registry...I have downloaded Avira..does anyone have an opinion on this software? Any guidance is appreciated..i am currently strapped for a lot of cash at the moment and would (preferably) like to get a really good freeware version of antivirus protection or moderately cheap like 29.99? Thanks for any reply....


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Avira AntiVir is consistently in the top 3 of the free AV programs. It is the one that is on my own machine.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear hewee,
From one scotty to another-woof,woof,woof (Dog language,meaning "we alert the owner first"lol).

Dear Techchic,
Avira Antivir is excellent and you can download the freeware from:http://www.free-av.com/ , and as mentioned before, updating is real important. This product has recently added Anti-spyware too and that's a big plus.

Dear Gizzy,
There were a number of assassination attempts on Charles De Gaulle( First president of France after second world war) and none were successful. He famously said" these guys cannot even shoot straight!". I think you are riding your luck!lol


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

@techchic777
Another :up: for avira from me, 

@perfume
I may be, but I'll keep doing it unless I happen to one day get an infection, :up:
If and when that day may come then I probably won't rethink just having an AV I'll rethink my entire security setup 

Since right now I don't use an AV but I definitely am not using my computer without security, I happen to have a very strong security setup just not traditional manner. 

@all
I happen to believe security should depend on more than just AV now, while *AV is a big part of the protection for users* I think more should be done for some examples


People should turn off java, javascript, plug-ins, and frames/iframes in their browsers and only select which sites are allowed to have them turned on

If a person uses firefox then they should be using noscript

Users should use something like WOT to view how secure a site is

Users should be more cautious with what they click or download, whether it be in emails or on webpages

There are more things that can be done but those are just some of the basic things that I can think of off the top of my head right now.


----------



## Bichey (Feb 11, 2009)

avira :up:


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear Gizzy,
I think you like "supping with the saints and dancing with the Devils!". I fully agree with the additional protection measures you posted. If i may add opening .exe files is fraught with risk. I would'nt open ANY e-mail attachment, even if it is from the Lord above! I just now did a smart scan with a-squared(free) and it showed up with 19 infections! I submitted every single file to jotti's malware scan and the results across the board were"Nothing Found" for all the files! Very interestingly a-squared is included in jotti's! Please see the thumbnail!


----------



## techchic777 (Apr 6, 2007)

Thanks you guys so much for the quick replys...Have a great night all!


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear ablebaker,
Out of confusion emerges CLARITY! Good thread you started amigo!:up:


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> Dear Gizzy,
> I think you like "supping with the saints and dancing with the Devils!". I fully agree with the additional protection measures you posted. If i may add opening .exe files is fraught with risk. I would'nt open ANY e-mail attachment, even if it is from the Lord above! I just now did a smart scan with a-squared(free) and it showed up with 19 infections! I submitted every single file to jotti's malware scan and the results across the board were"Nothing Found" for all the files! Very interestingly a-squared is included in jotti's! Please see the thumbnail!


"*dancing with the Devils*"
Ever hear of the jersey devil? 

Yes email attachments have been a good way for malware to spread,

A-squared I remember does tend to have a lot of false positives,
Don't get me wrong it's a good scanner though there should be caution with it's scanning results,
so it's good that you upload them to jotti,
but it is strange that it showed nothing found for a-squared when you just did a scan and it did,
maybe different definition versions? if you updated a-squared's definitions before scanning then yours might be newer?
They update them every hour at jotti's,
or perhaps you have different herustics settings?
it's been awhile since I used a-squared (before they put the AV in it) so I don't know if there's a setting for that.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

perfume said:


> Dear hewee,
> From one scotty to another-woof,woof,woof (Dog language,meaning "we alert the owner first"lol).


Woof woof woof  
Yes you got to love Scotty. I do not always get the barking sound on pop up and that has happen on and off from version 10 with 98SE and XP Pro.
Do not know why but I think so of it started when he was trying to make it work for Vista. I did lots of testing on the versions back around that time helping Bill out who was nice to give me the Plus version. Well I won it in a contest that was an image contest at Calendar of Updates that turned out to be easy because there was only a couple who got into it so I could not lose.
Later after helping at his forums I got from him for free as a thank you the WinPatrol PLUS Sport Shirt.

Bill is a good guy who is not selling out to the bad guys.
 No, I Don't Want Your #^$% Toolbar

So the greatest gift I ever got was from Bill for the WinPatrol because you get free upgrades for life so even if you pay you pay just the one time.

Good reading here also. I hope Bill does sell more now for standing his ground and not selling out to ask.
Good Public Relations Can Really Work


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

hewee said:


> Woof woof woof
> Yes you got to love Scotty. I do not always get the barking sound on pop up and that has happen on and off from version 10 with 98SE and XP Pro.
> Do not know why but I think so of it started when he was trying to make it work for Vista. I did lots of testing on the versions back around that time helping Bill out who was nice to give me the Plus version. Well I won it in a contest that was an image contest at Calendar of Updates that turned out to be easy because there was only a couple who got into it so I could not lose.
> Later after helping at his forums I got from him for free as a thank you the WinPatrol PLUS Sport Shirt.
> ...


Another thing that cost nothing is to read the threads and see what trouble other have and how they get fixed. You can learn a lot and your even forget a lot but your still be learning. 
That is how I learned thing being a member at an IBM forum and it was full of real IBM techs also and that was 10 years or so back so it was easy to read every post at the forum. 
Here your have to much so pick a forum and just read each thread.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear hewee,
Excellent observations on the philosophy and morals one should inculcate in life! A BIG THANK YOU! Lucky you,Win Patrol Plus for free, that's a real bonus. TG.ORG is a mine of info' and reading previous threads really helps. If you see under the "Operating Systems", there are so many posts in a day that you really have to go back and see what's happened to your reply or question! It's like a tread mill in full tilt.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Glad you got something out of it because your keep learning. 
Yes I was lucky to win and CoU had other contest and I won a lot of other software also and won I think 3 or 4 of the same program because they had so many to give away and not a whole lot got into the contest so I win 1st, 2nd and so on. 
I had I think close to every program Tenebril  made and more then one of many. GhostSurf I used but it was sucking up all the memory and 15 min's after boot up it used all my memory up so I took it off. Used SpyCatcher as a 2nd stand by scanner because I had another real time scanner running all the time. WinPatrol really help on it too because each time I start SpyCatcher to update it, it loaded things back into the startup again. Then I got one or more of each of these also. http://www.tenebril.com/consumer/utilities.php
But after trouble and a lot of bad false things coming up on scans for months by me and others I took SpyCatcher off the PC along with there other software.

Then I won a lot more over at CastleCops » Security Forums. I am using the Online Armor and a-squared Anti-Malware, SUPERAntiSpyware Professional with lifetime updates. Plus another 6 programs. That contest you just had to be a member and get pick but they had so many companies giving software etc away I think everyone won some with others getting more.

I know here it's hard to keep up if you read each thread in some forums because there are so many post. So just pick the forums that you can understand better and stay with it. I over the threads and just pick some in a forum because it gives you less to read. 
Or go to another forum that has less people posting and then you can get a little of everything slower and keep up with all post. 
Back at that IBM forum we had this one lady that was very smart. She would every so many weeks go tru every unanswered thread and answer things. It was a lot of work but she wanted all to be answered. It got to be to much for the owner to take care and there was no mods to help out and some bad things happen a couple of times and he just said good bye I am closing down the site in Sept, 2001. He keep the other IBM info up for years and it only close this pass Oct. 31, 2008. You could find out anything on any IBM Aptiva.
Or I should say AOL shut his site down and I guess a lot of others.
http://www.peopleconnectionblog.com/2008/11/06/hometown-has-been-shutdown
http://www.aptivasupport.com/
Got Alice still around and she has notes of so many post.
http://home.att.net/~wymette/aptiva.htm
Old info on old PC's but great to know if you have the older computers. I just got a older Aptiva 800/2198 with software given to me from my sister who does the networking at her church and they got newer ones and she gets the older ones. So its nice to have a place to go. IBM had closed down there forums and then all info was no longer there on the Aptiva's. They now have it back so I was able to get more info on the Aptiva. I am not sure what all was changed on the PC so be nice to know what came with it.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 23, 2008)

Excellent thread...just excellent. I'm soaking everything up.

Just one thing, whats the beef with AVG that makes Avira so much better? 

I was about to d/l AVG before I started reading this thread a few days ago, and now have rethought it and am about to install Avira.

Can someone break that down?


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

Well, just search the forum for every AVG related issue and you might understand...


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Here is one.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Jason08 said:


> Here is one.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

MarcATL said:


> Excellent thread...just excellent. I'm soaking everything up.
> 
> Just one thing, whats the beef with AVG that makes Avira so much better?
> 
> ...


Not so long ago any new user with a techie friend would be told to use AVG for a free antivirus.

Many experienced people have never changed that advice, however things move on and if you cast around for opinions today you will find that Avira and Avast are the most favoured.

Personally I am using Comodo's antivirus, because I have used their Firewall and Hips for a long time and so I am confident that I would be alerted to anything and stop it before the av would need to catch it. It is also a complete program, so does not slow down my computer or require much attention in it's present standard configuration.

Now I also happen to believe that the Comodo av has reached the stage where it's performance and detection is up there with the best. BUT there have been few comparative tests to support that opinion, so for now, without other security software, Avira would be my choice also.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Excellent thread...just excellent. I'm soaking everything up.
> 
> Just one thing, whats the beef with AVG that makes Avira so much better?
> 
> ...


I prefer the configuration options of Avira and I prefer to distance myself from software that I know has caused people issues and when Avast introduced their latest and greatest there were lots of issues.

It's entirely possible that they've been addressed by now but since Avira performs the same task without issues I see no reason to fix what isn't broken so I stay with AntiVir PE.


----------



## kmcma2002 (Jun 7, 2002)

so what is the best anti virus to buy? i have to renew had webroot but searched and found a shield deluxe? and am trying out est nod 32.... anyway, I did try the free av but still had a trojan.............so...............thanks


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear kmcma2002,
1) ESET's Smart security suite(includes nod32)
2)Kaspersky internet security suite2009.,
3)BitDefender complete security suite and
4)Comodo internet security suite pro. 

Best wishes!


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

I had the older AVG on 98SE and support was going to end so I needed to change.
It was a pick from Avira and Avast and I picked Avast and like it.
I have never use Avira so can't say anything about it but it is top rated also

Note:
When you read about any program that has a free and a paid version you need to know what versions they are talking about.
On some no mater what version most thing are the same but other programs like Zone Alarm free that is at the bottom of the list with there paid version up closer to the top of the list.
Then over time things change because years ago it did not matter what version of ZA you had it was top rated.

One thing anyone can use a good Hosts file. It works all the time and does not matter browser you use.
Spy Bot Search and Destroy has a Hosts file in it but I never use it.
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File
Read all the pages from the top drop down too.
I use a hosts file manager that makes it more easy to update and edit. 
I have 4 hosts file put together also. 
What they do is block out ads, tracking sites, bad sites etc. It can even help speed up page loads by killing ads, tracking etc but the best part is to stop bad things that come from bad sites because you can not go there.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

kmcma2002 said:


> so what is the best anti virus to buy? i have to renew had webroot but searched and found a shield deluxe? and am trying out est nod 32.... anyway, I did try the free av but still had a trojan.............so...............thanks


I hope you don't think a paid version is a guarantee that you won't ever get a trojan but if you want to pay then Nod 32 is a good choice.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear hewee,
Hey, this thread is like a"live and learn" one. Thanks once again for the "hosts file" info'! Looking forward to more posts from you!:up:


----------



## pcdebol (Mar 2, 2009)

I would just like to say I am running Bit defender and Norton 2009. The bit defender doesn't hold a candle to the norton. Two years ago I would have said I would rather have a virus than norton but after the recent rewrite it is an incredible product with great detection.The only unknown attachments that have come to my e-mail since having both suites running Bit defender has missed and Norton has caught. Not to mention the fact the new norton runs completely silent. Scans when the system is idle so it doesn't affect your work ect. My only complaint about the norton is the firewall and that is why I still have bit defender on a few computers If you are in a heavy network environment running sql servers and such it can cause problems. Also I have had it cause problems on machines with multiple user accounts. But for a single user at home its tough to beat.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

kmcma2002 said:


> so what is the best anti virus to buy? i have to renew had webroot but searched and found a shield deluxe? and am trying out est nod 32.... anyway, I did try the free av but still had a trojan.............so...............thanks


Hi kmcma,

You mention Shield deluxe.

I would suggest that you install WOT and have a look at the member ratings for pcsecurityshield.com.

http://www.mywot.com/

http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/pcsecurityshield.com


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

pcdebol said:


> I would just like to say I am running Bit defender and Norton 2009. The bit defender doesn't hold a candle to the norton. Two years ago I would have said I would rather have a virus than norton but after the recent rewrite it is an incredible product with great detection.The only unknown attachments that have come to my e-mail since having both suites running Bit defender has missed and Norton has caught. Not to mention the fact the new norton runs completely silent. Scans when the system is idle so it doesn't affect your work ect. My only complaint about the norton is the firewall and that is why I still have bit defender on a few computers If you are in a heavy network environment running sql servers and such it can cause problems. Also I have had it cause problems on machines with multiple user accounts. But for a single user at home its tough to beat.


You are running both at the same time?


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

McAfee is also a good paid anti-virus.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Jason08 said:


> McAfee is also a good paid anti-virus.


Really. Funny I notice lately the really offensive spyware programs that disable antivirus and antispyware the minute they get in, don't even bother with MacAfee. I see so many infected computers with this on, I think it has to be the worst in the industry.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

It has blocked trojans before on my computer.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

Rich-M said:


> Really. Funny I notice lately the really offensive spyware programs that disable antivirus and antispyware the minute they get in, don't even bother with MacAfee. I see so many infected computers with this on, I think it has to be the worst in the industry.


I agree and we won't even mention the drain on system resources.

Many feel that McAfee is akin to a virus and I think they're right.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Akin, or in cahoots? Or maybe the viruses don't or aren't threatened by McAfee.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear LoneWolf_53,
Comparing McAfee with a virus is not correct.I am posting below a few web definitions of a virus: 
Definitions of *computer virus* on the Web:


virus: a software program capable of reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files or other programs on the same computer ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_virus
: A program which can be transmitted between computers via networks (especially the Internet) or removable storage such as CDs, USB drives, floppy disks, etc., generally without the knowledge or consent of the recipient. ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/computer_virus
A dangerous computer program with the characteristic feature of being able to generate copies of itself, and thereby spreading. Additionally most computer viruses have a destructive payload that is activated under certain conditions. ...
www.datarecoverydoctor.co.uk/data-recovery-dictionary.html
 Every A-V has it's highs and lows and McAfee nowadays is paddling in the rapids with little success,that much i agree! Six years back i used McAfee
security center without a problem and i had to switch it off because those guys were renewing without consent,meaning they kept my credit card number and that is a gross offense! Since then it was way down south for them.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear ablebaker,
What is your decision now, after viewing so many posts, some "for" and some"not necessary", regarding A-V programs. If you carefully see, the thread is now more concerned about which A-V gives more bangs per buck! If you were to take a straw poll among the members of this site,the majority will say "yea" or as we say "oui!". Jump in to the grape barrel and start crushing with a swish and a whirl, so that at the end of it all we get to sip some Burgundy wine( Vintage, if you like!lol). What say, dear hewee?


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

I AM sorely missing Sniper! Come and join the hunt. You're okay, aren't you?


----------



## ablebaker (Apr 2, 2009)

Thanks for all the comments. But the puzzle remains, if the antivirus programs actually eliminated malware, then the only instructions the helpers in the "Malware Removal & HJT Logs" would be to install and run one of the products listed in "Security Help Tools".

I am definitly deep in the Dark Side - I run Win VISTA with no anti-malware, but no infections (verified by using one of online scanners such as Kaspersky). I have been using PCs since I built my first Altair 8800 in the 1970s and, so far, have had just one infection. (I accidentally clicked the wrong way on an email attachment - I meant to look at it with the editor instead I ran it.) WARNING: I am not recommending this policy - when I work on other folks PCs, I always make sure they have an updated AV program.

I like Gizzy's policy - see #33. What he does is way more sophisticated than what I do, but I like that is based on reason and logic.

I have not seen one posting so far that points to a "Consumer Reports" type rigorous testing of the antivirus program's elimination abilities (not just detection). For example, install ESET NOD32 (just to pick on one at random) on a fresh Win XP with all updates, then visit, download, install and run stuff from various P2P sites and see what happens.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

perfume said:


> I AM sorely missing Sniper! Come and join the hunt. You're okay, aren't you?


 Maybe he's just taking some time off (spring break.)


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

ablebaker said:


> Thanks for all the comments. But the puzzle remains, if the antivirus programs actually eliminated malware, then the only instructions the helpers in the "Malware Removal & HJT Logs" would be to install and run one of the products listed in "Security Help Tools".


The programs do not always remove all of the malware.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Jason08 said:


> The programs do not always remove all of the malware.


But at least they need to identify that malware is present and remove the .exe file.

But that is the problem with antivirus programs, if they do not have it in their database they will not know it is there. Therefore the av should be the last line of defense as there is so much new every day now.

An antivirus program alone is no protection;


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

JamesFrance said:


> But at least they need to identify that malware is present and remove the .exe file.
> 
> But that is the problem with antivirus programs, if they do not have it in their database they will not know it is there. Therefore the av should be the last line of defense as there is so much new every day now.
> 
> An antivirus program alone is no protection;


This is only partly true and true of the poorer antivirus programs as the better ones have better developed heurisitcs that also are programmable and heuristics can deal with suspected malware behavior without knowing specifically what the malware is.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Rich-M said:


> This is only partly true and true of the poorer antivirus programs as the better ones have better developed heurisitcs that also are programmable and heuristics can deal with suspected malware behavior without knowing specifically what the malware is.


Agreed, but heuristics are about detecting suspicious behaviour and are likely to produce false positives.

Unless you know how to check these out before removing the files, you can easily disable perfectly valid programs.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

JamesFrance said:


> Agreed, but heuristics are about detecting suspicious behaviour and are likely to produce false positives.
> 
> Unless you know how to check these out before removing the files, you can easily disable perfectly valid programs.


While that can happen, it is not necessarily an expected result. I have never seen anything that Nod32 wanted to delete that was worth having false positive or not.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Rich-M said:


> While that can happen, it is not necessarily an expected result. I have never seen anything that Nod32 wanted to delete that was worth having false positive or not.


According to the Malware Research Group, Nod32 does not delete much malware anyway:

http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2


----------



## Kenny94 (Dec 16, 2004)

JamesFrance said:


> According to the Malware Research Group, Nod32 does not delete much malware anyway:
> 
> http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2


IMO, I do not go by independent test labs! There misleading (period). The users of the product is what I go by. ESET NOD32 Antivirus or ESET Smart Security is one of the best Security products out there. I have tested ESET NOD32 and a few other Security products on a live machine and in a VMware environment. ESET NOD32 did well. I used most of the infections as MRG.

But Virus.Win32.Virut.bv is a different ballgame IMO. You can spend days on trying to fix the damage and still not know if it's really ever been fixed and you'll never be able trust the computer for stuff like Banking or other personal data transactions. After being infected with Win32:Virut!


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear cookiegal,
I am very sorry for the late reply about how a virus can spread via MS updates.
I Quote" Kido initially spread via local networks and removable storage devices. Specifically, it exploited the critical MS08-067 vulnerability patched by Microsoft back in October 2008. However, its believed that a significant number of PCs had not been patched by January 2009 when the spread of Kido reached a peak." Unquote. Kido=Conficker. The related link is :http://www.kaspersky.com/technews?id=203038750


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

JamesFrance said:


> According to the Malware Research Group, Nod32 does not delete much malware anyway:
> 
> http://malwareresearchgroup.com/?page_id=2


As Kenny says, independent test reports are "a dime a dozen" like bloggers. You can fiond one who agrees with anything. Nod32 actually doesn't delete any malware, that is true but it repels it and keeps it from entering your system. I have seen it repel Antivirus 2008 many times as well as dozens of malware attempted incursions. If you want to delete those when they actually get in, you would need a spyware scanner.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Amen to Rich-M! If one were careful enough to run the full scan of KIS2009(in my case) everyday, i could quarantine active threats and malware. I also agree with JamesFrance that an A-V alone is not enough(that goes without saying). Only the free version of "a-squared" is giving me hell with all the false positives it generates and now i have stopped scanning using that! I update it regularly though. I don't know whether the free A-V s detect and quarantine malware,as my experience with them is very limited.

ablebaker's query regarding so many posts to the malware forum can be explained by the observations cookiegal (the admin.) made and i am sorry to say the bad habits one gets into, like not updatting the security software, random scanning! Here i would not hesitate to make a brazen remark that not all A-Vs are equal and the better ones are best to secure your PC's health! Are we all not preferring a better dentist if given a choice?lol.Come to Paris and i'll pluck your teeth for free!


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich-M said:


> As Kenny says, independent test reports are "a dime a dozen" like bloggers. You can fiond one who agrees with anything. *Nod32 actually doesn't delete any malware, that is true but it repels it and keeps it from entering your system.* I have seen it repel Antivirus 2008 many times as well as dozens of malware attempted incursions. If you want to delete those when they actually get in, you would need a spyware scanner.


I'm not trying to start a fight I know NOD32 is a well respected anti-virus...

But it doesn't remove malware? I would think that kind of defeats the whole purpose since if all it's good at is repelling then wouldn't a program like sandboxie that repels _everything_ instead of just what it has signatures for be better?


----------



## Cookiegal (Aug 27, 2003)

perfume said:


> Dear cookiegal,
> I am very sorry for the late reply about how a virus can spread via MS updates.
> I Quote" Kido initially spread via local networks and removable storage devices. Specifically, it exploited the critical MS08-067 vulnerability patched by Microsoft back in October 2008. However, it's believed that a significant number of PCs had not been patched by January 2009 when the spread of Kido reached a peak." Unquote. Kido=Conficker. The related link is :http://www.kaspersky.com/technews?id=203038750


I'm well aware of the issues with the LACK of updates but I understood your post to say updates were the source of viruses. Even in your last post you state "how a virus can spread via MS updates".


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Gizzy said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight I know NOD32 is a well respected anti-virus...
> 
> But it doesn't remove malware? I would think that kind of defeats the whole purpose since if all it's good at is repelling then wouldn't a program like sandboxie that repels _everything_ instead of just what it has signatures for be better?


But it's an antivirus and that it scans for and removes. The point is with malware, the heuristics, probably the best in the business repels malware as well as virus and that is better protection than scanning for it and removing it.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich-M said:


> But it's an antivirus and that it scans for and removes. The point is with malware, the heuristics, probably the best in the business repels malware as well as virus and that is better protection than scanning for it and removing it.


Yes I agree it has probably the best heuristics and that it's better to repel than remove it :up:
but I still happen to think a sandbox would be better at repelling since a sandbox repels all instead of basing it on signatures and heuristics,

Though it is good to hear that it does remove viruses,.. also viruses are a form of malware.


----------



## pcdebol (Mar 2, 2009)

Rich-M said:


> You are running both at the same time?


Yes I have about 120 computers in my network. I also run Avast on a few. Recently took Trend Micro Off completely. I also run others at random just to check and see how they work and if they cause problems on the network. I have to say hands down the new norton is the best AV/Antispyware I have ever used. The firewall leaves a little to be desired in a corporate environment but at home its fine.

I would also like to say two years ago I wouldn't have put norton on any computer other than one of my test systems just to see if it was worth a look.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

perfume said:


> Dear hewee,
> Hey, this thread is like a"live and learn" one. Thanks once again for the "hosts file" info'! Looking forward to more posts from you!:up:


He hee you can read 53,553 other post of mine here if you got the time. 

I had WOT but did not like it because of the tracking it does. I could not find any way to stop the WOT cookies. I even added them to the block cookies and I still got them so I uninstalled it.

But if a site really is bad it gets added to the hosts file so if you see a link to it without a rating and you get the "Blocked www.badsite(dot)com" then that should tell you something.

I also do not or have a ever use any chat type of program or will I because your open yourself up sharing info with other computers.

On scans no matter what program it is you can get false positives and some more then others A2 gets a lot of false positives.
But you should always scan and if your not sure post the scan log before letting the program fix anything.

Your right Rich-M about the test being "a dime a dozen". A program can look great if all the better programs are not listed in the test and your see many test and looking your see programs you know should be listed not there.
Now you can keep an open mind because that may mean that they unlisted program is better. 
You get test that get changed by some sites because they get lots of money that they will lose from the ads if you say bad things so you got to know or try to know who is honest in the test also.

Then what other things are done? Avast has a lot of settings. What can I do to protect me better? I use the default settings as most do so any test should be done the same way because that is how most will run the program.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

perfume said:


> Dear LoneWolf_53,
> Comparing McAfee with a virus is not correct.I am posting below a few web definitions of a virus:
> Definitions of *computer virus* on the Web:
> 
> ...


With all due respect I'm well aware of the definition of a virus and if you've ever had the pleasure of removing McAfee from a factory system you'd know why I called it akin to a virus as it's just about as hard to get rid of completely.

It is that characteristic as well as the terrible drain that it puts on system resources that makes it comparable to a virus.

If you want a fast responsive and safe system then McAfee simply isn't the right choice.


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Rich-M said:


> As Kenny says, independent test reports are "a dime a dozen" like bloggers. You can fiond one who agrees with anything. Nod32 actually doesn't delete any malware, that is true but it repels it and keeps it from entering your system. I have seen it repel Antivirus 2008 many times as well as dozens of malware attempted incursions. If you want to delete those when they actually get in, you would need a spyware scanner.


I only linked to the Malware Research Group test to make the point that even well respected avs are far from infallible, not to have a stab at Nod32. Yes testers and reviewers come up with a multitude of different results, depending on many things.

I just believe that the more layers of protection you have, the less chance that anything will get past onto your computer, so no part of a good protection system is a waste of money, unless that is, you can be protected as well using free programs.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

"He hee you can read 53,553 other post of mine here if you got the time. 

I had WOT but did not like it because of the tracking it does. I could not find any way to stop the WOT cookies. I even added them to the block cookies and I still got them so I uninstalled it."--hewee

Dear hewee,
Later,if you don't mind! No Wot,what?lol.Juggle with those FF3 settings and why not delete all traces,including cookies after the session is over? What say?


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear LoneWolf_53,
I am sorry! Bear no hard feelings please!Your comments regarding McAfee are true, that's why i mentioned in an earlier post that Dell is plugging away like mad for McAfee. McAfee really leaves it's finger prints all over the PC and it's real hard to remove. If you observe, the same goes for most A-Vs, especially the one i am using "KIS2009". Dell(a Hardware) and McAfee(A software) is "SMASHWARE"." DELL RECOMMENDS MCAFEE",what the heck is happening over there?


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Jason08 said:


> Maybe he's just taking some time off (spring break.)


Dear Jason08,
possible,or he may be oiling and shining his telescopic rifles! Eitherway, see the subliminal influence he has on me-the ANIMATION of mine is a colt! Just could'nt get a rifle to animate. I hope he'll be pleased as punch when he sees the avatar!


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

No worries Perfume I just didn't want you thinking I was some rookie spouting off.

Believe me I like Dell PC's if a person has to have a factory built machine but I too have to wonder what they're thinking in bundling it with McAfee.

The first thing I did with my Dell laptop was wipe out the hard drive and I did a clean install using my own XP PRO disk instead of their recovery disk.

The result was a unit that ran twice as fast when I was done as it did in shipping configuration.

I've stayed away from it for the last couple of years but my last experience showed me that Norton wasn't all that easy to get rid of either whereas I've removed AVG from a system with no issue whatsoever.

With all the little bits and pieces that are running when one has McAfee or Norton it just seems to me the end result is often far more conflicts with other software too.

By contrast I've never had AntiVir PE conflict with anything on any of my equipment.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> The first thing I did with my Dell laptop was wipe out the hard drive and I did a clean install using my own XP PRO disk instead of their recovery disk.
> 
> The result was a unit that ran twice as fast when I was done as it did in shipping configuration.


Exactly what I always did when I bought Dell pc's in the past or reworked them for clients.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

perfume said:


> "He hee you can read 53,553 other post of mine here if you got the time.
> 
> I had WOT but did not like it because of the tracking it does. I could not find any way to stop the WOT cookies. I even added them to the block cookies and I still got them so I uninstalled it."--hewee
> 
> ...


I know I can delete cookies after each session and I already do that before going to another web site. I just do like like something that takes over like WOT does because if I have WOT cookies blocked then I should not get them yet they could not be blocked so I losted the control I should have. I can get buy without it. 
I bet yea if I had it and a site is rated bad that really is bad my hosts file already blocks it.

What is WOT ratings on myspace, facebook and sites like that? Lots of people love myspace but also lots of bad things happen there. My hosts file blocks Myspace and that's find with me. It also blocks tinyurl(dot) sites.
What is bad any it and some others that work the same way is you do not know where you are going by the link name so a tinyurl(dot) you to good or bad sites.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear hewee,
I am on your side!The third party persistent cookies are the real danger. For that matter even this site leaves cookies behind, most probably first party cookies. Anyway cookies are cookies and i too dislike somebody collecting personal data! One advantage with Wot is you can rate the site about which Wot has ambigious info'. Hey, don't you like the crisp crunchy sound the cookies make when you eat them fresh? I did, until i was eleven years old when i was found to have Diabetes, so no more real cookies for me!

We are digressing from the topic on hand. When MS wanted to release it's own security suite, the commercial vendors had deep and detailed wrangling with MS and B.G. magnanimously allowed A-Vs to squeeze us dry! EVERY SECOND TUESDAY OF THE MONTH, MS RELEASES AN UPDATED VERSION OF THE "MALICIOUS SOFTWARE REMOVAL TOOL", SO CHECK IT OUT!


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Yea I hate cookies and gmail is a really bad one also.
Darn it's Gmail 5th birthday and it's still beta. 
Yes but let all the other rate WOT. 

Sorry you can eat some things because you have Diabetes. 

I do not trust MS to protect me because most bad things that can happen is because of MS holes.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear hewee,ablebaker,Jason08 and LoneWolf_58,
This will split you all into halves! So, read this article,preferably naked or you'll lose your suits, blazers and trousers and even your guts!

*Microsoft OneCare Bombs Out In Antivirus Testhttp://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3663476

Please READ this article and i bet you'll be happy ever after!

*


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

So I should have 91.6% of viruses caught. Sounds pretty good.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

Jason08 said:


> So I should have 91.6% of viruses caught. Sounds pretty good.


Not as good as the 98.9% that I get using AntiVir PE that I got for free.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear LoneWolf_53,
Congratulations on two counts!One-Avira is top class and your choice is near perfect!Two,You're still in one piece after reading that article!


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear Jason08,
what i really liked about the article was everybody else was kicking Microsoft's One care in the rear like nobody's business! I bet Lotuseclat98 will be in ecstacy if he sees this portion of the thread!


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Jason08 said:


> So I should have 91.6% of viruses caught. Sounds pretty good.


Presumably you were being sarcastic, but no need to worry, that is a very old AV Comparatives test and in the latest one McAfee was showing 99.1% which is one of the top scores. Even Microsoft was up to 87.1%.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear JamesFrance,
87% detection rates are simply unacceptable,regarding any A-V worth its salt! McAfee is simply not selling and have tied up with Dell for promotion. Different strokes for different folks!


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear friends,
Am being admitted in a hospital for my bi-annual checkup as i am a teenage diabetic. Will miss miss you all till i get discharged!Ciao.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

Get back soon.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Like I said before I do not trust MS to protect me.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

Articles like those are the reason I prefer my security setup,

That is an old article it was dated almost 2 years ago but what I'm getting at is in general anti-virus's can only catch a certain percentage,
Now you can never be *100%* protected but I happen to believe that my security setup (_when done poperly_) gets me much closer to 100% than if I only used an AV (_Yes if I used an AV I might have even *more* protection but the line has to be drawn some where or you'll have a setup like I used to have --> link_),

More than an AV should be used because since AV's are the most widely used way of protecting a computer malware are disabling AV's once they get on the computer, but people do usually use more than just the AV but some people think that an AV is the ultimate protection,

As per the thread title though I still don't think it's a waste of money since it's a way of protecting yourself just like my setup is a way of protecting my computer, and at least for the time being an AV is the most used way of protecting a user, people are used to it and everyone has their mindset that it's the only way to be protected since it's what most people have been told since they were first starting to use the computer 

That might change in the future though...a few years ago extra scanners like SAS or MBAM weren't necessary...security setups and mindsets change overtime, 

It depends on the user whether or not they think it's a waste of money, but with the free AV's now it's not really a waste of money anymore, maybe a waste of system resources if a user has an old computer? in general I don't think it's a waste of money or resources but that's different for each user I suppose. :up:


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> It depends on the user whether or not they think it's a waste of money, but with the free AV's now it's not really a waste of money anymore, maybe a waste of system resources if a user has an old computer?


Interesting thought except there is no comparison between free and paid antivirus programs, their methods are entirely different if we exclude "the Big Three".


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

Rich-M said:


> Interesting thought except there is no comparison between free and paid antivirus programs, their methods are entirely different if we exclude "the Big Three".


Well I was mainly talking about the big three since they offer very good protection for free, 

But I don't think that there's too much of a difference between free and paid now a days as long as we don't talk about security suites,
Other than the big three there's still more free AV's with real-time protection that offer good security,

Now there are free one's like *ClamWin* and *Dr. Web Cureit* which don't offer real-time protection so if you're talking about them then I would agree with you,

But there's other free one's other than the big three like *Comodo's AV* and *PC Tools AV*


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Gizzy said:


> Well I was mainly talking about the big three since they offer very good protection for free,
> 
> But I don't think that there's too much of a difference between free and paid now a days as long as we don't talk about security suites,
> Other than the big three there's still more free AV's with real-time protection that offer good security,
> ...


And Comodo have just included the BoClean memory scanner in Internet Security 3.9 without any increase in system resources. For now it is in beta, but will be launched soon I am sure, as there are not many problems reported by testers.

Paying for an AV will soon be a waste of money if it is not already.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Gizzy said:


> Well I was mainly talking about the big three since they offer very good protection for free,
> 
> But I don't think that there's too much of a difference between free and paid now a days as long as we don't talk about security suites,
> Other than the big three there's still more free AV's with real-time protection that offer good security,
> ...


No I am referring to the protection of Nod32, Kaspersky and Bit defender which repel malware without letting it in vs Avg, Avira and all the free ones that let the scum in and then try to remove it. Huge difference in methodology.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Something I bet we all like to know about and that is protected from others. 
You got something you can get from family or find and want to use your flash drive.
What Anti-Virus/Malware is there that is *Portable*? 
Be nice to have a program catch something when your plugged into that other computer so you do not find out about it till after till it's on your computer.
You never know how other keep there computers protected or where they have been so be nice to find out and stop what ever so it will not even get to your computer even if you could stop it once it got there. 
Plus a added good thing is your get that warning on there computer so you can say hey you had better get things fixed because you got this or that and who knows what else on that computer.

So a good Portable Anti-Virus/Malware program I thing many of use can use. 
When flash drives getting so big now days you can get whole programs on them and run programs from them also.

I found these but do not know how all work.
What I mean do you have to run the scan on the flash drive or can the Portable Antivirus/Malware program find it on it's own because it can be made to run anytime some is added or taken from the flash drive.

Portable Antivirus Firewall | Portable USB Pen Drive Applications

The Portable Freeware Collection - Security - Malware Detection

Then anything like this would need to be keep up to date.
Also can be used if a PC can not get online or has something that keeps you from downloading to that PC you can get something over to it to help start cleaning things.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 23, 2008)

I think I mentioned already, but I'll do it again...

Thanks to this thread and all you guys I'm using the following 6 programs for my PC/Cyber-Protection needs and I couldn't be happier.

01. Avira Antivir PE
02. CCleaner
03. Comodo Firewall
04. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware
05. SpyBoy Search & Destroy
06. SuperAntiSpyware Professional

So how's that for protection...huh guys?


----------



## blitzkreig (Mar 6, 2009)

whoa,
this seems like a debate,

Well,
If u want maximum efficiency and output from ur computer U NEED to spend on antivirus programs, like they say prevention is better than cure

Its would be wise spending some money on protecting ur pc rather than spending loads of bucks on repairing ur pc damaged by malware


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

I totally disagree with that, you can do it just as well without spending money.


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

JamesFrance said:


> And Comodo have just included the BoClean memory scanner in Internet Security 3.9 without any increase in system resources. For now it is in beta, but will be launched soon I am sure, as there are not many problems reported by testers.
> 
> Paying for an AV will soon be a waste of money if it is not already.


Thanks for the update I just went looking to see what other features will be in it and I see they're adding things to defense+ :up:



Rich-M said:


> No I am referring to the protection of Nod32, Kaspersky and Bit defender which repel malware without letting it in vs Avg, Avira and all the free ones that let the scum in and then try to remove it. Huge difference in methodology.


Avast! free does repel at the gate thanks to it's web scanner,

There's been some posts by heewee in this thread already about him trying to download programs and if it was infected avast! wouldn't let him or alert him,

Though I don't think there's any other free AV's with a web scanner,

But the AV's don't let the malware in and you have to remove it, I've used avira in the past and it would alert to any malware _before_ it could do anything, with the option to quarantine, delete, or access deny which stops the file from doing anything,

So I still don't think there's that big of a difference now a days.



srprashant said:


> whoa,
> this seems like a debate,
> 
> Well,
> ...


I'm not saying you shouldn't spend money on your pc now that depends on what software you want to use but I don't happen to think it's a must anymore,

And if people take image backups of their computer then they could recover from a huge malware infection very quickly and easily...sadly though not everyone takes image backups...


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

hewee said:


> Something I bet we all like to know about and that is protected from others.
> You got something you can get from family or find and want to use your flash drive.
> What Anti-Virus/Malware is there that is *Portable*?
> Be nice to have a program catch something when your plugged into that other computer so you do not find out about it till after till it's on your computer.
> ...


Here's a thread about AV's for flash drives http://forums.techguy.org/general-security/666214-antivirus-usb-thumb-drive.html

It's been a while since I've looked into portable security but I only ever knew about avast having realtime protection and I think mcafee did too,

The avast is only for U3 drives and I did try it out before, if I remember correctly when you plug the flash drive in avast automatically starts and scans the computer,

But the avast! for U3 isn't free it's $19.95 for a one year license,

Though I happen to think a good way to stay protected with flash drives is to use one with a read-only switch and then just have some scanners like in the links you posted, so you can just make the flash drive read-only so nothing can infect your flash drive and then the computer can be scanned so you can find out if there's malware on the computer,

I remember reading that any command line scanner can be used on a flash drive,

Also thanks for the links I've never been to the first link you posted "Pendriveapps.com" but I've been to the other site and have downloaded some programs for my flash drive before, I believe they test all of the programs to make sure they're portable before listing them.



MarcATL said:


> I think I mentioned already, but I'll do it again...
> 
> Thanks to this thread and all you guys I'm using the following 6 programs for my PC/Cyber-Protection needs and I couldn't be happier.
> 
> ...


You're protection looks good :up:


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 23, 2008)

Gizzy said:


> Here's a thread about AV's for flash drives http://forums.techguy.org/general-security/666214-antivirus-usb-thumb-drive.html
> 
> It's been a while since I've looked into portable security but I only ever knew about avast having realtime protection and I think mcafee did too,
> 
> ...


Awesome...thanks!


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

JamesFrance said:


> I totally disagree with that, you can do it just as well without spending money.


You are entitled to your opinion, even when it is completely wrong it is still yours!


----------



## JamesFrance (Jun 3, 2007)

Rich-M said:


> You are entitled to your opinion, even when it is completely wrong it is still yours!


Works both ways lol. But I will keep an open mind.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

srprashant said:


> whoa,
> this seems like a debate,
> 
> Well,
> ...


Not so wise when you can get all the protection you need for free.

I'm sure the companies are happy to take your money though if you're willing to part with it.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

If paid antivirus programs are so good 
why do the security foums get people in there infected ?

Avoid problems in the first place by using common sense 
Dont click on links willy nilly or visit dodgy sites or download from P2P sites
For every clean file there might be 9 that have an added extra lurking

Use an extra layer of protection like spyware blaster 
Set your AV to scan downloads 
Use something like WOT web of trust to keep an eye on bad sites

However i have noticed more and more Google searches redirecting to Rogue AV sites 
like Winantivirus 2009 so watch out 

I use AVG8 free and it does its job alongside Malwarebytes 
Free vs paid arguments go on for months 

Use whatever you feel comfortable with


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

It doesn't sound like my McAfee is way up there in the best protection.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

Jason08 said:


> It doesn't sound like my McAfee is way up there in the best protection.


Have you ever had a nasty cause you trouble ?


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Not really. But the virus scan does slow down the computer, and sometimes the System Guards get disabled, which I've heard can be a cause of malware.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

What else are you using ?
List your security please


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Windows automatic updates
McAfee Virus protection
McAfee Spyware Protection
McAfee Windows protection
McAfee PC Health
McAfee firewall
McAfee Identity Protection
McAfee Email Virus protection
McAfee IM Virus protection
McAfee Email Spware protection
McAfee IM protection


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

You a McAfee man ??


----------



## kmcma2002 (Jun 7, 2002)

so that is all good stuff right? cause all I know about anti virus protection is just that the name not all the other stuff.... thanks... Happy Easter!


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Blackmirror said:


> You a McAfee man ??


 LOL, I guess.

Yes, all these things help to protect the computer.


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

Are you happy ?


----------



## kmcma2002 (Jun 7, 2002)

lol!! blackmirror I have a similar quote on my myspace!


----------



## Blackmirror (Dec 5, 2006)

kmcma2002 said:


> lol!! blackmirror I have a similar quote on my myspace!


I get a bit fed up with people pushing paid versions of anything

Most people cant afford iit


----------



## Phantom010 (Mar 9, 2009)

I don't usually pay for software. One of the only things I've paid for was my antivirus. IMHO, free AV just don't cut it! If you can afford an Internet connection, you can afford an antivirus. 

Again, it's IMHO and I respect everybody else's opinion.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

LOL Donna.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

Jason08 said:


> LOL, I guess.
> 
> Yes, *all these things help to protect the computer.*


Yeah and make it as slow as molasses in January.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

I don't get the last 2 words of your sentence, lol.


----------



## Kenny94 (Dec 16, 2004)

Blackmirror said:


> I get a bit fed up with people pushing paid versions of anything
> 
> Most people cant afford iit


Or can not afford to have one...


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Blackmirror said:


> I get a bit fed up with people pushing paid versions of anything
> 
> Most people cant afford iit


ow how would you know that most people can't afford paid programs? That is an absurd unprovable statement. They can afford a pc but not programs?


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

> If paid antivirus programs are so good
> why do the security foums get people in there infected ?


No one I know of thinks that all paid AV programs are necessarily good, in fact the majority are worse that the free ones. What I do know is NOd32, Bit Defender and Kaspersky use a different method and keep you far safer than any free one.



> Avoid problems in the first place by using common sense
> Dont click on links willy nilly or visit dodgy sites or download from P2P sites
> For every clean file there might be 9 that have an added extra lurking





> Absolutely there is no substitute for good surfing habits.
> 
> Use an extra layer of protection like spyware blaster
> Set your AV to scan downloads
> ...


Again I could not agree more.


----------



## Jason08 (Oct 13, 2008)

Maybe it's that people buy computers, but then don't want to spend money buying an anti-virus.


----------



## Rich-M (May 3, 2006)

Jason08 said:


> Maybe it's that people buy computers, but then don't want to spend money buying an anti-virus.


Gee, I bought a car but I don't want to by petro for it, and I definitely will not buy insurance for it either.


----------



## hewee (Oct 26, 2001)

Gizzy said:


> Here's a thread about AV's for flash drives http://forums.techguy.org/general-security/666214-antivirus-usb-thumb-drive.html
> 
> It's been a while since I've looked into portable security but I only ever knew about avast having realtime protection and I think mcafee did too,
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. I think you may be right without me going to look because I was think free portable programs.

Read only is good but remember if your using your flash drive to get something then you want to be able to safe to it. 
Now if you are helping someone and already have the programs ob the flash and you want to scan and or install to the other PC then yes you could then make it read only.

No sure how you make the whole flash drive read only.

One other thing to help protect your PC is to help hide it by getting a router.
Can others see you?

Do the ShieldsUP test.
https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2
My system has achieved a perfect "TruStealth" rating.

Use good passwords

Scrambler what you type.
I got KeyScrambler Personal that is free.
http://www.qfxsoftware.com/index.html

It works only on these here.
IE, Firefox, & Flock
Online shopping & Web email; credit cards, addresses, Yahoo mail, hotmail, gmail and more; Java, Flash, & Browser Dialogs, browser master passwords, and more 
The other version protect you a whole lot more because they work with other programs, Windows login etc.

Watch the Video
http://www.qfxsoftware.com/index.html#video
How to Install


----------



## Smartguy01 (Oct 15, 2008)

> Avast has stopped a lot of things from making it to my Pc, so it is woth it for me


Totally agree with you.

SG01


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

In the past I would have said that paid AV's protect you better but the free one's have gotten so much better now that they're just as good as the paid,

And I still don't see any different methods of protection from those paid AV's vs the free one's like I said avast! repels at the gate and avira doesn't stop at the gate but it stops malware as soon as it tries to do anything and I can't say anything about avg since I've never tried it but I would think it stops malware before it can do anything as well,

And from what I hear avast! version 5 will be out soon (_I think june/july_) and it's supposed to be a big improvement to what is already a great AV :up:

just because you pay for some thing doesn't make it better,

like blackmirror said in an earlier post


Blackmirror said:


> Use whatever you feel comfortable with


I see that as a reason to pay or not but I don't really see any other reason. 



hewee said:


> Thanks for the link. I think you may be right without me going to look because I was think free portable programs.
> 
> Read only is good but remember if your using your flash drive to get something then you want to be able to safe to it.
> Now if you are helping someone and already have the programs ob the flash and you want to scan and or install to the other PC then yes you could then make it read only.
> ...


Yes you're right, that's true if you want to save some thing then the read-only won't be good for that,

And I'm not sure how to make a normal flash drive read-only but there are flash drives with a read-only switch for sale they're like the read-only switch on floppy disks.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

Dear friends,
Back from hospital in good shape!The trainee nurses were eyeing my lithe and fit figure! No bite marks,unfortunately!

It was an interesting discussion between BlackMirror and Rich-M, about free versus paid A-Vs. Economics apart, it's all in the heuristics! The free ones simply cannot afford all the components of the "hybrid of four" a paid A-V gives you! The hybrid contains 1) Traditional signatures, 2) Passive heuristics, 3) Advanced heuristics and finally, 4) Generic signatures.

What is very interesting is the "advanced heuristics". The advanced heuristics system is using an emulator of some kind, sort of like a *sandbox*. And what that does is it takes the file, the file comes into the system and inside that protected virtual environment it runs the code. And because it looks like a real machine to that file thats being run, it does what it would do if it were actually infecting your system. But of course, youve got the wrapper of, if you like of the anti-malware program around that and thats able to examine whats happening inside that virtual pc. And determine at that point whether its malicious.

What many or all new A-Vs have is passive heuristics. A passive heuristics doesnt mean that it just sits there and does nothing. It really means that it doesnt do anything to actual code. It doesnt try and execute the code, but instead it reads through the code of a file. And thus tries to see if theres anything that it knows about that is suspicious, so that is it just going to open up port 25 in my system or is it going to make a suspicious input from a file, if its going to write to a registry. It looks for things that are known to be suspicious.

AV Test.org and AV-Comparatives.org are respected analyzers of A-V programs. AV Test.org adopts a methodology different from AV-Comparatives ,in that when there is a new outbreak, they measure the time at which each of the of the anti-virus products detects the virus or/and malware.

AV-Comparatives.org ,apart from the traditional methods, freezes the AVs at a certain point and then they take the viruses that came out in that time and then they throw them at the anti-virus scanner. It's akin to capturing the new viruses in the wild that emerged between say 15th of Jan and 28th of Feb 2009 and thus is a test of "how good is the heuristics of that particular A-V!

Zero-Hour, Right Now protection testing, has emerged as the benchmark of how good your A-V is and rightly so!:up:


----------



## Gizzy (Aug 2, 2005)

perfume said:


> Dear friends,
> Back from hospital in good shape!The trainee nurses were eyeing my lithe and fit figure! No bite marks,unfortunately!
> 
> It was an interesting discussion between BlackMirror and Rich-M, about free versus paid A-Vs. Economics apart, it's all in the heuristics! The free ones simply cannot afford all the components of the "hybrid of four" a paid A-V gives you! The hybrid contains 1) Traditional signatures, 2) Passive heuristics, 3) Advanced heuristics and finally, 4) Generic signatures.
> ...


Welcome back perfume, :up:

Nice post about the heuristics, :up:

Now I'm not aware of which AV's have that sandbox heuristics I'd have to look into it, actually I've only ever heard of it but I never read up too much about it,

But that sandbox heuristics is becoming less and less useful thanks to newer malware being able to tell if it's in a sandbox, when newer malware know it's in a sandbox they don't activate this is mostly a problem with AV's and virtual machine's,
For AV's the problem is that the malware won't activate so the AV will think that the file is safe when it is actually malicious,
And for virtual machine's the problem is that since they won't activate you can't test them,

I think I saw some one test a piece of malware inside sandboxie and they got a pop-up window saying that it was currently running in a sandbox and it should first be taken out of the sandbox, I remember that made me laugh 

But anyway other than the sandbox heuristics which I would have to do more researching on to see what AV's use it (_Though I only find it some what useful thanks to the problem I listed above_) as far as I know the free AV's all have the other three things you listed,

You see with free AV's they're able to afford everything that the "big guys" can because they have other means of making money if they didn't then they'd be out of business and wouldn't even offer the free versions, 

All the free AV's are also the paid AV's since AVG, Avast!, Avira, and most of the others also have a paid version of their AV.


----------



## LoneWolf_53 (Mar 23, 2009)

Some can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the reason Avira offers a free version is that they target corporate users for generating income and in the paid version offer a few added frills but are still amongst the top if not the top free AV provider because they feel that it's better to try and keep the home user machines clean than it is to deal with major infections after the fact.

I applaud them for that and it's one of the reasons I stay with Avira the other one being it's effectiveness.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

The price(free) is hard to beat also.


----------



## perfume (Sep 13, 2008)

LoneWolf_53 said:


> Some can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the reason Avira offers a free version is that they target corporate users for generating income and in the paid version offer a few added frills but are still amongst the top if not the top free AV provider because they feel that it's better to try and keep the home user machines clean than it is to deal with major infections after the fact.
> 
> I applaud them for that and it's one of the reasons I stay with Avira the other one being it's effectiveness.


Dear Gizzy,
Thank you for the welcome note! The nurses were bleeding me dry for all the battery of tests! Your heart's in the right place and that matters a lot. The advanced heuristics emulators have reached a stage where the malware code can be executed in the sandbox sort of environ.

Dear LoneWolf_53,
You're absolutely right about transferring a part of the profits to keep pace with the pack. We must add Comodo to the list and it's reputation as a reliable internet suite is growing by the day!

Dear akaHothead,
As the saying goes, "no news is good news". Likewise no price is a shrewd bargain! The only caveat being , i don't want you or others walking in the rain using a leaking umbrella and spoiling your "Boss" suits! Please say"HI" to Sniper.


----------



## akaHothead (Apr 1, 2009)

to perfume
Sure will, just as soon as he touches base.Hasn't called in 2 days.Been having some good storms here lately, probably holed up somewhere.


----------

