What antivirus

[jkrzok]

My subscription to Norton Antivirus subscription is due to expire soon and I was looking at alternatives. What AV programs are people using here? I like the idea of AVG Free edition and am wondering about people's experiences with this specifically. Do you get what you pay for? Is it as effective as Norton, and as up to date in its virus definitions?

Free is good (QCD!) but am I running a risk while trying to save a few bucks?

[acozz]

My subscription to Norton Antivirus subscription is due to expire soon and I was looking at alternatives. What AV programs are people using here? I like the idea of AVG Free edition and am wondering about people's experiences with this specifically. Do you get what you pay for? Is it as effective as Norton, and as up to date in its virus definitions?

Free is good (QCD!) but am I running a risk while trying to save a few bucks?

I'd stick with Norton.

[cudelleirbag]

I'm happy with AVG. It detected and cleaned the few virus I had over the years. Plus it's light weight compare to NAV or Mcafee.

CL

[#The fREaK!]

My subscription to Norton Antivirus subscription is due to expire soon and I was looking at alternatives.

Here is another alternative: Get a subscription crack! If you have eMule, you will probably find it very fast.

[acozz]

Here is another alternative: Get a subscription crack! If you have eMule, you will probably find it very fast.

When I reformatted my computer and reinstalled Norton, it gave me another year on my subscription, probably because the registry key or whatever was deleted.

[jkrzok]

I talked to a techie at work once about the uninstall/reinstall method of getting another year. He said Norton was on to that trick and that they didn't give you the latest updates. Why they'd do that and not just call you out on your trick I don't know. Shouldn't Norton be better able to protect their software?

As for cracks... try http://cracks.thebugs.us

Not that I know anything about that...

[Heigar]

hahaha thebugs is a very popular place (not that i know anything about that).

As to norton i've uninstalled and reinstalled and it renewed my subscription ,you need to find the registry key(in which I don't remember off hand ) that holds that info and delete it.Depending on which version you are using if you go from the standard to the pro it renews it that way too.(a past experience).

[loz_hurst]

I've been using AVG on 4 computers (with 4 different free licenses) without any problems for a number of years. It has reliably found and removed viruses. It has an update feature, and seems to be always upto date. The update can be schedualed, as can virus scans at a specific time. I have it running on 95, 98, 2k and XP without a problem.

[Psy]

I too use AVG since the first free 6.0 and never dissapointed me, but the feature I like the most its the rescue disk (3 disks now) wich I can run on any machine and desinfect them. It really handy and not all the free antivirus can make one.

[Sheepeh]

Avast! is probably the best freeware one.

I use Kaspersky 5 Personal. Totally awesome, catches malware, spyware, trojans, and virii - just make sure your computers up to the task (it's not that heavy but it's noticable on slow machines).

Norton is PANTS.

[Lich]

Be careful, and you won't need antivirus.

[jkrzok]

Be careful, and you won't need antivirus.

Only if I'm the only person using the machine... Just today Norton caught 3 viruses in my inbox. One moron opening that attachment and...

Psychological peace of mind also matters to me.

[Inthewoods]

I use AVG and I love it. I've paid for both McAfee and Norton previously, and I think AVG is as good or better. Just my opinion, mind you. Also, I believe that no matter how careful you are, you need an antivirus, unless of course you have a 100% PERFECT firewall, and there is no such thing. Let's face it, by it's very nature, the internet connects your computer to the general public, that is, ANYONE else in the world who is also connected. It's like shaking hand with everybody you meet. Yech!!!

[Todd The Kiwi]

It's like shaking hand with everybody you meet. Yech!!!

whoah man i hadn't thought of it like that,yuk!
i'd be cautious as to what i unleash upon my machine
do you really 'trust' cracksites?
i'd probably go to the extra effort and get the WAY more configurable AVG PRO but that's just me.
avg free is cool , until you find yourself a real antivirus...AVG PRO :skull: (http://www.freeserials.com/serials/search.php?q=avg+pro&query=Search+%21)

NORTON SUCKS

test one (http://www.eicar.org/download/eicar.com) - save

test two (http://www.eicar.org/download/eicar.com.txt) - copy/paste save as

test three (http://www.eicar.org/download/eicar_com.zip) - unzip

test four (http://www.eicar.org/download/eicarcom2.zip) - unzip twice

[Sheepeh]

Why would you want to pass the last two tests at all though? It wastes valuble processor time in unzipping all zip files to scan inside them, when what's inside isn't harmful anyway! Your normal on-access will detect it as soon as it's unzipped, so why bother with Zip scanning?

Same goes with mail scanning.

I leave Kaspersky 5 running simply for the fact my family uses this computer/network and it can protect them against almost anything without the need for extras that serve no purpose other than to slow things down (stand up Norton).

They (3 installs) are passworded so you can't turn them off without the admin key, and scheduled to do a deep scan once a week during the night (once a day is slightly overkill, and the CPU cycles are donated to the cancer research team anyway). It also updates once an hour on all machines. Now that's enough security AV-wise for any home user.

[Heigar]

When i did the test norton caught them all before having to unzip anything ,if you are unzipping those then you better check your antivirus ,cuz it's really not doing it's job.

[Sheepeh]

No, it's doing *too much*. There's NO POINT to scanning in zip files. What's in there can't hurt you until it's unzipped, at which point it will be detected anyway. Easier to save teh resources for something better, like doing what you were going to do in the first place. If an AV scans zips and won't let me turn it off it doesn't get installed!

[Todd The Kiwi]

If an AV scans zips and won't let me turn it off it doesn't get installed!

ok i'm glad you posted this man , i didn't mean AVG does zip scans
the tests here have NOTHING to do with AVG at all :skull:

[GildedSplinter]

I've tried Norton AND McAffee & they both let me down. I got sicker than a dog with both of 'em. I've run Avast through a battery of tests and it passed with flying colors, AND it has detected viruses on 2 seperate occasions which were blocked and destroyed without interfering with my system. It's relatively light on the resources, it's easy to use, it's free and it detects viruses. Yer welcome to spend yer money however you want, but as for me, I'm safe at home right here in the arms of Avast. If at some point they can't keep up, I'll adjust as needed. I've noticed that nobody mentioned Symantec thus far... which link are they in this chain?

[Toe]

-Free AV Softs-
eTrust AV (http://etrustantivirus-central.ca.com/v7/) - dual scanning engines (Vet and InnoculateIT). This is what I use. The default install is a little heavy on memory, but can be cut way down (I can give more info if anyone wants)

avast! (http://www.avast.com/i_kat_76.html) - my next choice in free AV.

AVG (http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_dwnl_free.php) - nice and lightweight, but its detection track record ain't the greatest. Still better than nothing, of course.

AntiVir (http://freeav.com/) - free, but I think I'd pick one of the above first.

-Paid AV Softs-
NOD32 (http://nod32.com/home/home.htm) - a lot of people haven't heard of it, but it's really one of the best out there. Light on resources, and one of the best VB100 track records (http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?eset.xml) out there.

Kapersky (http://www.kaspersky.com/store?AID=1110833&PID=778434) - another excelent virus detector, and also gets high marks as a trojan detector.


EDIT: And for a good forum for this sort of thing, check out Wilders Security (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/). :)

[Toe]

I've tried Norton AND McAffee & they both let me down.
<snip>
I've noticed that nobody mentioned Symantec thus far... which link are they in this chain?
Er, if you didn't know, Symantec and Norton are the same thing. Symantec is the company, Norton is the product.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Er, if you didn't know, Symantec and Norton are the same thing. Symantec is the company, Norton is the product.

And in reply to that, Symantec is property of microsoft. Help! :skull: :devil:

[Inthewoods]

I've noticed that nobody mentioned Symantec thus far... which link are they in this chain?

Symantec = Norton ......... Same thing

[acozz]

Norton allows you to not scan compressed files, but I don't see why you would turn that off. Many virus emails come with zip files which Norton then deletes for you (or at least it did before my mail host started pruning them server side).

[jkrzok]

I don't mind seeing Norton scan zips. It's part of the idea that everything going into my computer has been scanned, even before I touch it. For me, again, there's a sense of comfort from that thought. Comfort is important. The total number of virii caught in my email yesterday was four.I can't imagine going around with my shields down in any way.

It looks like a friend's computer's been hijacked. All the virii came from email addresses known to me that seem to be spoofed.

That or I need new friends.

[Todd The Kiwi]

The total number of virii caught in my email yesterday was four.I can't imagine going around with my shields down in any way.

what firewall (if any) are you running man ? :skull:
i run avg and zonealarm constantly and have no cpu/resource issues at all
when using NAV and NIS the thing would crash upon opening nice software like
sound forge , mo' fox & outlook etc... go pro man:skull:

[GildedSplinter]

-Free AV Softs-
eTrust AV (http://etrustantivirus-central.ca.com/v7/) - dual scanning engines (Vet and InnoculateIT). This is what I use. The default install is a little heavy on memory, but can be cut way down (I can give more info if anyone wants)

I had forgotten about etrust. I had chosen their AV as a free perk when I signed up with my last ISP. I didn't interact with that program as much as I have with Avast, but I know I never got hit when I was using it.

[GildedSplinter]

Symantec = Norton ......... Same thing
Aparantly I'm the last person in the world to find out that Symantec is associated with Norton is associated with Microsoft. In fact... I'm feeling a bit like Neo right now. I'll not speak their names in this realm again.

[Toe]

Aparantly I'm the last person in the world to find out that Symantec is associated with Norton is associated with Microsoft. In fact... I'm feeling a bit like Neo right now. I'll not speak their names in this realm again.
Huh? AFAIK Symantec has no formal relationship with MS, especially considering MS bought out another AV maker (a Romanian outfit, IIRC)...

[GildedSplinter]

And in reply to that, Symantec is property of microsoft. Help! :skull: :devil:
It's agreed that Symantec = Norton... but as you can see, there appears to be some grey area involving MS & Symantec...

[drewkeller]

eTrust AV (http://etrustantivirus-central.ca.com/v7/) - dual scanning engines (Vet and InnoculateIT). This is what I use. The default install is a little heavy on memory, but can be cut way down (I can give more info if anyone wants)
I would be interested.

[Sheepeh]

Norton allows you to not scan compressed files, but I don't see why you would turn that off. Many virus emails come with zip files which Norton then deletes for you (or at least it did before my mail host started pruning them server side).
Because of the simple fact no virus can do anything in a zip file. If I don't unzip it, it's not a virus, it's a zipped file. If I *do* unzip it, the on-access will pick it up as it then becomes a virus. Why waste the resources checking things twice over (once on the zip and once when extracting)?

[Heigar]

No, it's doing *too much*. There's NO POINT to scanning in zip files. What's in there can't hurt you until it's unzipped, at which point it will be detected anyway. Easier to save teh resources for something better, like doing what you were going to do in the first place. If an AV scans zips and won't let me turn it off it doesn't get installed!
I would rather have it scan the zip that way i don't have to waste my time unzipping it then having it scanned.this way i can have the zip deleted right away and go on with business than unzipping it then scanning it and blah,blah,blah.

[Sheepeh]

But if you're not going to unzip then why have it in the first place? The scanning happens all the time anyway, Norton is unzipping EVERYTHING in the background and scanning it, then scanning AGAIN when you unzip what you want. Say you have 5 zip files, 4 are a virii, 1 is real.

Norton does 5 x unzip for scanning zip files, and 1 x unzip when you use the one you want. So it's unzipped 6 files to do that for you. Kaspersky (for example) doesn't *do* this (the way I have it set up), it doesn't give two figs whats in the zips until I open them.

*IF* I decided to open "pornoxxx.zip" (and if you do that frankly you need more than an AV) then it'll scan it when I unzip it, same as Norton already does. And it'll catch the critter and kill it.

If, on the other hand, I see my email says "fit girls now!!" it gets baleeted, and therefore my computer doesn't bother scanning the zip file.

So, for the one file I want, it does 1 unzip operation.

Compare :-

Norton unzipped 6 files
Kaspersky unzipped 1 file

Kaspersky would reasonably therefore have used roughly 1 sixth of the time to do it's job (and Nortons a bloaty slow piece of poo anyway so it's probably even less).

I still don't get infected, and my computers quicker.

I don't see why you would want zip scans ENABLED...

[Todd The Kiwi]

If, on the other hand, I see my email says "fit girls now!!" it gets baleeted, and therefore my computer doesn't bother scanning the zip file. i hope they is well fit ;)

I don't see why you would want zip scans ENABLED...
ever noticed how the bouncers 'pad down' even the ugly chicks?
security mate :cheeky: if it's on my computer it get scanned once,twice hell three times i don't care how much cpu etc... it uses i have no virus in here

you own the club which is your computer
bouncers are your anti virus
the punters (fit & unfit) are virii

my bouncers bash the crap out of all my punters every time they visit be they fit or nay :skull:

[Toe]

Be careful, and you won't need antivirus.
Question: do you run a firewall, and do you constantly check for updates to Windows & such? Be honest here.

I would be interested.
OK, this is what I've done to trim down eTrust's memory usage:

1. Disable the RPC service. This is used for remote network administration, which most of us probably don't need. (This is a business-targeted AV.) Go into windows control panel, administrative services, and set eTrust AV RPC service to manual or disabled.

2. Disable the tray applet. Go into regedit, then HLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run and nuke the realmon.exe entry. You lose the tray icon, but the protection is still there as long as InoRT (the realtime monitor) and InoTask (runs scheduled scans and automatic virus signature updates) are still going. You can double check things with Eicar.

[Todd The Kiwi]

You can double check things with Eicar.

i use this too
the "tests" i put up there are all four eicar test strings :skull:

[Roj]

Er, if you didn't know, Symantec and Norton are the same thing. Symantec is the company, Norton is the product.Not quite - there are several significant differences.

Just a wee bit of clarification... :)

The Symantec version is the corporate tool and it among other things can be network-managed (which means it can be controlled from a Systems Center), has a VERY customizable interface and defs and code updates (yes, I did say code updates - that includes the scanning and hueristics engines) come down much more frequently (at least daily as opposed to weekly). If a Category 5 virus shows up (widespread, fast rate of propagation, high damage, etc.) those updates can happen as frequently as every hour.

The Norton flavor is the consumer version and as far as I'm concerned once-a-week updates (usually on a Thursday unless something urgent and dire occurs in case anyone pays attention) are useless. A LOT of damage can occur in a week.

Personally at home I run a mixture of SAV 8.01 (Symantec Anti Virus Corporate Edition - I haven't moved to 9 yet as it has documented issues with XP Pro which are still in the process of being addressed) and AVG Free Edition. I tried Avast! but it was too pretty pretty (c'mon - skins on an AV program?) and AVG appeared to deliver the goods on a more regular basis. This being typed on my secondary box and lossy music server - the Athlon XP 1900+ - and it's running AVG.

[Inthewoods]

What Roj said is true. I didn't mean to imply that they were identical produts, just that they were from the same orgaization.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i'm trying out a new one at the moment called
ANTIVIR (http://www.free-av.com/) it's free and so far has shat all over avg free...
which by the way convinces me that i need to reinstall it when i do an update, forget that shit.
this antivir has picked up stuff that avg has been over looking for months
and it also appears to 'silently scan' constantly (i think) using 9,392 :carrot:
mo'fox is using 25,000 :carrot: so i think i can handle that
majorgeeks rate it 8.3/10 avg free has a rating of 7/10.

[rorythedog]

Not quite - there are several significant differences.

Just a wee bit of clarification... :)

The Symantec version is the corporate tool and it among other things can be network-managed (which means it can be controlled from a Systems Center), has a VERY customizable interface and defs and code updates (yes, I did say code updates - that includes the scanning and hueristics engines) come down much more frequently (at least daily as opposed to weekly). If a Category 5 virus shows up (widespread, fast rate of propagation, high damage, etc.) those updates can happen as frequently as every hour.

The Norton flavor is the consumer version and as far as I'm concerned once-a-week updates (usually on a Thursday unless something urgent and dire occurs in case anyone pays attention) are useless. A LOT of damage can occur in a week.

Personally at home I run a mixture of SAV 8.01 (Symantec Anti Virus Corporate Edition - I haven't moved to 9 yet as it has documented issues with XP Pro which are still in the process of being addressed) and AVG Free Edition. I tried Avast! but it was too pretty pretty (c'mon - skins on an AV program?) and AVG appeared to deliver the goods on a more regular basis. This being typed on my secondary box and lossy music server - the Athlon XP 1900+ - and it's running AVG.

The skins for Avast! are easily disabled. Go to Program Settings/Common and uncheck the "Enable Skins For Simple User Interface" box. Voila!

[Lich]

I’m using AntiVir for year or something near it, but be sure: best antivirus = safe surfing + your sanity.

[Toe]

i'm trying out a new one at the moment called
ANTIVIR (http://www.free-av.com/) it's free and so far has shat all over avg free... which by the way convinces me that i need to reinstall it when i do an update, forget that shit.
Are you still using AVG v6? They stopped making updates for that a couple months ago, in favor of the new v7.0 release. That's probably what it's talking about.

Now as for how good AVG is as an antivirus...

[Todd The Kiwi]

Are you still using AVG v6?
Now as for how good AVG is as an antivirus...
i'm referring to avg free 7, weird aye.
antivir is as good as avg pro i reckon, i haven't found the email scanner yet though
avg free just kept breaking so i said goodbye.
i'm really impressed with how sensitive ANTIVIR is.
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
you guys should copy the text in this box and try and save it, your AV should go mental.

[Toe]

Yeah, Eicar (http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm) is pretty much the standard 'test virus' for the industry, pretty much any AV will detect it.

[Todd The Kiwi]

dammit, i knew there had to be a catch with antivir
their support forum is in german, mine is nicht gut at best.
babelfishs' translation made me laugh so hard i forgot what i was doing :P
i did, however, find out that antivir doesn't scan emails.
interesting considering the person who made the dabber worm is german...
:freaked-out emoticon smiley thing:

[Toe]

A lot of people say that a seperate e-mail scanner isn't really needed, since the on-access scanner will (or at least should...) pick it up anyway.

As for a support forum, try the Other AV Software board over on Wilders Security Forums (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/), they can probably answer any questions you have about it.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i reckon so too, if something enters my pc somehow, the AV should
(and does with antivir) pick it up
shit antivir detects virii when it's not even running ha ha ha
i'll have a better look through that forum when i'm not drunk :P

[ace2701]

I've been using AVG free 6 for awhile, and just updated to V7. There is a bug in the control panel portion of the program that causes it to not respond at odd times. Disableing that part and keeping the virus test part active seems to be a fair workaround. Still can update manually, and the scheduled tests are still activated at the proper time. They say they are working on a fix for this problem.

[o2xygen]

I use avast!
Why?
1)Because its developers have A/V experience since 1988
2)its lightweight as far as ram recources are concerned (compared to others)
3)it silently updates its virus detabase twice a week. Updates are just 5 or 6 kb... I am a 56k user and this is very helpful
4) it has 6 resident providers (Standard, e-Mail,Outlook/exchange, P2P, Instant Messaging, and the New Network Shield that acts somewhat like a firewall although it doesn't replace the firewall...
5) It detects not only viruses, but Adware programs as well
6)it searches your startup everytime you boot, and your memory everytime you open the main program
7) it can be skinned. There is also a skinless version bundled with it
and
8)it has a nice virusdatabase recovery (VRDB)
:cool:

[Toe]

3)it silently updates its virus detabase twice a week.
Twice a WEEK? A major outbreak can spread in less than a day! I have eTrust set to check for updates hourly...

[jkrzok]

Two beauty parts about eTrust. You can set it to look for updates as often as you wish, although hourly is perhaps excessive :cheeky: . I have mine set for every three hours and worry that I'm bugging their server too much. Can a server ever say stop botheirng me already?

It's also free via a link on Microsofts web site.

[o2xygen]

Twice a WEEK? A major outbreak can spread in less than a day! I have eTrust set to check for updates hourly...
Avast checks for updates every 30 minutes :silly: ... Except of avast pro that has something called Push Updates... However I don't know what this exactly is... What I ment before is that the developers release virus update packages twice a week... I have seen it updating more than twice though... This is what you said, If there are any critical updates, then they release the definitions as soon as possible...

[Roj]

Twice a WEEK? A major outbreak can spread in less than a day! I have eTrust set to check for updates hourly...I had a boss who subscribed to that mindset. IMO that's institutional paranoia. First of all, the chances of you being hit with a major virus that slips through your defenses are pretty minimal if you have an AV with heuristics. Essentially, the only way it's going to get you is via e-mail or a visit to a site with embedded code. You mitigate those by not having Outlook / Outlook Express automatically open attachments and by surfing to well recognized sites. The whole "once an hour" thing is serious overkill in that context and besides, most AV companies immediately push updates to their clients when such an event occurs so it's not really twice a week during emergencies.

In that context, twice a week is quite acceptable.

[Todd The Kiwi]

ANTIVIR seems to be able to download new definitions daily
(at 2 am while i'm getting much needed beauty sleep :evolved: )
the worst possible thing to happen to a home users single machine is having to reinstall windows...
(had to be careful how i worded that, i'm bound to get picked up on it)
which isn't that bad, 20 mins after hitting "reformat C" you can listen to the tunes... ;)

[carbonize]

I use the best anti virus in the world. Common sense. Admitedly I also use NOD32 by eset but common sense is still the way to go. Don't download stupid files, don't open email attachments, don't use Internet Explorer nor Outlook (express).

[Sheepeh]

I use NOD32 for my machine, and Kaspersky on the family ones. NOD is light and doesn't interfere with my stuff - Kaspersky is heavyweight (though nowhere near Norton/McAfee) and protects against much shite.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Okay, so let me get this straight: I am the only one who uses and is actually happy about Norton Antivirus (2004) on this forum :laugh:

[GildedSplinter]

Okay, so let me get this straight: I am the only one who uses and is actually happy about Norton Antivirus (2004) on this forum :laugh:

... yes

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

... yes

ha ha allright. Maybe just a force of habit thing then. I've used Norton Antivirus since the dawn of computers, never had a problem with it. Always removing viruses, not just detecting them and leaving them alone, like AVG does. Then again i have never tried antivir and any others you all mentioned. Then again, if something works, why change it: If it aint broke, dont fix it ;)

[Tokelil]

No ...

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Right...

[Tokelil]

Actually almost all I know uses Norton AV 2004...

[Roj]

Actually almost all I know uses Norton AV 2004...
I'm happy to say that I'll never use another Symantec product again, including (and expecially) their AV.

[Tokelil]

I'm happy to say that I'll never use another Symantec product again, including (and expecially) their AV.Good for you! :) NAV doesn't give me a single problem, stays of my way and the uses like 5 MB of RAM... Besides I think the userinterface is nice and easy to use when I have to.
Anyway, I might look into the freeware ones sooner or later, but I trust symantec more than the firms behind the freeware scanners.

[Roj]

Good for you! :) NAV doesn't give me a single problem, stays of my way and the uses like 5 MB of RAM... Besides I think the userinterface is nice and easy to use when I have to.
Anyway, I might look into the freeware ones sooner or later, but I trust symantec more than the firms behind the freeware scanners.
For me the turnaround came when I had to work intimately with the product (SAV - basically NAV with more options) for a corporate rollout and got to see exactly how sloppy its inner workings were and how it pollutes a system. A clean solution it ain't. At that point I started looking for a more cleanly engineered product.

[Toe]

That's probably the biggest problem with Norton, it fucks with too much shit in the system that just shouldn't be fucked with. Too invasive.

[Tokelil]

Well that's only a problem IMO if I was to uninstall it... Then again Id probably just do a reformat if I need to uninstall it.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I think there is a little misconception here. Norton antivirus is not adware, spyware, or malware. It never was. It uses multiple directories for installation, but hey thats how windows operates. Same for Microsoft Office. You're not telling me you dont use office because of this? Symantec also makes many registry keys, but who cares, it's not a bad thing and no other application wont run because of it. It's the "smaller" "shareware" applications that make the registry go 'dirty' and eventually cause windows to slow down. Symantec is a big company i bet, and if there is any virus threat out there, Norton Antivirus will be one of the first to make sure your computer doesnt get infected. So there... :)

[Roj]

That's probably the biggest problem with Norton, it fucks with too much shit in the system that just shouldn't be fucked with. Too invasive.
I agreed completely. And please Toe - this is a family forum. :)

[Roj]

Well that's only a problem IMO if I was to uninstall it... Then again Id probably just do a reformat if I need to uninstall it.
Trust me - you'd have to.

[Roj]

I think there is a little misconception here. Norton antivirus is not adware, spyware, or malware. It never was. It uses multiple directories for installation, but hey thats how windows operates. Same for Microsoft Office. You're not telling me you dont use office because of this? Symantec also makes many registry keys, but who cares, it's not a bad thing and no other application wont run because of it. It's the "smaller" "shareware" applications that make the registry go 'dirty' and eventually cause windows to slow down. Symantec is a big company i bet, and if there is any virus threat out there, Norton Antivirus will be one of the first to make sure your computer doesnt get infected. So there... :)It uses multiple directories for installation, it pollutes the Registry by hiding entries all over the place, it does NOT uninstall properly or cleanly even if you use their corporate tool to do so, it's massively invasive and locks files that should not be locked on occasion therby not allowing you to delete them without a logout / login, the 9.0 version can spontaneously turns off System Restore because of a bug which Symantec still hasn't fixed six months after I brought it to their attention (they chose instead to say that SAV 10 will be released in the Spring which is a tacit abandonment of SAV9 less than a year after its debut with much fanfare), it doesn't catch virii that Avast! does even with the latest defs installed, it doesn't catch common adware and hijackers which Spybot does even though SAV 9 was specifically touted to do that...

The list long enough yet?

Yes, they have people working 24/7 to ensure that defs are current but so do the rest of the majors and more than a few of the so-called minor. They haven't updated the layout and design of the AV product in over six years, choosing itnstead to milk it to death a la Computer Associates which means that even as we speak, maintenance and sustainability of the application must be becoming VERY difficult, especially when they've added "thread detection" (their psuedonym for adware detection). Microsoft who formerly partnered with them now won't use them - they now use NOD32 ionstead.

Also, as another indication of how forward-thinking the company is, Symantec is the only company that held out using their own proprietary code (which didn't work) for their Speedisk app instead of using the documented Windows XP APIs which allowed defragmentation of the MFT on the fly. Their firewall is also a joke and again horrendously invasive.

Once I got the chance to see the man behind the curtain, I knew it was time to bid him farewell.

[GildedSplinter]

ha ha allright. Maybe just a force of habit thing then. I've used Norton Antivirus since the dawn of computers, never had a problem with it. Always removing viruses, not just detecting them and leaving them alone, like AVG does. Then again i have never tried antivir and any others you all mentioned. Then again, if something works, why change it: If it aint broke, dont fix it ;)

I'm on board with your "If it ain't broke..." approach. McAffee let me down. Norton let me down. I tried Avast 'cuz I didn't have any money or AV protection & figured freeware was better than nothing. Avast was the first one I tried... and the last. It has never let me down. I've been completely worry free since I tried it, and I never have to do anything. Set it and forget it. I personally wouldn't bother releasing perfectly good urine on Norton... but if it's never given YOU any grief... :bandit:

[Roj]

I personally wouldn't bother releasing perfectly good urine on Norton...

Now THAT definitely got my attention and I'm still laughing over it. :) :) :)

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Sooo...i still dont see any difference with the way Norton antivirus installs itself and say Microsoft Office. You guys ever looked in C:\Documents and Settings\'user'\Application Data? What does that tell you? Or C:\Documents and Settings\'user'\Local Settings\Application Data? Or why not C:\Documents and Settings\'user' as a whole? Then check C:\Program Files\Common Files for a change. What do you see? And all that junk that goes into the windows directory and sub-directories? You guys, Norton Antivirus is not an exception! So what is the fuss about? Then about the registry. I remember someone here saying that NOTHING properly uninstalls and ALWAYS leaves stuff behind in the registry. Again so why is Norton such a big deal? I use Norton Antivirus 2004 and have used older versions, but never SAV9 or 10 what ever that is, so its not like if one version is crap, all versions are crap. My system restore is perfectly unaffected and working properly, it always has. Layout and design is great and needs no change for crying out loud. I cant stress enough that NAV is not crap. In the end it is probably a question of trust. NAV never screwed up any computer i've had, always removed virusses before they could do any damage. I totally dont trust 'freeware' antivirus programmes for obvious reasons (ie no one gets paid for keeping the software up-to-date etc). Anyways, there ya go.

[Roj]

Sooo...i still dont see any difference with the way Norton antivirus installs itself and say Microsoft Office.Simple:

One interferes with the normals running of the PC and the other doesn't. I'm yet to see MS Office turn off System restore or prevent me form deleting a file.

The reason one should update a design is to improve sustainability and developement. Look at Linux. it was spaghetti code. then the major kernel rewrite happened in part to alleviate that mess so that new features could be better integrated and tested. That's sustainability. Symantec still uses an secotion of the registry called \Intel\Landesk for heaven's sake. That product hasn't existed for at least a couple of generations of computers, let alone computer products (hint: it was part of the original product that became Norton Antivirus).

Oh and just so you know, the Norton products are effectively the beta tests of the corporate producs, so yes you are using SAV9 or 10 when you use the Norton stuff. Once they get the kinks out with the home users (or at least most of them) then they slap the advanced interface on the engine and debut it for corporate use. This has been going on for years.

Bottom line:

I like clean and uncluttered systems. However, if you don't mind the invasiveness, jumble and mess or the increasing number of quirks that come up with each successive generation of the product then have at it.

For the record, I don't use MS Office either - I gave it up years ago for many of the reasons you iterated (OpenOffice.org fan here). :)

[fatal error]

another fine beer coaster norton cd's have made in the past....

they also go well with my aol coaster collection

and the madonna collection i "inherited" from an ex-girlfriend


http://www.quinnware.com/forum/images/emots/post/beer.gif

[max77]

Me I use Avast since 1 year and I'm very happy with this antivirus ... I remplaced Norton with this antivirus on the computer of my father ... and they never had problems. :)

[madjo]

a happy avast user here too.. but if Norton does what it should do, be happy with it :)
there are a lot of people out there who shell out money for that product, so somehow people are content with it... though not me, any norton product I tried crashed my pc... (even the crashdoctor or whatever its name was)

[acushla]

My subscription to Norton Antivirus subscription is due to expire soon and I was looking at alternatives. What AV programs are people using here? I like the idea of AVG Free edition and am wondering about people's experiences with this specifically. Do you get what you pay for? Is it as effective as Norton, and as up to date in its virus definitions?

Free is good (QCD!) but am I running a risk while trying to save a few bucks?

Norton all the way. Which is not to suggest that there aren't other excellent programs...there are. However, if you take a look at which program the majority of Corporation's use...as well as various commercial email programs...you will find that Norton is the anti-virus program of choice. Let's face it...that size and that amount of resources dedicated to one area...that's pretty hard to beat. They have become an Icon...they do the job right. I think it's worth the yearly fee they ask for to have the type of protection they offer. If you think about anti-virus programs as being 'audio speakers' then consider Norton as being the ones that give you just a little bit of extra bass and greater inner detail in the midrange and ever so sweet highs in the top end. Now you understand. (Sorry Roj...all I know is that I have NEVER had a problem with NAV and that it has ALWAYS detected and deleted any virus that somehow found it's way into my machine. One has to go by one's experience with a product...and if that experience has been nothing but good then why should I care if they are using BETA versions in order to get it absolutely right for corporations. I imagine if you looked closely at the majority of programs/software/hardware you would find a good percentage of them to be BETA.)

[hedge]

I somehow think roj will say if norton nav were a set of speakers, they would be the shitty little multimedia speakers ya get which instantly break and cut in and out... ;)

Anyway, I do agree that norton is too bloated. I haven't used a version since 2002 or 3, and probably never will touch it again. I'm happy with the freeware solutions out there (at the moment, Avast, and before that, AVG).

[acushla]

I somehow think roj will say if norton nav were a set of speakers, they would be the shitty little multimedia speakers ya get which instantly break and cut in and out... ;)

Anyway, I do agree that norton is too bloated. I haven't used a version since 2002 or 3, and probably never will touch it again. I'm happy with the freeware solutions out there (at the moment, Avast, and before that, AVG).

...you're probably right...Roj wouldn't care much for my silly analogy. All I really wanted to convey was that although it might be true that 'freeware' anti-virus programs will provide the basic core protection on your computer...the moment something arises out of the ordinary then my money (and my machine) are going to be on Norton as being the most likely program to prevent that virus from entering and doing harm. For myself it just isn't worth the risk of having anything less than the best when it comes to Anti-Virus software and for me Norton is the best.

[acushla]

I'm happy to say that I'll never use another Symantec product again, including (and expecially) their AV.

I can understand when you say you will never use another Symantec product again...what I do not understand is when you say you are 'happy' to say...

I have used 'System Works Pro' from day one and have always said that I do not understand people who do NOT use this product. So I guess I could say I'm 'sad' when I see people not using 'System Works Pro'.

[Inthewoods]

All I really wanted to convey was that although it might be true that 'freeware' anti-virus programs will provide the basic core protection on your computer...the moment something arises out of the ordinary then my money (and my machine) are going to be on Norton as being the most likely program to prevent that virus from entering and doing harm. For myself it just isn't worth the risk of having anything less than the best when it comes to Anti-Virus software and for me Norton is the best.

My own distaste for NAV has little to do with it's ability to do the job. The reason I will not use it it basically becaused of the very invasive way it "weaves" itself into your system's registry and core file system. If you ever need to remove it, you can forget it, unless you are ready do a fresh install of windows, because it simply cannot be removed completely.

As for the idea that "freeware" antivirus is somehow inferior, it should be noted that since the advent of version 7, the core program and AV definitions used in AVG free version are identical to those used in the paid version. The differences are only in the features (which do not affect performance), and customer support.

[carbonize]

I have tried AVG 7, both Pro and free, and it sucks. You have to set your email clients up to use it which is ok for scanning incoming pop mail but most viruses hook straight into the windows IAMP service to send emails and so would by pass the anti virus. Also it failed to even detect the test virus I sent myself. If you want a free anti virus I recommend Avast. I just downloaded it for a friend and was pleasently suprised. It scans all HTTP traffic as well as all connections to known mail ports on remote servers.

[jawpr]

My own distaste for NAV has little to do with it's ability to do the job. The reason I will not use it it basically becaused of the very invasive way it "weaves" itself into your system's registry and core file system. If you ever need to remove it, you can forget it, unless you are ready do a fresh install of windows, because it simply cannot be removed completely.

As for the idea that "freeware" antivirus is somehow inferior, it should be noted that since the advent of version 7, the core program and AV definitions used in AVG free version are identical to those used in the paid version. The differences are only in the features (which do not affect performance), and customer support.


Inthewoods - Since you use AVG, could you possibly help me with a small problem with AVG? I have separate desktops set up for my wife and I and the first desktop that opens, AVG opens with all the functions active. If I then change from my desktop to her desktop, AVG will open on her desktop with all functions active for just a very short time and then the e-mail scanner will pop-up and say that it is not active and the icon light for avg will go out. All other functions remain active. If I open avg and click activate, nothing happens. This happens no matter which desktop I open first. The first one opened remains active but the second one opened always becomes inactive for the e-mail function. Do you have any idea how I could correct this? Thanks.

[acushla]

My own distaste for NAV has little to do with it's ability to do the job. The reason I will not use it it basically becaused of the very invasive way it "weaves" itself into your system's registry and core file system. If you ever need to remove it, you can forget it, unless you are ready do a fresh install of windows, because it simply cannot be removed completely.

As for the idea that "freeware" anti virus is somehow inferior, it should be noted that since the advent of version 7, the core program and AV definitions used in AVG free version are identical to those used in the paid version. The differences are only in the features (which do not affect performance), and customer support.

I am definitely not a 'tech' guy...and know little if anything about how something like NAV 'works'...but what you say about how it 'weaves' into the systems registry causes me to think that perhaps it needs to do this in order to work properly. If not then perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to what other reason it would need to do this.

I suppose I did imply that 'freeware' anti-virus, as good as it might be, was not as good as a utility like Norton. I freely admit that (as Jon Stewart likes to say) 'I have nothing' to back this statement up...it just seems to me that a company as vast and as dedicated and with all the resources at hand is ultimately going to more thorough than a company who does not have the same resources at hand. Sort of like Ferrari beating every other competitor year after year after year. Personally I cheer on McLaren/Williams BMW...but I never really believe they are going to win.

[jawpr]

I am definitely not a 'tech' guy...and know little if anything about how something like NAV 'works'...but what you say about how it 'weaves' into the systems registry causes me to think that perhaps it needs to do this in order to work properly. If not then perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to what other reason it would need to do this.

I suppose I did imply that 'freeware' anti-virus, as good as it might be, was not as good as a utility like Norton. I freely admit that (as Jon Stewart likes to say) 'I have nothing' to back this statement up...it just seems to me that a company as vast and as dedicated and with all the resources at hand is ultimately going to more thorough than a company who does not have the same resources at hand. Sort of like Ferrari beating every other competitor year after year after year. Personally I cheer on McLaren/Williams BMW...but I never really believe they are going to win.


I have no idea which is the best. I do know that Norton doesn't always catch a virus that another virus scanner will catch. It probably works the other way around also. My son always used Norton until a couple of years ago when he got a virus on his computer and ran Norton several times and each time Norton said no virus found. He called me and I put AVG on his computer and Avg caught the virus the first time he ran it. I would think that different virus scanners check different places for a virus and if so, that would account for one missing a virus that another would find. Sounds like to me it would depend on what virus it was and where it was located on the computer. Just my personal veiwpoint.

[acushla]

I have no idea which is the best. I do know that Norton doesn't always catch a virus that another virus scanner will catch. It probably works the other way around also. My son always used Norton until a couple of years ago when he got a virus on his computer and ran Norton several times and each time Norton said no virus found. He called me and I put AVG on his computer and Avg caught the virus the first time he ran it. I would think that different virus scanners check different places for a virus and if so, that would account for one missing a virus that another would find. Sounds like to me it would depend on what virus it was and where it was located on the computer. Just my personal viewpoint.

You bring up an interesting point about different scanners picking up different viruses...much like spyware programs...of which most of us have two or three on our computers. At one time I was running two anti-virus programs until the person who built my computer told me in no uncertain terms this was something I could not do as they would interfere with each other and cause serious problems. Do other readers have knowledge concerning this? Why can't we run two? You know...all this talk about virus and spyware simply depresses me. It really makes me start to think about a Mac. There are far more worthwhile things to do in life than to be constantly on the lookout for these items and talking about how best to protect yourself. You know, my Uncle in California understands spyware to simply be a tracking device set by an ad firm which determines your interests so when you visit a page they are associated with you will see ads that correspond to your interests. He has no problem with spyware. He says if your going to see ads you might as well see ads that are of interest to you. How is this different from the free version of OPERA? I am certain that anybody using OPERA has noticed that the displayed ads directly correspond to whatever you are doing at that moment.

[carbonize]

One reason you cannot have two anti virus programs running at the same time is this.
When you run/open a file it is scanned by the anti virus program. So both anti virus programs run their scanners to scan the file. Both anti virus programs detect the opening/running of the other anti virus programs scanner and so goes to scan that process. In extreme circumstances this can lock your system up indefinately. The other reason is that most anti virus programs quarantine viruses and know not to scan their quarantine folders but the other anti virus program will scan the other programs quarantine folder and detect any stored viruses.

[acushla]

One reason you cannot have two anti virus programs running at the same time is this.
When you run/open a file it is scanned by the anti virus program. So both anti virus programs run their scanners to scan the file. Both anti virus programs detect the opening/running of the other anti virus programs scanner and so goes to scan that process. In extreme circumstances this can lock your system up indefinately. The other reason is that most anti virus programs quarantine viruses and know not to scan their quarantine folders but the other anti virus program will scan the other programs quarantine folder and detect any stored viruses.

I PROMISE I will never do it again. I will go sit in the cornor now.

[carbonize]

As to the spyware issue. Yes cookie based spyware is just used to track your website viewing but others are a pain. Spyware programs waste your bandwidth by reporting your internet activities and also waste your resources. If spyware is not a bad thing why do they not advertise the fact they are doing it? Then of course you get malware which is the nasty cousin. It can take over your web browser (so long as your web browser is internet explorer or IE based), change your home page, cause random pop up windows AND still waste your bandwidth by reporting your activities.

Your uncle says they only monitor you to send you targetted advertising. I say poppy cock because I rarely click adverts and when I do the adverts I tend to be because they are nothing to do with what I am browsing and have peaked my interest. One example is the last one I clicked which was an advert for O2 (a UK mobile phone network) and was displayed on my Yahoo email page.

And just to return to my previous rant. AVG SUCKS!!! use Avast instead.

[Inthewoods]

Inthewoods - Since you use AVG, could you possibly help me with a small problem with AVG? I have separate desktops set up for my wife and I and the first desktop that opens, AVG opens with all the functions active. If I then change from my desktop to her desktop, AVG will open on her desktop with all functions active for just a very short time and then the e-mail scanner will pop-up and say that it is not active and the icon light for avg will go out. All other functions remain active. If I open avg and click activate, nothing happens. This happens no matter which desktop I open first. The first one opened remains active but the second one opened always becomes inactive for the e-mail function. Do you have any idea how I could correct this? Thanks.

My wife and I also share one of our computers, an I have not seen this problem at all. My guess (remember, this is only a guess), is that you did not install AVG from either an administratve account, or from a limited account using administrative rights. In some cases this causes some software to have 100% functionality only on the (limited) user account under which it was installed. Try uninstalling AVG, reboot, and reinstall it from an administrative account. Good luck!

[jawpr]

You bring up an interesting point about different scanners picking up different viruses...much like spyware programs...of which most of us have two or three on our computers. At one time I was running two anti-virus programs until the person who built my computer told me in no uncertain terms this was something I could not do as they would interfere with each other and cause serious problems. Do other readers have knowledge concerning this? Why can't we run two? You know...all this talk about virus and spyware simply depresses me. It really makes me start to think about a Mac. There are far more worthwhile things to do in life than to be constantly on the lookout for these items and talking about how best to protect yourself. You know, my Uncle in California understands spyware to simply be a tracking device set by an ad firm which determines your interests so when you visit a page they are associated with you will see ads that correspond to your interests. He has no problem with spyware. He says if your going to see ads you might as well see ads that are of interest to you. How is this different from the free version of OPERA. I am certain that
anybody using OPERA has noticed that the displayed ads directly correspond to whatever you are doing at that moment.


I tried to put Avast on my computer one time and it said it would not install unless I took AVG off due to incompactabilities. I later did remove AVG because of the problem I mentioned above with the e-mail not being activated on both my desktops at the same time and installed Avast. But for some reason I had a problem with Avast pulling 100% CPU and slowing down to a crawl so I had to remove it and reinstall AVG which I have been using for a long time without any problems except the one I just mentioned. My son used Norton and AVG together without any problems until his Norton expired and he just stayed with AVG.

[madjo]

Yeah...your probably right...Roj wouldn't care much for my silly analogy. All I really wanted to convey was that although it might be true that 'freeware' anti-virus programs will provide the basic core protection on your computer...the moment something arises out of the ordinary then my money (and my machine) are going to be on Norton as being the most likely program to prevent that virus from entering and doing harm. For myself it just isn't worth the risk of having anything less than the best when it comes to Anti-Virus software and for me Norton is the best.
Avast gives more then just the basic core protection.. it gives much the same protection that NAV gives, only for free for home users. (continuous scanning of all incoming and outgoing files, email scanning, IM protection)

And I wouldn't call Norton the best, just because it is used by the most users, and that you pay for it. Most people I know, use it out of 'ignorance' that there are other solutions available. :)

[carbonize]

and that you pay for it.
That should read "and that you ARE SUPPOSED TO pay for it" :evil:

[jawpr]

My wife and I also share one of our computers, an I have not seen this problem at all. My guess (remember, this is only a guess), is that you did not install AVG from either an administratve account, or from a limited account using administrative rights. In some cases this causes some software to have 100% functionality only on the (limited) user account under which it was installed. Try uninstalling AVG, reboot, and reinstall it from an administrative account. Good luck!

Thanks for your help.
I installed it myself and both me and my wife have administrative accounts. I have uninstalled and reinstalled AVG 3 times trying to correct this problem but it did not help. I am beginning to think I have some missing files on my computer because after starting it up, sometimes when I click on a program, the computer will reboot and sometimes when I click on Logout/change users the computer will freeze and I have to manually close and then start the computer again. My son who has been going to school studying for his Microsoft certification and he is going to put me a new power supply and also strip my computer and reinstall windows for me as soon as he gets the time to do it. At least I know now that it is not a bug in AVG that is causing my problem since you have not had that problem.Thanks again.

[Inthewoods]

Avast gives more then just the basic core protection.. it gives much the same protection that NAV gives, only for free for home users. (continuous scanning of all incoming and outgoing files, email scanning, IM protection) :)

AVG offers comprehensive protection in all those areas as well. I'm not saying Avast is no good, but I had the same experience as jawpr, my system did not like Avast at all, performance took a major hit, AVG seems to have little or no affect on performance.

[carbonize]

My son who has been going to school studying for his Microsoft certification and he is going to put me a new power supply and also strip my computer and reinstall windows for me as soon as he gets the time to do it.
You don't need to be a MSCE to fit a new PSU and reinstall windows. I do find it funny you saying that though because three IT specialists I know have all said that when conducting interviews for new employees, if the employee is a MSCE the first thing they ask them is if they know how to turn a computer on :silly:

Just to add when did you try Avast? It has been recently updated.

[jawpr]

You don't need to be a MSCE to fit a new PSU and reinstall windows. I do find it funny you saying that though because three IT specialists I know have all said that when conducting interviews for new employees, if the employee is a MSCE the first thing they ask them is if they know how to turn a computer on :silly:

Just to add when did you try Avast? It has been recently updated.


It has been 3-5 months since I tried Avast. I am not saying it was something wrong with Avast that caused it to use that much power. As I said in the previous post, due to the problems I am having, I am convinced that my computer has some corrupted or missing files and maybe a bad power supply so I think it is my computer that was at fault. I will say I liked the way Avast looked and when my computer is fixed, I will probably look at it again. By the way, I saw where it had been recently updated but that was not for the free edition,was it? It loked to me like that was just the commercial edition.

[acushla]

That should read "and that you ARE SUPPOSED TO pay for it" :evil:

I discovered something that I consider 'odd' about my Norton System Works Pro which has NAV as a component. I had some major upgrades performed on my computer which meant having to uninstall my WORKS program. When it came time to reinstall it I noticed that my year subscription had renewed itself to start the same day I reinstalled. I have had to make two reinstalls since then and each time my one year subscription begins from the day I reinstalled! Now...in no way am I suggesting you try this at home...

[carbonize]

By the way, I saw where it had been recently updated but that was not for the free edition,was it? It loked to me like that was just the commercial edition.
As far as I am aware there is only one version of Avast. The free version is just the pro version with the extra featuers turned off. Then when you pay they send you the code to unlock the pro features.

As to the NAV thing yes it has always been that way.

[rorythedog]

Here's a question for you guys. I've used just about every free Firewall out there but I've had problems with them all, at one time or another. After receiving advice from one forum member (who, for the time-being, shall remain nameless), I uninstalled ZA and have been running with the Windows Firewall alone for some three weeks. I have had NO problems.

For the record, I also have installed Spywareguard, Spywareblaster, Ad-Aware, Spybot and Microsoft Antispyware. I also regularly run CWShredder and I make sure the "messenger has been shot".

My question - surely, as long as you know what's on your pc in the first place, there is no real need for a third-party firewall? I mean, as far as I know, the only thing lacking in the built-in Windows firewall is the ability to monitor outgoing traffic. Therefore it follows that as long as I know that there's no nasties on my system, then the ability to scan outgoing traffic is superflous.

Is this a fair assumption, or am I missing something?

P.S. I'm using XP Home SP2 and I only access the net using Firefox, Opera, and Thunderbird (except for Update Tuesdays,where I'm forced to use IE). For messaging I use Gant MSN, Trillian and Skype.

[carbonize]

Why use a third party firewall? Because it's better to be safe than sorry. Sygate is the best firewall I have found, it even detects application hijacking. By this I mean if a program launches a program that connects to the net Sygate pops up a request to let it connect. This is because it is possible for a nasty program to send information to a website using a specially crafted URL and Internet Explorer. This works as everyone has allowed IE to connect to the net and so most firewalls wont stop it. I personaly use Fiefox for web browsing but I'd still sooner be safe. All it takes is one download to get infected. Be it with a virus or malware.

To your list may I suggest you also get yourself a good hosts file?

[carbonize]

And on a slightly different note Windows IS spyware. Microsoft is well known for monitoring program usage, music listened to etc.

[Roj]

My question - surely, as long as you know what's on your pc in the first place, there is no real need for a third-party firewall? I mean, as far as I know, the only thing lacking in the built-in Windows firewall is the ability to monitor outgoing traffic. Therefore it follows that as long as I know that there's no nasties on my system, then the ability to scan outgoing traffic is superflous.

The Windows firewall is a bare-bones packet filtering affair. It's better than nothing at all but it would never be my first and only line of defense.

My recommendation remains the following:

Buy a hardware solution, such as a Linksys router - they're cheap. Do NOT buy a wireless flavor - there are scripts out there that will own you and your network four seconds after you plug it in out of the box and besides, they're far too prone to someone leeching your bandwidth in their unsecured state (I've got a guy in my neighbourhood who leeches off the bandwidth from the other houses running wireless). Change the administrator password on your newly-purchased non-wireless router immediately. Install a good AV package - I recommend avast! 4 Home Edition. Install a good malware blocker - I recommend Spybot Search & Destroy. Run a decent browser with ad and popup blocking - I recommend Maxthon (that's another thread :) ) but I suppose Firefox will do (cheeky grin). Disable the Windows firewall and do not install any software firewall at all - they're more trouble than they're worth and FAR more subject to exploits than a hardware solution.

The above has served my six machines well for several years.

[rorythedog]

Man, that was quick.

Thanks for the advice. I do use Spybot and I also have Avast! installed. IE is only ever allowed to access the net when updates to Windows are available. A router is too expensive for me at the moment.

I can't help thinking "if it ain't broke...".

In the last two years I've used everything out there that's free. And I think the last three weeks has been the most trouble-free I've had since getting this pc two years ago. I scan my pc every day with all the programs I listed in my previous post and they find nothing wrong.

Of course, I am touching a rather large piece of wood at the moment.

[rorythedog]

Ooh Err!

[carbonize]

Linksys actually advocate using a software firewall along with their router, it even ties into Zonealarm Pro.

As to scanning your PC daily, thats a tad obsessive.

[carbonize]

BTW Roj Maxthon is just IE in drag and so has all the same exploits.

[Roj]

Linksys actually advocate using a software firewall along with their router, it even ties into Zonealarm Pro.

Yeah.

It's crap.

As to scanning your PC daily, thats a tad obsessive.

Do tell. If I scan once a week I'm doing well.

[Roj]

BTW Roj Maxthon is just IE in drag and so has all the same exploits.

To a point. Some of them have been patched by the author. It also includes a popup blocker and ad blocker. Finally, I don't give a whole lot of credence to the majority (but not all) of those exploits. Too many of them involve knowingly stepping in front of a Mack truck in a way that even a neophyte (much less an experienced) user wouldn't do.

In short, they're more hype than substance.

[carbonize]

I have never had software installed on my PC whilst using Firefox. This is because it was probably done by Active X. This has only been patched by SP2 or a web browser without Active X support, no IE wrapper be it Maxthon, Slimbrowser, My IE, Avantbrowser etc fixed this to my knowledge.

[Roj]

I have never had software installed on my PC whilst using Firefox. This is because it was probably done by Active X. This has only been patched by SP2 or a web browser without Active X support, no IE wrapper be it Maxthon, Slimbrowser, My IE, Avantbrowser etc fixed this to my knowledge.

I've never had software installed on my PC whilst using IE or Maxthon, so there. :P

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Roj]I recommend Maxthon (that's another thread :) ) but I QUOTE]

Well...we AGREE on something! Sound the trumpets! You know...it just proves what I've always said: 'You can agree with me or...you can be wrong.'

[Roj]

Well...we AGREE on something! Sound the trumpets! You know...it just proves what I've always said: 'You can agree with me or...you can be wrong.'

Sounds similar to something I often tell people:

"We'll get along just fine just as soon as you realize I'm God." :) :) :)

[acushla]

Sounds similar to something I often tell people:

"We'll get along just fine just as soon as you realize I'm God." :) :) :)

Hmmm...I have always had respect...but God? The way I understand it God is ALWAYS right...which, I'm sorry to say (hehehe)...disqualifies you.
You know...just for interests sake I wanted to ask you if you had any thoughts (like there was any chance you wouldn't) about the 'restoration' of Disney's 'Bambi'...particulary the enhanced colour aspect.

[Roj]

Hmmm...I have always had respect...but God? The way I understand it God is ALWAYS right...which, I'm sorry to say (hehehe)...disqualifies you.

aaaaaaWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!! :)

You know...just for interests sake I wanted to ask you if you had any thoughts (like there was any chance you wouldn't) about the 'restoration' of Disney's 'Bambi'...particulary the enhanced colour aspect.

Well y'know, I really can't comment on that one - I haven't seen it. I do hope they did a simple "restore" and not an "enhance" with all kinds of extra stuff.

[acushla]

[QUOTE=Roj]Well y'know, I really can't comment on that one - I haven't seen it. QUOTE]

That's a very interesting choice of words.

[madjo]

Well y'know, I really can't comment on that one - I haven't seen it. I do hope they did a simple "restore" and not an "enhance" with all kinds of extra stuff.
hehe.. Bambi - the directors cut... :)

[carbonize]

Or Bambi 2 where Bambi returns to the forest after several months in a Tibetan monestary learning the martial arts and kicks butt.

[acushla]

Or Bambi 2 where Bambi returns to the forest after several months in a Tibetan monastery learning the martial arts and kicks butt.

I see where Mel Gibson. right around the time that other directors are releasing their newly cut film to the public on DVD...he decides to release it in theatres. So now I'm starting to think that maybe the DVD will have some alternate endings. Somebody has to pay for that Island. It all reminds me of an episode of 'South Park' when Cartman decides that the fastest way to make a platinum album was to form a Christian rock group. Kyle points out that Cartman knows nothing about Christianity to which Cartman replies; 'I know enough to exploit it!'

[Roj]

[QUOTE=Roj]Well y'know, I really can't comment on that one - I haven't seen it. QUOTE]

That's a very interesting choice of words.

Mon, ya lost me there... :)

[Roj]

Kyle points out that Cartman knows nothing about Christianity to which Cartman replies; 'I know enough to exploit it!'

Sony and SACD!!!!!!!

I'm sorry mon, I just could NOT resist... :) :) :)

The inference here is not on 5.1 sound as much as it is on Sony. When you read my reply over the weekend, you'll understand.

[carbonize]

As I have stated before Sony are masters of marketing (although I bet they wish they had come up with a marketing trick like Gmails invite only status). DCC was better quality than MD but for years Sony had been slipping things that looked liked Minidiscs into Sci-Fi movies and so when they finally came out people automatically thought of them as the future (even if only sublimally) whilst DCC's looked like normal tapes so got associated with Audio Tapes and there quality.

[acushla]

[QUOTE=acushla]

Mon, ya lost me there... :)

I was referring to your previous acknowledgement that you had not actually heard the multi channel release of 'Dark Side of the Moon'. I am implying that it is one thing to comment on a process you have heard...quite another thing to ascribe that process to something you haven't heard. What you are saying about the 'Bambi' film is that, even though you know a lot about the possibilities of things which can be accomplished...which will either result in an improvement or in a degrading (based on however you define those terms in relation to film)...the point is that you are going to reserve judgement until you actually SEE the film. Something which I personally applaud.

[Roj]

[QUOTE=Roj]

I was referring to your previous acknowledgement that you had not actually heard the multi channel release of 'Dark Side of the Moon'. I am implying that it is one thing to comment on a process you have heard...quite another thing to ascribe that process to something you haven't heard. What you are saying about the 'Bambi' film is that, even though you know a lot about the possibilities of things which can be accomplished...which will either result in an improvement or in a degrading (based on however you define those terms in relation to film)...the point is that you are going to reserve judgement until you actually SEE the film. Something which I personally applaud.

Ahhhhh. De fog gone now, mon. :)

Also, when you get to my reply on the weekend, you'll see that I have actually heard SACD remasters - just not the one you heard.

[acushla]

[QUOTE=acushla]...when you get to my reply on the weekend, you'll see that I have actually heard SACD remasters - just not the one you heard.

I know you have and it's probably reasonably safe to assume that some sounded 'better' than others. Just not good enough to make you reconsider that perhaps, if done properly with the right material and engineer, there might be a place for SACD after all. You do mention DVD-AUDIO...I have a number of these including the three available Santana discs...which I thoroughly enjoy. You know (this just occurred to me right now)...I recently held a SACD copy of ABRAXAS...but put it back as I already have it on DVD-AUDIO. Now I think I might go out and purchase it and listen to both back to back. Perhaps that will tell me something useful. If I understand you correctly and you feel that there is a place for DVD-AUDIO I'd be interested in knowing why. A little note here: Abraxas would have been one of my 'Desert Island' picks...it's just that Lotus, apart from the fact that it is an excellent album, has two discs instead of one!

[acushla]

It's interesting (to me) that I can make a post in Computers and Software and the time is registered as 1:33 am and then half an hour or so later I can make a post in Audiophiles and the time is then registered as 1:25 am. Not that I care.

[matty28carter]

It's interesting (to me) that I can make a post in Computers and Software and the time is registered as 1:33 am and then half an hour or so later I can make a post in Audiophiles and the time is then registered as 1:25 am. Not that I care.

ah thats what you get when its a computer telling the time

[acushla]

ah thats what you get when its a computer telling the time

...except mine is connected to the 'atomic clock' (which I'm guessing is a good thing) through BeatNik Internet Clock. Perhaps this site needs to be hooked up by BeatNik. Then at least two of us will be in the same plane. Not that it matters.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Well, it looked like the license of Norton antivirus expired so i decided to go for avast! It seems to be working except that i had to disable the skinning because the application tends to crash with them. I usually dont get viruses so lets see if avast is up to the job when i do get one or more. :skull:

Windows happily reports in the windows security center that there is indeed an antivirus programme active so i guess that is good :)

[Todd The Kiwi]

ok so the last couple of days i've been seeing 100%cpu from avia/antivir notify.exe
i have it updating definitions @ 4am then scanning @ 5am
when i get up at about 7 the scan is only 1 or 2 % complete and cpu as i said is @ 100%
taskman says it's "avnotify.exe" when i kill it all is well and the scan continues [until i stop it]
this strikes me as a bit weird
i've had a look at the avira forum, but it's german and translated just looks weird.

anyone else having this problem ?

edit:this thread (http://forum.antivir-pe.de/thread.php?threadid=7782&hilight=notify) seems to be about what i'm getting but y'know
babelmunkee (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr) makes it no easier to understand...

[idefiXX]

Goddamn German spammers ;) Four pages full of crap...
Not everyone of them has this problem, but those having it are waiting for an update of avnotify.exe (it's a bug and is has nothing to do with your system)
The things you can try :
You can have a look, if your Firewall (if you got one) blocks avnotify.exe Is Google-Desktop installed on your computer ? Turn it off and see what happens. If you got an older version, you can install it, but you're not allowed to update it until the bug is fixed !



Sorry man, although I read the whole thread I couldn't find anything that works for everyone. I'll bookmark this and will post soon ;)

[Todd The Kiwi]

you are awesome =)
looks like i'll wait for them to fix der bug ;)

[idefiXX]

Hallo,

im Laufe des Nachmittages wird es ein Update der avnotify.exe geben.

Die Datei wird über den Updater zur Verfügung stehen.
This means that an update of avnotify.exe should be available in the course of this afternoon.
It is available now, and you can get it over the normal internetupdate. Other users report that this update fixed the problem. :)

[Antman]

What I like most about Grisoft is their timely and responsive tech support.

I have only contacted them twice, long ago, but they responded same day, both times.

On a somewhat regular basis, I also visit Panda for the online scan.

[Todd The Kiwi]

This means that an update of avnotify.exe should be available in the course of this afternoon.
It is available now, and you can get it over the normal internetupdate. Other users report that this update fixed the problem. yeah wicked, i did a manual update about an hour ago avnotify.exe was included.
the coolest thing is that i didn't catch a virus...

http://www.free-av.com/antivirclassic/bilder/AVIRA_logo.gif (http://www.free-av.com/) rules
(http://www.free-av.com/)

[Toe]

Yeah, I might have to give Antivir another shot one of these days. Word on Wilders (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/) is that overall, Antivir v7 was a pretty big update in terms of quality. I think I'll wait a bit for more reports on quality, though.

[Protocol]

AntiVir is well worth trying. The best free option in my opinion.

[Todd The Kiwi]

freaky interface overhaul too
i'd never really called it "avira" before v7 either, meh.

[Toe]

i'd never really called it "avira" before v7 either, meh. That's probably because they just recently changed the name of the company to Avira. :P

[Todd The Kiwi]

oh woops, i thought you said...

http://www.quizquest.fsnet.co.uk/Elvira-010.jpg

p.s dang :P

[acushla]

What I like most about Grisoft is their timely and responsive tech support.

I have only contacted them twice, long ago, but they responded same day, both times.

On a somewhat regular basis, I also visit Panda for the online scan.Just for the record, I can personally attest to the excellent tech support at NOD-32.

[acushla]

freaky interface overhaul too
i'd never really called it "avira" before v7 either, meh.Are you still searching around for a good avatar?:cheeky:

I have a couple of sites I could turn you on to...or... even better...I could just send you one.;)

Let me know.:)

[idefiXX]

The only thing that changed from Antivir 6 to 7 is the interface, and I must say that I am disappointed and currently losing confidence in this product. Maybe I'll have to try AVG or NOD-32 :normal:

[Toe]

The only thing that changed from Antivir 6 to 7 is the interface
A completely new heuristic engine apparently means nothing to you?

[Neo]

NOD-32 is all I need. :biggrin:

[idefiXX]

A completely new heuristic engine apparently means nothing to you?
And if you are right, I stand for my statement. I think they could have done the new interface in another way. Like it is now it doesn't satify me. BTW - I hate Adware, and this popup everytime you update your definitions is really annoying.

[freelancerage]

for those who use nod32...

please help me..is there any way to have a "manual update"

like you download update files then copy those update files and transfer them to another computer?

that's my only request for nod32 ... to have a manual update...

[Protocol]

for those who use nod32...

please help me..is there any way to have a "manual update"

like you download update files then copy those update files and transfer them to another computer?

that's my only request for nod32 ... to have a manual update...
I haven't used this myself, but check this page (http://nodview.narod.ru/) out. If you can't read Russian, then you will haved to convert it in Google Language Tools. :rolleyes:

[acushla]

that's my only request for nod32 ... to have a manual update...
Yes...when you do your initial set up you are given 3 options...Minimum, Full and Ask.

Ask gives you complete control over the update process.
.

Right click the icon and then in the Control Center go down the menu to 'Update'. Open it and click 'Update Now'.

Trust that helps.

[Protocol]

Yes...when you do your initial set up you are given 3 options...Minimum, Full and Ask.

Ask gives you complete control over the update process.
.

Right click the icon and then in the Control Center go down the menu to 'Update'. Open it and click 'Update Now'.

Trust that helps.
I believe he wants the files to be able to transfer them to another computer. :ponder:

[acushla]

I believe he wants the files to be able to transfer them to another computer. :ponder:
Oh...I get it. Thanks.

In that case the short answer would be no.

If this helps...even though the 'agreement' makes it clear you are buying NOD-32 for one computer...I ended up loading it up on my laptop as well. I spend time on the Internet with it and receive all the updates. Thus far there have been no email's advising me to cease and desist.

[Protocol]

Oh...I get it. Thanks.

In that case the short answer would be no.

If this helps...even though the 'agreement' makes it clear you are buying NOD-32 for one computer...I ended up loading it up on my laptop as well. I spend time on the Internet with it and receive all the updates. Thus far there have been no email's advising me to cease and desist.
I guess as long as only 1 IP address is downloading updates, then they won't blacklist your username and password.
Regarding the manual transfer of files. Some people wish to use NOD32 on a computer that doesn't access the internet. I have seen this question asked quite a few times before.

[freelancerage]

If you can't read Russian, then you will haved to convert it in Google Language Tools. :rolleyes:

^____^ thanks man...can't understand..but it helps..thanks so much

[freelancerage]

Some people wish to use NOD32 on a computer that doesn't access the internet. I have seen this question asked quite a few times before.

yeah...nod32 is so secured..i can't even explore their files...what folder should i paste updates, component updates..etc...and i've checked the cracked sites...only few...have cracks to pass nod32...most of them fail...well anyway i'm thinking if i should switch to nod32 since i've got current subscriptions to etrust and trend micro...

should i stay or should i go?...

[acushla]

yeah...nod32 is so secured..i can't even explore their files...what folder should i paste updates, component updates..etc...and i've checked the cracked sites...only few...have cracks to pass nod32...most of them fail...well anyway i'm thinking if i should switch to nod32 since i've got current subscriptions to etrust and trend micro...

should i stay or should i go?...Personally I choose NOD-32 because of a recommendation from a forum member whom I have a lot of respect for...that and the fact that it is generally acknowledged to be the best. (Oh yeah...I like to stir it up!:devil: ) Micro would actually be my second choice...except I think it comes with a firewall.

Either one is an excellent choice.

(To save 20 of you from needing to post:) ...Avast is considered to be all you need...with added advantage of being free.)

[freelancerage]

* Avast, AVG, AVIRA (straight A's huh?) eTrust and NOD32 was the most mentioned antivirus alternative here...

* most of the people turn to free AVs because it's free, and it functions the same (or better) to those who are paid AVs
(i've never thought that we are the only country who suffers financial problems...^_^ we're having problems with purchasing softwares :biggrin: )

[AVG] anyway...in my experience...i've tried AVG during their switch to 6 to 7...well anyway they are good but the problem with them is that they've never supported virus submissions...actually you can't trust AVG that much...many times AVG failed me...some virus (most of them destructive haven't been detected by AVG) maybe if they could support submissions they could be more effective...

[eTrust] i came across with eTrust when i've ordered a free Microsoft Security Kit Feb 2004...they've included eTrust and i have high respect to eTrust...i just realized that they are somewhat related to InoculateIT...well eTrust is great...it's free and you could update your license as long as you have your account in their site.They support virus submissions and manual updates and you could run this on any PCs even if your processor is just 166Mhz with 32 MB of RAM without slowing your OS.It failed me once on detecting a virus but I think this is one of the great AVs i've used.

[Norton]...uhhh...whut again?...anyway, Norton is getting on the nerves of everyone huh?..anyway..i've used and trusted Norton when my machine was still on a DOS environment and 5" floppy disks was used...:ponder: well it helped me a lot..and almost everyone since then even those who has little knowledge in computers has came with the concept Norton = best Antivirus...
i was just disappointed with Norton why they've gone this way...their too heavy and they make the machine so slow...(compare Norton with the virus, the virus will load faster than Norton in a machine:biggrin:) every release just make people avoid using Norton...

[McAfee]...well i've used the Enterprise Server Editon of McAfee..and it's good though it's a little heavy on resources...what i've liked on this release is the Buffer Protection...

[Trend Micro PC-cillin] .. i wonder no one ever mentioned this anti-virus well..this is my current after switching from McAfee Pro > AVG > eTrust
well it's kinda light in resources..i think :ponder: cause my 233mhz 256MB XP machine is stable and not slow...well i like to look for an alternative again after using this in 2 years. I've kinda loosing trust in this AV cause they are taking 2 days before new updates takes in...


what's best in an antivirus?
[Content]
complete...scanning, updates, protections...

[Installation]
custom installation - select only those what you needed

[Deployment]
quick loads and faster detection and removal without traces...
monitors system behaviour, registry activity, memory resident apps and script analyzations...
very low CPU and memory usage on real-time and on-demand scans and
able to use on lower systems

[Updates]
manual, and automatic updates...outbreak systems, virus submissions, on time tech support

this could be one of the main factors of a better AV...and being a heavy or large AV is not what it takes ... maybe you could apply the sayin the "small but terrible thing" ? :biggrin:

[freelancerage]

anyway does anyone uses bitDefender?...is it good...?

i'm picking between Avast and bitDefender which should I use?

[acushla]

what's best in an antivirus?


The ability to successfully block all viruses from entering your computer. All other points are mute.:bulb:

[idefiXX]

Using NOD-32 now. Let's see what it does. :knocked-o

[carbonize]

Back in the day I used Norton 2002 (last good release they did). Recently I've tried free anti virus software. Avast suited my purposes and was good until it missed on so now I use NOD32 as well but with the spyware blocked disabled. I may even pay for it one day :pirate:

[acushla]

Back in the day I used Norton 2002 (last good release they did). Recently I've tried free anti virus software. Avast suited my purposes and was good until it missed on so now I use NOD32 as well but with the spyware blocked disabled. I may even pay for it one day :pirate:

As someone who is in his second year of having a legitimate subscription to NOD-32, I am dismayed to read that there are people who choose to use other sources for their versions. As a result, I feel compelled to notify ESET as to your illegal activity.

If you could just send me a PM including your name, address, telephone number and names of your children, I will ensure that the 'one day' you speak of comes soon.

Thank you.:silly: ;) :)

[carbonize]

lol except they offer a 30 day demo of their program :laugh:

I was in PC World the other day listening to an assistant give some guy the sales pitch. The guy turned round and said his IT bloke said not to use Norton as it's a pain (yes it is). I thought "wise man" at this point. Then he went and ruined it by saying he would use AVG instead as it's only about £20 :confused:. Sheesh I only advise people to TRY AVG if they don't want to pay for an anti virus but to actually pay for th efull version. I was going to butt in and tell him that NOD32 is only £23 but decided not to.

[Protocol]

lol except they offer a 30 day demo of their program :laugh:

I was in PC World the other day listening to an assistant give some guy the sales pitch. The guy turned round and said his IT bloke said not to use Norton as it's a pain (yes it is). I thought "wise man" at this point. Then he went and ruined it by saying he would use AVG instead as it's only about £20 :confused:. Sheesh I only advise people to TRY AVG if they don't want to pay for an anti virus but to actually pay for th efull version. I was going to butt in and tell him that NOD32 is only £23 but decided not to.
But they wouldn't listen. Besides, they don't sell it in retail stores as far as I know.

[carbonize]

No he was going to download AVG and pay for the pro version.

[Antman]

All AV software is re-active. No AV software catches all bugs. Rootkits will replace virii as the secondary demon. The primary demon will remain user behavior.

[acushla]

All AV software is re-active. No AV software catches all bugs. Rootkits will replace virii as the secondary demon. The primary demon will remain user behavior.

As per usual, you are correct. However, it is also correct to say that some AV's respond to new threats and protect via updates quicker than others. With a Professional Anti-Virus application like...oh...I don't know...um...let's just use NOD-32 as an example...unless you were unlucky enough to be among the first computers infected with a new virus, NOD-32 would have your computer protected long before the virus posed any type of threat to you.

Avast and AVG...not so much. In this area I firmly believe you get what you pay for. I am not suggesting that these other apps are bad...well, actually, I am.

Only in comparison.:bulb:

[Antman]

...it is also correct to say that some AV's respond to new threats and protect via updates quicker than others...
However, no single vendor will always be the first to define or provide a reactive solution. Not all reactive solutions are free of advanced methodology (meaning it requires more 'work' than simply updating if you have been infected).

A single 'terminate and stay resident' AV app is often advised. Multiple scan engines can still be employed. But this will never protect you completely. All AV apps are like condoms with holes in them. I could have used prick instead of hole, but that would have obscured the point.

If you are connected to any network, you are compromised. Like walking outside increases your exposure to violent crime. Keep on trucking!

All Windows OS versions hide personal data for unpublished reasons. It has been argued that MS poses a greater risk to your privacy and security than all other malware combined.

My point is: It does not really matter what AV software that you use. Just use something. Retail versions do more for the provider/distributor than it does for the consumer.

It is of little value to be inoculated against rubella or diptheria or whatever if you are never exposed to them. But if you are exposed, it is better to be inoculated.

There is a forum member who has provided his IP address to me. This weekend, I will place a text file in his startup routine. The contents of this file will contain the body of text from a randomly selected email.

My point is: The keyboard operator is the single biggest danger to the machine.

[acushla]

My point is: It does not really matter what AV software that you use. Just use something. Retail versions do more for the provider/distributor than it does for the consumer.



I feel better paying for AV software...it makes me feel I am better protected.

[Todd The Kiwi]

so when you are walking down the street
and some hot promotional chicks give you free rubbers, you wouldn't use them [the rubbers] ?

[Protocol]

so when you are walking down the street
and some hot promotional chicks give you free rubbers, you wouldn't use them [the rubbers] ?
Does that happen in NZ? I am on my way... :silly:

[Todd The Kiwi]

yeah dude, seriously this happens here.
we're pretty liberal in NZ, not as much as those Tasmanians but y'know :silly:

[Protocol]

yeah dude, seriously this happens here.
we're pretty liberal in NZ, not as much as those Tasmanians but y'know :silly:
The closest thing that I have seen a hot promotional chick offering is alcohol. And they let you try it straight away. I guess they don’t let you try the condoms right there. :ponder:

[acushla]

so when you are walking down the street
and some hot promotional chicks give you free rubbers, you wouldn't use them [the rubbers] ?
Absolutely not...I have a tender, caring, loving woman whom I love and think the world of.

Although I am free to 'explore' I wouldn't. I wouldn't because I know if she found out it would hurt her very deeply and I do not wish to do anything that would cause her to have that sort of pain.

Now to your question. I wouldn't even 'touch' condoms being handed out on the street by 'hot promotional chicks'. Think about it...in terms of the prevention of disease...we are talking about our lives...not a Toe infection. If I'm going to use rubbers I am going to a reputable drug store and buy a brand name with a proven track record.

How much is your life worth?

I've posted before on this subject (show me a topic I haven't posted on and I'll show you a thread I had no interest in:silly: ) and I stand by what I said then. I know first hand the expense of not using the best AV application available. I am also well aware that there is no 'perfect' solutions...but I do believe in hierarchies and therefore find the yearly fee to use the best a small price to pay for 'better' protection. But hey...that's just me.:)

[Toe]

we are talking about our lives...not a Toe infection.
I resent that.

[acushla]

I resent that.Whoops.:nervous:

A Tooth infection?:)

[Antman]

Absolutely not...I have a tender, caring, loving woman whom I love and think the world of.
This is a good thing!

Although I am free to 'explore'

Reminds me of a former girlfriend. She liked to talk while making love. Often, she would call me from a hotel. :ponder:

[Willow of Oz]

I resent that.

Who did you resend it to? I didn't get it.

[Todd The Kiwi]

dang that's dry, good one :P

[Protocol]

Think about it...in terms of the prevention of disease...we are talking about our lives...not a Toe infection. If I'm going to use rubbers I am going to a reputable drug store and buy a brand name with a proven track record.

People have died (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=778012006) from toe infections. :paranoid:

[Todd The Kiwi]

what antivirus did she use?

[acushla]

People have died from toe infections. :paranoid:

Not quite the same thing, I know...but when has that ever stopped me in the past?;)

Bod Marley died of Toe Cancer.

By the way, thanks, it's nice to have friends.:)

[jawpr]

I have been using Avast for 2 or 3 years without a problem until now. I updated to the latest version ( 4.7.871 ) and now it freezes every time I try to scan my computer. It starts scanning but after a few minutes, it freezes. It doesn't give an errow message, it just freezes. I first updated through the program and then I tried deleteing Avast and downloading through the website and doing a clean install and it still freezes after starting a scan on my computer. The icon on the taskbar shows 6 programs running as usual but it will not do a complete regular scan.
I really hate to quit using Avast because I really like it, but I am using eTrust until I find out what is wrong with Avast. Does anyone else have this problem or does anyone have any ideas or suggestions as to what the problem could be?

[Toe]

Last night I was working on a friend's computer, who used Avast. I did a full scan of the system with both Avast and AdAware. AdAware came up clean, while Avast found a bunch of things that its realtime scanner had apparently missed. (I've noticed before that it tends to only scan a file when you try to open it, rather than when you fist save the file.)

Then I removed Avast and installed AVS (http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp) (minus the toolbar, of course) and did another full scan. AVS came up with over 20 items, both adware and viruses/trojans, that Avast and AdAware had missed.

I think I'm gonna be installing this on my compy later.

[Todd The Kiwi]

jawpr - have you searched their forum (http://forum.avast.com/) ?
also after a quick google it appears others get this behaviour too.

[jawpr]

jawpr - have you searched their forum (http://forum.avast.com/) ?
also after a quick google it appears others get this behaviour too.


I did look at their forum but there hasn't been a new post on it since either June or July so that would not have anything to do with the new version that just came out - (version 4.7.871). I never had a problem until I updated to the new version. Thanks for trying to help.

[jawpr]

Last night I was working on a friend's computer, who used Avast. I did a full scan of the system with both Avast and AdAware. AdAware came up clean, while Avast found a bunch of things that its realtime scanner had apparently missed. (I've noticed before that it tends to only scan a file when you try to open it, rather than when you fist save the file.)

Then I removed Avast and installed AVS (http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp) (minus the toolbar, of course) and did another full scan. AVS came up with over 20 items, both adware and viruses/trojans, that Avast and AdAware had missed.

I think I'm gonna be installing this on my compy later.


Thanks Toe - I may try AVS later. I put eTrust on and scanned my computer just fine. I do not know much about eTrust so do you think I ought to take it off and try AVS or just keep eTrust for a while?

[Toe]

Thanks Toe - I may try AVS later. I put eTrust on and scanned my computer just fine. I do not know much about eTrust so do you think I ought to take it off and try AVS or just keep eTrust for a while? Well, I wouldn't say that there's an immediate and pressing need to ditch eTrust. I've linked that promo version on this forum a few times, and have used it on my own computer for the past couple years. On the whole, it has served me well.

I can't really give more than anecdotal evidence on total virus protection power. It might be worth a note that Kaspersky (which AVS is based on) is probably one of the two most highly-regarded AV programs over on Wilders (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/) (the other being NOD32). You could also look at performance history on tests like vb100. eTrust really ain't bad in that department, though, especialy among free options.

Here's the only real concrete advantages I can list so far:

1. It uses a bit less memory than eTrust. eTrust didn't really bother me too much in that department, though.

2. Kaspersky detects more than just viruses. It also blocks adware and such. Ad-Aware is nice, but the free version doesn't give you a realtime scanner like this does.

3. Kaspersky is extremely quick to update their virus signatures, at times sending out new ones as often as once per hour.

[etaku1]

I used AntiVir most recently before I switched to ClamWin.

Why dump the always-on antivir? I've been online for years and never got a virus/worm. The only exceptions were when a friend used my machine to check her e-mail and opened something she shouldn't have and I did the same, knowing it was probably hot. And no, I never bothered to do that, again.

AntiVir did detect a few virii AVG didn't in my own testing.

[Roj]

Why dump the always-on antivir?
Two words:

False Positives.

I don't have a problem with always-on AV. In fact I view it as an absolute necessity and I speak from my profession as an IT Security Analyst. However, a tool that gives erroneous reports can be almost as bad as no tool at all.

[Toe]

Agreed. For the VB100 award (one of the best-known AV tests), a single false positive is enough to disqualify an antivirus from receiving the award.

As for Antivir, I wasn't crazy about it in the past, but it had a fairly major update recently, so I'll withhold judgement on it.

[Protocol]

Out of all the free antivirus options that I have tried, I also think AntiVir is the best.

[Todd The Kiwi]

Out of all the free antivirus options that I have tried, I also think AntiVir is the best.amen brotherman, FREE being the keyword though.

[carbonize]

You get what you pay for though. As to the AOL anti virus apparently it's ToS reads like a spyware agreement apparently. I recommend AntiVir if you don't want to pay and NOD32 if you do.

[Protocol]

You get what you pay for though. As to the AOL anti virus apparently it's ToS reads like a spyware agreement apparently. I recommend AntiVir if you don't want to pay and NOD32 if you do.
:cheerful: Yeah!

[Roj]

Out of all the free antivirus options that I have tried, I also think AntiVir is the best.
I prefer and recommend avast! 4 Home Edition. No false positives that I've ever come across or been aware of, comprehensive proxy protection (the whole thing is a series of proxies), timely and frequent updates, excellent support and very light resource requirements.

As to the "you get what you pay for" mindset, two companies toss that concept squarely into the rubbish bin:

McAfee
Symantec

Both make overpriced junk as far as I'm concerned (especially McAfee).

[carbonize]

Actually I used to use Avast until recently when it failed to detect a trojan that nearly every other virus scanner successfully detected. I ran the virus through virusscan.jotti.org and only about three failed to detect it, one being Avast.

[Roj]

Actually I used to use Avast until recently when it failed to detect a trojan that nearly every other virus scanner successfully detected. I ran the virus through virusscan.jotti.org and only about three failed to detect it, one being Avast.
Nobody's perfect. Until recently SAV (Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition) thought that RAdmin was a trojan.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

I've been using avast! for over a year now. I really can't tell if it has missed anything, but I'd bet that I'm not infected with anything.

[carbonize]

Technically it is. It works exactly the same. I mean how do you differentiate between a trojan and a RAT ?

[Toe]

Hmm... it's been 2 years since I posted my free AV list (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15931#post15931) in this thread. I suppose I could put together an updated version, as there's some new contenders. :)

Active Virus Shield (http://www.activevirusshield.com/): AOL decides to put out a free version of the highly-regarded Kaspersky AV. I just switched my own computer over to this. Just don't install the freakin' toolbar, ok?

eTrust promo version (http://etrustantivirus-central.ca.com/v7/): I used this for several years, and it served me well. Still works quite nicely. The only thing I'd note is that this is v7.0 (8 is current). There's no program updates, and while they'll still be putting out signature updates for it for quite a while, sooner or later they'll stop.

Avast! (http://www.avast.com/eng/free_software.html): Decent overall, but nothing too special. Worth a look, but I'd recommend AVS over this.

AVG (http://free.grisoft.com/): I wasn't crazy about it before, and it doesn't appear to have improved much. Skip it, there's better options out there. (I've heard their anti-spyware is decent, though..)

AntiVir (http://www.free-av.com/): Had a major update recently, so it's kind of a tough call. Its detection rates in the last couple AV Comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org) tests have been impressive, but its false positives rate is on the high side. Worth keeping an eye on, but I'd wait for more long-term results before switching.

Comodo (http://www.antivirus.comodo.com/): Not too many test results are available for this, and what has been posted hasn't looked too good. Skip it.


A couple AV apps have 'free for a while' (6 months or a year) versions that you can pretty much keep re-registering indefinately:

F-Secure (http://esd.element5.com/demoreg.html?productid=544842&languageid=1)

eTrust EZ (http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/) (eTrust's Home edition)

Panda AV (http://www.pandasecurity.com/promotions/itathome/register.aspx)

Out of the above 3, I'd go with eTrust, but I think you could do about as well with one of the 'always free' apps above.

[Roj]

Technically it is. It works exactly the same. I mean how do you differentiate between a trojan and a RAT ?
Intelligent application of signatures, be they a combination of MD5 hashes, Reg settings, etc..

I mean, it didn't flag MS Terminal services.... (snicker)

[Tokelil]

Personally I used Norton (and so did a lot of my relatives etc.) for a long time and it worked really well almost all the time. Yes the resource usage is a bit high, but personally I couldn't tell the difference after switching to Kaspersky Pro.

Anyone knows Sophos antivirus? Don't think it has been mentioned yet. Version 6.x seems quite good IMO and the signature update rate is quite high.
(My university is using it on all it's computers and servers. All students and teachers can use it for free as well. )

[Todd The Kiwi]

ha ha either Roj is up really early or really late :P [pic]

[Roj]

ha ha either Roj is up really early or really late :P [pic]Not sure how I did it but somehow managed to save the same message three times. Must be a rare talent or something...

[jawpr]

Hmm... it's been 2 years since I posted my free AV list (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?p=15931#post15931) in this thread. I suppose I could put together an updated version, as there's some new contenders. :)

Active Virus Shield (http://www.activevirusshield.com/): AOL decides to put out a free version of the highly-regarded Kaspersky AV. I just switched my own computer over to this. Just don't install the freakin' toolbar, ok?

eTrust promo version (http://etrustantivirus-central.ca.com/v7/): I used this for several years, and it served me well. Still works quite nicely. The only thing I'd note is that this is v7.0 (8 is current). There's no program updates, and while they'll still be putting out signature updates for it for quite a while, sooner or later they'll stop.





Avast! (http://www.avast.com/eng/free_software.html): Decent overall, but nothing too special. Worth a look, but I'd recommend AVS over this.

AVG (http://free.grisoft.com/): I wasn't crazy about it before, and it doesn't appear to have improved much. Skip it, there's better options out there. (I've heard their anti-spyware is decent, though..)

AntiVir (http://www.free-av.com/): Had a major update recently, so it's kind of a tough call. Its detection rates in the last couple AV Comparatives (http://www.av-comparatives.org) tests have been impressive, but its false positives rate is on the high side. Worth keeping an eye on, but I'd wait for more long-term results before switching.

Comodo (http://www.antivirus.comodo.com/): Not too many test results are available for this, and what has been posted hasn't looked too good. Skip it.


A couple AV apps have 'free for a while' (6 months or a year) versions that you can pretty much keep re-registering indefinately:

F-Secure (http://esd.element5.com/demoreg.html?productid=544842&languageid=1)

eTrust EZ (http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/) (eTrust's Home edition)

Panda AV (http://www.pandasecurity.com/promotions/itathome/register.aspx)

Out of the above 3, I'd go with eTrust, but I think you could do about as well with one of the 'always free' apps above.



Toe, Can you please help me. I tried to take off eTrust but I can't seem to get rid of it. I used the eTrust uninstall and also the add or remove programs feature. After that I found a folder in C:Program files that contained eArmor and moved it to the recycle bin. I ran power tools and removed a couple of entries but when I try to install AVS, it still says I have eTrust installed and will not let me install it. Can you give me any advice, please?

[jawpr]

Nevermind -I used system Restore to get rid of eTrust

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

Nevermind -I used system Restore to get rid of eTrust

Yikes, send it to the evil software list?

[Toe]

Never had any trouble uninstalling it here...

First the obvious: you did reboot after uninstalling, right? :cross-eye

[acushla]

Toe, Can you please help me. I tried to take off eTrust but I can't seem to get rid of it. I used the eTrust uninstall and also the add or remove programs feature. After that I found a folder in C:Program files that contained eArmor and moved it to the recycle bin. I ran power tools and removed a couple of entries but when I try to install AVS, it still says I have eTrust installed and will not let me install it. Can you give me any advice, please?

I know I'm not Toe...but perhaps I can add some insight as to how to remove programs.

I try to learn all the names under which the program might be installed. Often times this will include the Software company's name as well as the name of the program. For example: Tsunami is a software company that makes a Video Encoder XPress. When this is installed it goes into a folder called Pegasys Inc. When you open the folder the program is called TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress. I make a note of all this information.

After using Add/Remove Program to remove the program I then go to Start...Search.

I enter the first name in All files and folders and (somebody comment on this for me) then I ask it to search in My Computer. Whatever it lists I delete.

I then empty the Recycle Bin.

Next I repeat the Search using whatever other name the program might be installed under.

I delete anything that shows up.

I empty the Recycle Bin before proceeding to the next name.

When I have finished searching for all the files the program might be installed under I then use the Registry Tool in jv16 Power Tools. Whatever files I am able to find I remove using Custom Remove. (Be careful with this one. My rule is: If in doubt...don't.)

Some other members might add to this or suggest alternate methods, but this seems to work for me.

I hope it works for you.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

Here's a link (http://www.virusthreatcenter.com/permalink.aspx?BlogId=92) that describes the hassle of uninstalling some antivirus programs.

I'm partial to using 'shift+delete' on files that I'm sure I want deleted for good. Also, RegSeeker has a devoted function for cleaning the start menu entries. This often provides a greater increase in speed for the start menu than any full cleaning does for the speed of the entire system.

Bah! I take off a finger everytime I realize I installed something I wish I wouldn't have. :silly:

[acushla]

Here's a link (http://www.virusthreatcenter.com/permalink.aspx?BlogId=92) that describes the hassle of uninstalling some antivirus programs.


This is an excellent link B.E.L.B.H.D.

Speaking of which...has anybody ever asked you what B.E.L.B.H.D. stands for?

[jawpr]

Yikes, send it to the evil software list?



I don't think I will put eTrust on again because I had so much trouble taking it off. I think I am back where I started. I put Avast back on but I haven't done a regular scan with it yet. I did a Boot scan and it did that without freezing up but I bet it will freeze up when I do a regular scan. While it was doing a Boot scan, I noticed there were thousands of times it said 'Errow in polyphorp virus data base' and errow 42100 whatever that means. Or something to that effect. Does anyone have any idea what that could mean? If it still won't do a regular scan, I guess I will take Avast off and put either AVS, Antivir or AVG on. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[jawpr]

Never had any trouble uninstalling it here...

First the obvious: you did reboot after uninstalling, right? :cross-eye


Yes I did 3 or 4 times but AVS still said eTrust was installed. Since I have got eTrust off and reinstalled Avast, I shouldn't have any trouble uninstalling it, at least I didn't the last time I uninstalled it.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

This is an excellent link B.E.L.B.H.D.

Speaking of which...has anybody ever asked you what B.E.L.B.H.D. stands for?

Yeah, on the forum and I divuldged the information. Happy searching.:normal: If it is a pain to type, you can address by something else: Hey you, piece of scum, Jack Bauer, etc.

[h00k]

This is an excellent link B.E.L.B.H.D.

Speaking of which...has anybody ever asked you what B.E.L.B.H.D. stands for?
his full name may be outside the forum name length restriction.

[Todd The Kiwi]

it's a 2 parter from memory and something to do with 24?
or maybe just Keifer fanboy slang ha ha ha :silly:

[acushla]

it's a 2 parter from memory and something to do with 24?
or maybe just Keifer fanboy slang ha ha ha :silly:
I'm sorry I asked!;)

[Protocol]

I'm sorry I asked!;)
Sure? :ponder:

[jawpr]

jawpr - have you searched their forum (http://forum.avast.com/) ?
also after a quick google it appears others get this behaviour too.


UPDATE:
Well, after several emails to the Avast support forum, we determined that the recent update to version 4.7.871 does indeed have an error in the program update code. Avast said that they are working on it and they would release a new update as soon as they got the problem fixed.

P.S -- Thanks to everyone that offered advice or suggestions! All the help was greatly appreciated.

This has created another small problem: Since it is going to be a few days before Avast gets updated, I decided to install Nod 32 demo until Avast was fixed. I am so impressed with Nod 32, it is going to be awfullly hard to take it off! The website said the full version was only $29.25 a year if you get it for 2 years. I used Avast for about 2 or 3 years, liked it and never had a problem. I had thought I would never pay for another VS as long as Avast was free but I had never tried Nod 32. I have 27 more days to make up my mind and it will probably take me that long to decide what to do. At my age, it is very hard to make decisions.

[rorythedog]

If you can live with the cost NOD32 is the best. I use it.

I should point out that I only use it until suchtimes as someone who REALLY knows about such things directs me to do otherwise.

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

UPDATE:
I am so impressed with Nod 32, it is going to be awfullly hard to take it off!

Why exactly do you like it so much?

[carbonize]

NOD32 is small, efficient and simple. I am currently using the AOL anti virus after I had to reformat :cry:

[Roj]

UPDATE:
My whole take on that has always been the same:

If you want to pay no money, use avast!. If you feel compelled to pay money, buy NOD32. I don't recommend any other solutions.

[carbonize]

If you want to pay no money don't use Avast as it sucks. I recently got a virus and Avast missed it. I ran it through the Jotti multiscanner and most other anti virus scanners detected it. Best FREE anti virus programs are AntiVir or AOL's Active Virus Shield.

[rorythedog]

Even though, of course, there IS another solution ;)

[carbonize]

Yes I happen to have the other method for those with the NOD32 trial:ninja:

[Roj]

If you want to pay no money don't use Avast as it sucks. I recently got a virus and Avast missed it. I ran it through the Jotti multiscanner and most other anti virus scanners detected it. Best FREE anti virus programs are AntiVir or AOL's Active Virus Shield.
Counterpoint - AntiVIR produc3es false positives.

Just this week, avast! Free spotted a trojan that SAV 10.1 missed. Anyone can miss. A miss doesn't mean a product sucks - it just means the Windows of opportunity for that particular beastie was exploited. False positives are another matter entirely. Those can be caused by a poor heuristics engine, careless signatures or a faulty scanning engine. I won't touch a product that has those (as iterated earlier int his thread).

[carbonize]

False positives are better than real negatives (if that makes sense). I'd sooner have an anti virus that occasionally mistook safe files for viruses than one that didn't but missed real viruses.

Anyway I have had no problems with AOL so far. Runing it in conjunction with COMODO firewall, SpywareBlaster and Spyware Guard.

[Roj]

False positives are better than real negatives (if that makes sense). I'd sooner have an anti virus that occasionally mistook safe files for viruses than one that didn't but missed real viruses.

Anyway I have had no problems with AOL so far. Runing it in conjunction with COMODO firewall, SpywareBlaster and Spyware Guard.
Toe posted the definitive answer on that statement earlier in this thread. Your statement fails in light of the evaluation he tabled.

That's also real-world - not opinion.

Neither are good but one is more palatable than the other, especially in a corporate setting where real money is at stake and this is so at least in part for the reasons I iterated above.

Poor architecture is not nogotiable.

Timeliness is.

[carbonize]

Yes I think most companies would rather have the hassle o their techs having to allow the occasional program in the anti virus than actually get a virus that could wipe out their computers.

[jawpr]

Why exactly do you like it so much?


As Carbonize said, it is small, efficent, simple,fast, and I really like the fact that when it scans and finds an error, it tells you exactly what the problem is. It also is easy to configue, it installs easily, has good support and is rated the best. The last rating I saw where they tested most of the top virus scanners against unknown viruses in the wild, Nod 32 was the only one that caught all but 1. I think AVG missed about 475 or thereabouts. That's pretty impressive.

[Roj]

Yes I think most companies would rather have the hassle o their techs having to allow the occasional program in the anti virus than actually get a virus that could wipe out their computers.Let me spell it out for you in baby steps:

1) If a false positive results in a major corporate application or common desktop tool (such as MS Word) from functioning, that is a VERY big deal in terms of lost productivity, $$$ and timeliness.

Most companies employ at the very least perimeter protection (firewalls) and possibly IDS / IPS systems as well as network management tools (the latter two in the case of even some small companies these days).

That means that if a virulent virus outbreak was to occur and their AV company of choice did not have signatures immediately, they could still manage to contian the infection relatively rapidly.

However, if their AV of choice had a false postive (possibly resulting form a poor heuristics engine, poor scanner or signatures) that produced false positives in the aforementioned areas, or worse yet destroyed incoming email data as virus stricken when it wasn't, THAT cannot be contained.

So yes, companies would rather have their techs complain about the odd small outbreak (overtime IS an option, people) than have the MAJOR nightmare of loss of application functionality or important incoming data.

It's one thing to speak from the position of Joe Average user who loses a hard drive full of data (big hairy deal - so you lost your mp3 collection) and another to speak as Joe Corporate User who loses $$$ due to downtime even though his flanks are covered with overlapping protection schemes designed to prevent just that.

Given the above realities of life, it should now be abundantly clear why your decidedly myopic premise based on a single personal bad experience and without the context of the larger security picture was, is and will remain...

...nonsense.

[Roj]

Even though, of course, there IS another solution ;)
Yeah - run another OS that the script kiddies don't have a hardon for.

[Willow of Oz]

False positives are better than real negatives (if that makes sense). I'd sooner have an anti virus that occasionally mistook safe files for viruses than one that didn't but missed real viruses.

The justice system corellary to that would be to say it is better to throw innocent people in jail than to risk a criminal remaining free.

[Roj]

The justice system corellary to that would be to say it is better to throw innocent people in jail than to risk a criminal remaining free.
ROFLMAO!!

That's one I would be proud to call my own.

[carbonize]

The justice system corellary to that would be to say it is better to throw innocent people in jail than to risk a criminal remaining free.

They do don't they?


And I'm sorry Roj but you are wrong. Most big companies limit what their staff can do on a computer as well as what's installed. The basics usually being Windows and MS Office. Is there a recorded instance of an AntiVir reporting any of the MS Office suite as a virus? I work for an International company with an annual turnover of €3,000,000,000 and I don't even have access to calculator on here (no joke) and the wonderful proxy (Smoothwall) prevents the downloading of pretty much everything (exe, zip, gz, rar, mp3 etc). A computer tech would sooner remote login to a machine to add a program to the anti viruses exceptions than have to go and either clean the machine up or reinstall everything as both of these take a hell of a lot longer. yes I have heard of overtime but have you ever heard of a company that likes paying it? If a tech has to work overtime to fix a virus outbreak you better believe they'll be up in front of their manager asking why it happened.

That being said most big companies use Norton or McAfee or some other big name. I've only ever come across two companies that used free anti virus software and even then they might be using the paid for versions. Given that one of them was using AVG they really need to invest in a new IT person.

[Toe]

To put the false positives problem in a different light, do you really think Paul should ever have to deal with things like this (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6015)?

[carbonize]

False positives happen. AOL's anti virus just detected a program I wrote years ago as a trojan. Possibly because one of it's features was a password changer but who knows. But to my knowledge most, if not all, anti virus programs give you the option of what to do with a virus when detected and usually includes a skip/ignore option. A lot even let you specify files/folders to ignore. Lets forget about businesses as was the topic before and think about the normal user (us for instance). Big business may keep daily backups of their data but I for one do not and I doubt most of you do neither. I have important files on my computer (yes OK the very important ones I keep copies of on my USB stick or elsewhere and even kep the back ups upto date when I remember) and all it would take is a single 'nasty' virus to get past the scanner and I lose pretty much everything. Take viruses like ILOVEYOU virus. If it got past the scanner I would lose every image and every MP3 file. Modern versions may possibly extend to WMA, AAC and OGG files. So in my case that would be around 10GB of audio files and around 3GB of photographs. I'm sure some of you have even more audio files and/or photos. Do you have backups of all your photos and audio files just in case? Would you sooner have to deal with the odd false positive or run the risk of losing all of your music and photos?

Anyway this off topic argument started because I recommended AntiVir over Avast. The link you posted was about Symantec and I'm sure that the reports of AntiVir's false positives are for old versions and not the new revamped version.

[Roj]

False positives happen. AOL's anti virus just detected a program I wrote years ago as a trojan.

I wouldn't touch anything AOL with YOUR hands.

You keep picking real winners, doncha...

And yes, false positives happen. But products that table them with any frequency don't get very far in the security marketplace.

But to my knowledge most, if not all, anti virus programs give you the option of what to do with a virus when detected and usually includes a skip/ignore option.

Yeah - and I'm going to have 12K users pressing "skip". Sure Jim. Anytime now. Think corporate for a change.

A lot even let you specify files/folders to ignore. Lets forget about businesses as was the topic before and think about the normal user

No. Business drives the market. Most of the innovations in antiSPAM, antivirus and antimalware came about because businesses wanted to protect their assets. That is also the bread and butter of the major market leading "security companies" (and I use the term extremely loosely) like Symantec and McAfee. I'd hazard a guess that Alwil funds avast! through its corporate products and uses the free version as its beta test base. Excellent business strategy and it benefits average users too.

Big business may keep daily backups of their data but I for one do not and I doubt most of you do neither. I have important files on my computer (yes OK the very important ones I keep copies of on my USB stick or elsewhere and even kep the back ups upto date when I remember) and all it would take is a single 'nasty' virus to get past the scanner and I lose pretty much everything.

That's life - what's your point?

Anyway this off topic argument started because I recommended AntiVir over Avast. The link you posted was about Symantec and I'm sure that the reports of AntiVir's false positives are for old versions and not the new revamped version.

So they may have pulled up their socks, hopefully. Good for them - the jury remains out. Your point was that because avast! let in a virus on YOUR machine that destroyed YOUR data, it wasn't very good. My point is that any AV has a window of opportunity and that a virus that was let in was preferable to false positives, a situation that could aise due to architectural flaws. I will agree that improper sigs can also cause false positives - Symantec has had them reasonably often of late. However, I also happen to know that Symantec (and McAfee) both base their products on horrendously outdated technology (we're talking almost 10 years old here) and have merely extended it instead of redesigning it. Their architectures are crap. That's one possible cause of their greater incidences of false positives although they tend to mak it and prop the functionality up with myriad additional little support systems in their products (can you say "bloat" and "overhead"?). Products that don't have to do that are more solid.

So, to keep it on topic, that is why I will never recommend products that table false positives over products that have an exploited window of opportunity. One scenario is CLEARLY a bigger risk than the other.

Whether you get the point or not is utterly irrelevant - that's your own problem. What I've iterated is the position of the security community.

[carbonize]

Just to rectify you on something. I usually wouldn't touch anything by AOL but the anti virus is technically Kaspersky with a gui made by AOL.

[Toe]

I'd hazard a guess that Alwil funds avast! through its corporate products and uses the free version as its beta test base.
Aye, it's true for most of the freebie antiviruses and firewalls out there: give it away free for home users and sell it for profit to businesses.

One exception to the rule would be AOL. They were already giving this to their ISP customers for free. Nothing new, most major ISPs give their customers an AV these days. Giving it away free to the public seems to have been done just to get their toolbar out there to more people. I hate toolbars like this (which as carb said is the only part actually made by AOL here), but there's an option to not install it with the antivirus. If that option weren't there, I'd never, ever reccomend this thing.

[carbonize]

What I've iterated is the position of the security community.
Just out of interest you got any links to back up the fact that this is the position of the security community?

[Roj]

Just out of interest you got any links to back up the fact that this is the position of the security community?Toe already tabled information on certifications which are automatically failed if false positives are found. Is there something more you require?

[carbonize]

Knowledge is power and I like to read. In fact I have 12 hours tomorrow where I am supposed to be working to read any evidence/papers/reports put forwarded.

[Todd The Kiwi]

i don't understand why we need AVs on our computers
couldn't the ISPs just scan *the stuff before we get it?


* "the stuff" being "the internet" i suppose...

[B.E.L.B.H.D.]

i don't understand why we need AVs on our computers
couldn't the ISPs just scan *the stuff before we get it?


* "the stuff" being "the internet" i suppose...

I suppose there would be a bit of a privacy issue with that.

For all we know this is already being done though.

[Toe]

Some e-mail hosts (Hotmail & such) do that, but you probably get your files from more than just e-mail. The reason ISPs don't scan every little thing that goes through their pipes is that the resource requirements on their end would be WAY too high. I rather doubt ISPs would like to scan every multi-gigabyte archive I've ever downloaded. Besides, you have to remember that aside from their own e-mail servers, they never actually 'see' the file you're downloading in its entirety. When you download a file, your ISP doesn't download the whole thing to its server and then pass it along to you. Rather, all they really see is a bunch of packets going from somewhere on the internet to your computer. There's not really any practical way to scan that sort of thing. Instead, it's far more practical for them to just provide AV software to all their customers.

The only real exception to that rule are worms like Blaster & SQL Slammer that can be blocked by a firewall, occasionally they'll take proactive measures to block that sort of thing. But usually they only do that if the worm is causing a major impact on their network performance, and even then they risk upsetting people by blocking legitimate trafic.