Omnimaga
General Discussion => Technology and Development => Computer Usage and Setup Help => Topic started by: Munchor on November 27, 2010, 10:22:42 am
-
Hello, I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 a week ago, and I've been using Kaspersky Anti-Virus for a few years now.
However, I've heard about Microsoft Security Essentials being free and very good, anyone using it that recommends it?
-
I've never used Security Essentials, so I don't know about that.
But, from my experience, Trend Micro works pretty well.
-
http://us.trendmicro.com/us/home/ (http://us.trendmicro.com/us/home/)
In the last few months, a huge variety of anti-virus came to the market, because before people only used from a range of 5 (Norton, MCAfee, Kaspersky, Panda, AVG). It's good to see more availability, though :)
-
Yep. I loves me my Trend Micro.
-
Yep. I loves me my Trend Micro.
Paid version? If yes, how much?
-
Paid version.
I have something slightly older than the Titanium stuff they're offering now, but it was the top one, so it would be similar to the Titanium Maximum Security. I think it was called Trend Micro Internet Security Pro, but I could be wrong as I don't have my laptop with me.
-
Paid version.
I have something slightly older than the Titanium stuff they're offering now, but it was the top one, so it would be similar to the Titanium Maximum Security. I think it was called Trend Micro Internet Security Pro, but I could be wrong as I don't have my laptop with me.
Yes, I saw all that 'Titanium' advertisement in their website.
Names like 'Titanium Version' really make not wanna buy it, it's a name which goal is to sell more copies :S
-
Hello, I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 a week ago, and I've been using Kaspersky Anti-Virus for a few years now.
However, I've heard about Microsoft Security Essentials being free and very good, anyone using it that recommends it?
Think about it: the company that makes the software that has more holes than the Titantic wants you to download more software to fix the holes present in the original build.
-
Hello, I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 a week ago, and I've been using Kaspersky Anti-Virus for a few years now.
However, I've heard about Microsoft Security Essentials being free and very good, anyone using it that recommends it?
Think about it: the company that makes the software that has more holes than the Titantic wants you to download more software to fix the holes present in the original build.
Could you explain me that as if I were a 5year old kid, since I can't follow your though :(
-
Hello, I bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 a week ago, and I've been using Kaspersky Anti-Virus for a few years now.
However, I've heard about Microsoft Security Essentials being free and very good, anyone using it that recommends it?
Think about it: the company that makes the software that has more holes than the Titantic wants you to download more software to fix the holes present in the original build.
Could you explain me that as if I were a 5year old kid, since I can't follow your though :(
patches for software that has holes in it makes the stuff from that company look bad.
-
patches for software that has holes in it makes the stuff from that company look bad.
Well, seen from that point of view, TITANIUM looks a fair name :D
-
Microsoft makes Windows. The security of Windows is exploited by almost every computer virus known to mankind. Rather than just fixing the holes in the software they wrote, Microsoft instead produces an additional security program designed to fix the holes in the program they write and maintain. It takes up extra disk space and given how well Windows is written for virii... ::)
-
Microsoft makes Windows. The security of Windows is exploited by almost every computer virus known to mankind. Rather than just fixing the holes in the software they wrote, Microsoft instead produces an additional security program designed to fix the holes in the program they write and maintain. It takes up extra disk space and given how well Windows is written for virii... ::)
That's exactly why Microsoft anti-virus might be good, the company that makes the Anti-Virus made the OS, so it must be good, even though it may not be good
-
Can you run that by me again? I'm not sure I understand how "it must be good, even though it may not be good."
It's probably just translation errors :P
-
Can you run that by me again? I'm not sure I understand how "it must be good, even though it may not be good."
It's probably just translation errors :P
I mean, if we know that the Anti-virus makers are the OS makers we suppose the antivirus is good. However, it may not be code, even though I'm certain it is (in Microsoft's case)
-
Well, actually, Microsoft's anti-virus is, on average, even worse than all others (paid for or no-fee). This is because they can't provide a competitive AV, especially for no fee, without the cartel of established AV vendors (who flourish on the persistent insecurity of the Windows platform, on the users' fear of viruses, and on the perception that paid AV must be better than no-fee AV) promptly unleashing an antitrust suit (which Microsoft would almost certainly lose) on Microsoft's back.
Once or twice per year, I fix virus-ridden computers for relatives or neighbors. Those computers do have an anti-virus. Each time I find a virus (usually by manual inspection into system or user folders, startup entries, etc.), I pass the file through the VirusTotal service, which sends the file through about 42 AV engines + databases nowadays. The results are always appalling: I never got a single detection rate above one third (12/36, at the time), and it got as low as 1/42 (and even then, the hit was only a heuristic-based detection, i.e. "this program might do bad things but I'm not sure").
Based on that experience, the only thing I can do is urging people not to buy paid AVs (but for you, it's too late...). The no-fee AVs (except Microsoft's, for the reason I wrote above) are, on average, roughly as good bad as the paid AVs are - but at least, the usage of no-fee AVs deprives the members of the paid AV cartel from a small chunk of the big money they're getting from selling their very inefficient products.
There's no such thing as a "good" AV, and people who voted that they buy "good and expensive" AVs should change their thinking and habits, for everyone's good.
I'm not sure that this is warranted, but some people posit that the Windows platform remains persistently insecure (even so with the safer coding techniques supposed to be used for Vista and 7 - some embarrassing high-profile old bugs remained) because there's more money made that way.
-
If you just use the Internet more safely, you shouldn't need an Anti-Virus software. I haven't gotten a virus or malware for years. And the last time I ever got something I removed it manually, which I believe is the only safe way to do it. The anti-virus industry is really a scam in my opinion. They're generally worse that the viruses themselves because a lot of them are bundled with malware, they are incredibly difficult to uninstall completely, they can reduce the performance of the computer, its just not the type of thing I would ever want. Using the system tools and quick google search is enough to figure out how to remove anything.
-
Yeah, "scam" is quite an appropriate word for the paid AV industry.
which I believe is the only safe way to do it
and
Using the system tools and quick google search is enough to figure out how to remove anything.
Nowadays, in the time of best-of-the-breed 2009-2010 virus with rootkit capability and highly random names, this does not always hold true ;)
I saw an active rootkit, detected by F-Secure Blacklight (fsbl.exe), that was defending its main file. Therefore, I booted the latest version of the SystemRescueCD Linux Live CD, I shredded the file before deleting it, and I told the computer's owners "Go make it reinstall by a repair shop, because a rootkited system cannot be trusted anymore, whatever the OS type and version, because it has tampered deep into the OS".
-
If you just use the Internet more safely, you shouldn't need an Anti-Virus software. I haven't gotten a virus or malware for years. And the last time I ever got something I removed it manually, which I believe is the only safe way to do it. The anti-virus industry is really a scam in my opinion. They're generally worse that the viruses themselves because a lot of them are bundled with malware, they are incredibly difficult to uninstall completely, they can reduce the performance of the computer, its just not the type of thing I would ever want. Using the system tools and quick google search is enough to figure out how to remove anything.
I have to disagree, though. From free, legal and simple downloads to large, illegal, suspicious downloads, there are virus. I agree that a free, legal anti-virus is enough. In fact, it's the best thing for 90% of internet users. However, a lot of people use my computer, this is, connect USB drives here, also, I make a few illegal downloads too. So, I feel safer with a 55€ anti-virus than nothing.
There is another thing to add, however, for my family, 55€ is not THAT much for an anti-virus, that's why most people use free ones, which I think is fair :)
-
Well, you may feel safer with a 55€ AV than with a 0€ AV, but it's, on average, not necessarily true :)
-
Well, you may feel safer with a 55€ AV than with a 0€ AV, but it's, on average, not necessarily true :)
I feel safer because when I bought it and my first scan, it scanned a trojan and a malware that the other one hadn't :)
-
I've always been a big fan of ESET because it's extremely light on system resources. Especially in comparison to Norton.
I changed to Microsoft Security Essentials a couple of months ago. It's hard to say how good the virusprotection actually is but I didn't run into any serious problems thusfar. It's free, has realtime protection and doesn't continually bother me with nagscreens. That's more than enough for me.
-
I've always been a big fan of ESET because it's extremely light on system resources. Especially in comparison to Norton.
I changed to Microsoft Security Essentials a couple of months ago. It's hard to say how good the virusprotection actually is but I didn't run into any serious problems thusfar. It's free, has realtime protection and doesn't continually bother me with nagscreens. That's more than enough for me.
Great for you.
Another side to debate is Linux which is ALMOST virus-free because there are almost no virus for Linux's OSs
-
If you just use the Internet more safely, you shouldn't need an Anti-Virus software.
While that is generally a good practice, it doesn't always work. For example, I was on Wolfram Alpha a while back on a school computer. It was the first site I had ever visited on that account and yet, five minutes later (I hadn't switched sites), a virus pops up and shuts down the system. The IT guys agreed that it almost certainly came from that site and it was the first virus ever recorded on the school computers (which do have AV). Wonderful :P
-
If you just use the Internet more safely, you shouldn't need an Anti-Virus software.
While that is generally a good practice, it doesn't always work. For example, I was on Wolfram Alpha a while back on a school computer. It was the first site I had ever visited on that account and yet, five minutes later (I hadn't switched sites), a virus pops up and shuts down the system. The IT guys agreed that it almost certainly came from that site and it was the first virus ever recorded on the school computers (which do have AV). Wonderful :P
LOL
In my school, there are AVG in all computers, but half of the settings are turned off and the protection is 'low'...
-
My favorite anti-virus right now is Avast. I have the free version and it detects most stuff.
I disagree that if you be careful on the Internet you won't get any virus, because if the server where your avatar is hosted gets hacked and files get infected, then you can get infected just by browsing legit websites such as Omnimaga, GameFAQs, etc. This is an example: http://ourl.ca/4281
MOST of the time, though, you won't need an anti-virus if you be careful. I also advise against paying for one. Why pay for an anti-virus software when there are plenty available for free that get the job done just as well?
The best way to avoid getting viruses is to not download any warez, never visit ROM sites, never click Google/Yahoo ads, never follow links in Youtube videos and if you ever get on a torrent site, uncheck any non MP3/OGG/WMV file listed. NEVER download a rar/zip torrent, even if there's a file list posted.
-
My favorite anti-virus right now is Avast. I have the free version and it detects most stuff.
I disagree that if you be careful on the Internet you won't get any virus, because if the server where your avatar is hosted gets hacked and files get infected, then you can get infected just by browsing legit websites such as Omnimaga, GameFAQs, etc. This is an example: http://ourl.ca/4281
MOST of the time, though, you won't need an anti-virus if you be careful. I also advise against paying for one. Why pay for an anti-virus software when there are plenty available for free that get the job done just as well?
The best way to avoid getting viruses is to not download any warez, never visit ROM sites, never click Google/Yahoo ads, never follow links in Youtube videos and if you ever get on a torrent site, uncheck any non MP3/OGG/WMV file listed. NEVER download a rar/zip torrent, even if there's a file list posted.
Those are good tips, indeed.
-
Live essentials sucks, (I used it)
And I do prefer eset smart security as it doesn't use a large memory space as norton and has a firewall and other features...
And it won many times for the best heuristic AV, however it doesn't have the best database
So if you want to go for it don't forget to set for the heuristics scan.
/*For the price
~44 Euros - 1 year license
~65 Euros - 2 years license
But, as I can't pay it, I do download it when the period expires, so I unistall with revo/ccleaner and then install it again, so I can use it for free.
*/
Note2: It have a portuguese engine, just in case you are considering this as a plus.
-
Live essentials sucks, (I used it)
And I do prefer eset smart security as it doesn't use a large memory space as norton and has a firewall and other features...
And it won many times for the best heuristic AV, however it doesn't have the best database
So if you want to go for it don't forget to set for the heuristics scan.
/*For the price
~44 Euros - 1 year license
~65 Euros - 2 years license
But, as I can't pay it, I do download it when the period expires, so I unistall with revo/ccleaner and then install it again, so I can use it for free.
*/
Note2: It have a portuguese engine, just in case you are considering this as a plus.
/*Nos aqui ate podemos falar portugues, eu nao estou interessado no Microsoft Security Essentials, uso o Kaspersky 2011 e gosto muito. Mas e bom saber que alguem nao gosta dele. Ja agora, porque tem respeito negativo.O?
*/
Some portuguese conversation around here...
-
/*
Quando a procurar por arquivos, muitas vezes ele não encontra nada mesmo que seja um vírus.
Se estiver usando o mesmo, pode até achar que funciona, mas, quando passar outro programa pode ser que haja diversos softwares maliciosos no mesmo.
*/
-Just my review about, how does microsoft antivirus sucks, in portuguese.
//sorry for not finding a better word for it, as it may look too much vulgar but, it's how I see this software.
-
/*
Quando a procurar por arquivos, muitas vezes ele não encontra nada mesmo que seja um vírus.
Se estiver usando o mesmo, pode até achar que funciona, mas, quando passar outro programa pode ser que haja diversos softwares maliciosos no mesmo.
*/
-Just my review about, how does microsoft antivirus sucks, in portuguese.
//sorry for not finding a better word for it, as it may look too much vulgar but, it's how I see this software.
/*
Obrigado, e que muitos amigos meus tem vindo a instala-lo a achar que e muito bom, mas bem, pela Web e caracterizado como muito bom...
/*
-
I have Avast! as well and I think it does a good job.
Of course, a good way to not get viruses is to have a Mac or Linux machine, since 99.9% of the viruses are made for Windows (but I don't say 100% because a few Linux and Mac viruses exists as well and, IMHO, it's not advised to switch to Linux just because of that). But for the security consciencious, Avast! for Linux exists as well, it's useful for scanning your Windows partition when it's too screwed up to run a virus scan. There is also ClamAV for Linux, generally used to detect viruses in mail on a mail server.
-
In the last few months, a huge variety of anti-virus came to the market, because before people only used from a range of 5 (Norton, MCAfee, Kaspersky, Panda, AVG). It's good to see more availability, though :)
Funny, but I never used anything from this list: I've used ESET NOD32 for the last five years (and DrWeb for ten years before that).
The anti-virus industry is really a scam in my opinion.
No, it's not a scam. It's the pattern already discussed (http://ourl.ca/8003/146085): people buy expensive AV packages and then download and run tons of the crap from the internet - because it's safe now, you see. The 100% guaranteed end result of this approach is system infected with tons of malware.
Of course, a good way to not get viruses is to have a Mac or Linux machine, since 99.9% of the viruses are made for Windows (but I don't say 100% because a few Linux and Mac viruses exists as well and, IMHO, it's not advised to switch to Linux just because of that).
Linux is much safer then Windows and significantly safer then Mac but if you'll use approach "I'm safe now so I'll download and install tons of crap without thinking" you'll end up with trojan too. And if you'll think about what you are doing you'll be able to keep your Windows virus-free too even without the help of AV solftware.
-
Off-topic, but to the two people who are not speaking in english above, I would ask you to provide english translations of what you are saying in your posts in the future if you use the english section so that people won't need to use Google translate to know what is being discussed, especially forum moderators.
Btw is it true that Norton improved a lot lately? I remember back then it was almost considered as the bane of computers and internet. It usually detected virus once they were on the computer and not even half of the recent stuff, so it was pretty much useless, plus it spammed your desktop with notices about how it will expire and to buy the full version as soon as possible. I remember some people even said Microsoft Antivirus was better than Norton Antivirus.
-
Off-topic, but to the two people who are not speaking in english above, I would ask you to provide english translations of what you are saying in your posts in the future if you use the english section so that people won't need to use Google translate to know what is being discussed, especially forum moderators.
Btw is it true that Norton improved a lot lately? I remember back then it was almost considered as the bane of computers and internet. It usually detected virus once they were on the computer and not even half of the recent stuff, so it was pretty much useless, plus it spammed your desktop with notices about how it will expire and to buy the full version as soon as possible. I remember some people even said Microsoft Antivirus was better than Norton Antivirus.
Norton is an expensive anti-virus at the moment, so I hope it is good.
Sorry for talking portuguese, but it's the 8th most spoken language in teh world, there should be an omnimaga.pt just for it! j/k
-
Ah, ok, because I prefer that if you speak a language other than the site one, you should put a translation as well in a spoiler or something.
-
@Omni: Norton has only gotten worse and more bloated over the years unfortunately. :/ My dad had been using it on their company computer for years. It used to do quite well in the early 90's caught alot of shit and repaired/ removed them. Recently though it flags alot of things falsely and rarely (I can't remember a single instance) has it actually caught anything(in recent days). A few years ago they switched to McAfee which unfortunately isn't any better. As for myself I was using Avast, but they had a few bad updates that were falsely flagging things. I'm currently using Microsoft security essentials, which does pretty well and has caught a few things(but it did miss some addware on my lappy that I had to find some specific software to remove). Just my two cents on the topic anyway.
*Edit* Oh and just fyi, the addware was there because someone was using my lappy when i wasn't home and going on... questionable sites.
-
Ah yeah I remember Avast did that for a while. It got better now, but it used to be bad. In my case, tho, Norton wasn't flagging stuff falsely, because it just didn't flag anything at all.
*Edit* Oh and just fyi, the addware was there because someone was using my lappy when i wasn't home and going on... questionable sites.
And browsed them from IE?
-
Oddly enough, yes from IE.
-
Not surprising. IE is so insecure when it comes to browsing the Internet. If you go on a bad site you're almost certain to get infected. In fact, I think when I got my old computer, I got a virus as soon as I opened Google in IE6 O.O (I wanted to download Firefox and Avast)
-
Not surprising. IE is so insecure when it comes to browsing the Internet. If you go on a bad site you're almost certain to get infected. In fact, I think when I got my old computer, I got a virus as soon as I opened Google in IE6 O.O (I wanted to download Firefox and Avast)
That's what we call: irony.
-
Indeed. Although a lot of security issues were fixed on IE, it's still not very safe. I got viruses with Firefox too but far less much than I did with IE.
-
According to Microsoft, IE8 is safer than native Firefox. Kind of ironic, 'cause the whole point of Firefox is to make the base package as barebones as reasonably possible and allow you to upgrade. ::)
-
Lol. Keep in mind this is Microsoft that is saying that, though.
-
Lol. Keep in mind this is Microsoft that is saying that, though.
They do make up a lot of stuff :P
However, I can almost believe that IE is safer on Windows, since it is connected to Windows itself, HOWEVER, this can also make it more easier for hackers to get to the OS
-
However, I can almost believe that IE is safer on Windows, since it is connected to Windows itself, HOWEVER, this can also make it more easier for hackers to get to the OS
This is true for IE7 and below. And they are security disasters. IE8 is not tightly tied to an OS... that's why it's significantly more secure - but much slower as well.
Read this (http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/03/ie8-safari4-firefox3-iphone-fall-on-day-1-of-pwn2own.ars). Note that only Chrome was "left standing", but also "Neither the iPhone exploit nor the IE8 exploit managed to escape the OS-supplied sandboxes that protect these platforms. Without escaping the sandboxes, the impact that flaws can have is reduced, preventing, for example, writing to hard disk (and hence, preventing installation of malware)."
So yes, IE8 is more secure - this is not only Microsoft's boasting. But "the most secure browser on the market"? No, for now it's Chrome. Will the IE9 be able to retake this crown? Who knows.
-
With IE8, it's so ressource intensive that on my Intel Celeron 2.93 GHz with 1 GB of RAM running XP, my computer freezes during 10 seconds when IE8 is starting up. Firefox takes 1 minute to start up, but it doesn't take incredible amounts of ressources like IE does, Opera starts up in about 2-5 seconds and Chrome about 3-6. I can't imagine people who accidentally chosen to upgrade to IE8 on their 1.6 GHz Pentium 4...
Also I wonder where does Opera stand among other browsers in terms of security?
-
Also I wonder where does Opera stand among other browsers in terms of security?
Theoretically it's pretty poor: it's about on par with Firefox, but unlike Firefox Opera does not push updates automatically. Practically... it's different story: few people bother to support it - both on webmaster's side and on rootkit seller's side. If you just visit some random sites and want protection from common malware then Opera is pretty good, but if you are objective of some kind of targeted attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_threat) - you may consider yourself already cracked. Actually I'm not sure even Chrome and/or IE8 will save you against targeted attack - and these are the best browsers today from security POV.
P.S. Note: Firefox and Safari developers plan to implement sandboxing in the future.
P.P.S. Another note: most IE8 security features (including sandbox) are only available and used in Windows7.
-
With IE8, it's so ressource intensive that on my Intel Celeron 2.93 GHz with 1 GB of RAM running XP, my computer freezes during 10 seconds when IE8 is starting up. Firefox takes 1 minute to start up, but it doesn't take incredible amounts of ressources like IE does, Opera starts up in about 2-5 seconds and Chrome about 3-6. I can't imagine people who accidentally chosen to upgrade to IE8 on their 1.6 GHz Pentium 4...
Also I wonder where does Opera stand among other browsers in terms of security?
As for Firefox taking a long while to start up, is that like Firefox 3.x?
Cuz the beta for Firefox 4 is incredibly fast compared to 3.6 for me, both starting up and browsing.
-
Also I wonder where does Opera stand among other browsers in terms of security?
Theoretically it's pretty poor: it's about on par with Firefox, but unlike Firefox Opera does not push updates automatically. Practically... it's different story: few people bother to support it - both on webmaster's side and on rootkit seller's side. If you just visit some random sites and want protection from common malware then Opera is pretty good, but if you are objective of some kind of targeted attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_threat) - you may consider yourself already cracked. Actually I'm not sure even Chrome and/or IE8 will save you against targeted attack - and these are the best browsers today from security POV.
P.S. Note: Firefox and Safari developers plan to implement sandboxing in the future.
P.P.S. Another note: most IE8 security features (including sandbox) are only available and used in Windows7.
Actually from time to time Opera updates automatically. If you had them turned OFF, after 5 or 6 restarts, it will eventually auto-update.
As for getting less viruses on Opera I guess it could be because fewer people use it so virus creators won't bother as much. I may be wrong, though. Was it that reason why Mac OS got so few viruses compared to Windows?
-
As for getting less viruses on Opera I guess it could be because fewer people use it so virus creators won't bother as much. I may be wrong, though. Was it that reason why Mac OS got so few viruses compared to Windows?
Well, it was. Before MacOS X security in MacOS was even worse then in Windows - yet it had less malware. MacOS X raised the bar so today it makes even less sense to try to write something for Mac. The popularity and percentage of vulnerabile systems are meaningless by itself: malware authors are attracted by product of these two measures. Because this is expected value (mathematical term) of "fresh meat" for buildbots.
Actually the most popular vector of attack is not even browser! It's Java plugin! It does not auto-update (well, it offers to do that but does not auto-update by itself), it often comes preinstalled but rarely is used (often people forget they even have it installed), so if you have out-of-date Java plugin then it does not matter what kind of browser you are using and how secure that browser is. Then there are three contenders for the next position: IE6, Adobe Flash and Adobe Reader (AKA Acrobat Reader) - and only after that come other browsers. IE6 is less secure then Flash or Reader but it becomes increasingly less common, too, so it's probably number three or four by now, but real disaster are Flash and Reader: many sites can not be used without them so you can not just disable them like you can do with Java, they are supplied by just one vendor, so you can not switch to other implementation (well, there are some Reader replacements - but they have compatibility ptoblems... there are nothing for Flash). That's why recent versions of Chrome include Flash and PDF plugins: they can not make them secure like the rest of browser, but they at least can keep them up-to-date!