Computer Hope
Software => Computer software => Topic started by: pcgeek on November 24, 2008, 03:18:08 AM
-
Hey I was wondering if antivirus software is important.
Some people and places say it is and other not. I was wondering if a free one or bought one is better?
Where can I go and buy antivirus software online and where I regularly update it?
I am not sure people tell me different things.
I randomly read:http://www.pc1news.com/news/0180/warning-get-effective-antivirus-software-or-else-.html (http://www.pc1news.com/news/0180/warning-get-effective-antivirus-software-or-else-.html) and I read wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus)
So basically the question is where and what antivirus software should I be using?
Any information on this or places I can read or what to do?
thanks :)
I would like a link I could pay for the stuff online and then just download. 8) :o >:( ;D
-
LOL, im just laughing at the irony that "...computer security is my aim" and your asking if anti-virus is important.
Is this serious, or a sick joke??!! ::)
-
This question is asked a lot.
My own personal take is that whether antivirus or other security software is "necessary" depends on the way you use and maintain your computer, the importance of your computer's security, and your own knowledge and experience.
-
So basically the question is where and what antivirus software should I be using?
I would suggest AVG. There's a free version or you could go for the full package, it updates itself regularly and has never caused me any problems. http://free.avg.com/ (http://free.avg.com/)
FB
-
ok...if it isnt a joke, Y E S!!!!!!
heres 2
AVG FREE (http://free.avg.com/)
SPYBOT Search & Destroy (http://www.spybot.com/en/mirrors/index.html)<-- tons of phonys out there, but this is real site
I would recoment accualy buying one, like Nortan anti virus, or spyware doctor, but free ones are effective
-
Don't get Norton.....
In my experience, they stay started to lose their effectiveness after Norton Antivirus 2003.
-
Don't get Norton.....
In my experience, they stay started to lose their effectiveness after Norton Antivirus 2003.
I've got Norton. Get it with my ISP package. Although i've had no problems with viruses etc it does take a lot of resources up when starting my PC.
What do you mean, Carbon, lose its effectiveness?
-
Well for example, Norton 360 does almost nothing.
What Norton product do you have?
-
Well for example, Norton 360 does almost nothing.
Well it doesn't do nothing, it allows viruses to enter at any angle!
-
Well for example, Norton 360 does almost nothing.
What Norton product do you have?
Norton Security Online.
-
Stay away from Norton, McAfee, and AVG as well.
I don't care what anyone else says, but IMHO, firewall, and an antivirus is a must.
If anyone has a different opinion...good luck, and don't come back crying, that your computer is infected.
In today's world, no matter how computer smart you're, if you don't use AV, you're gonna get infected sooner, or later. Unless....you don't go on-line, and don't share any devices with other computers.
Free programs, and very good programs:
- Avast! free antivirus: http://filehippo.com/download_avast_antivirus/
- Avira free antivirus: http://www.free-av.com/en/download/index.html
- free Comodo Internet Security (firewall + AV): http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/
-
My late reply:
McAfee has gotten MUCH better over the recent, oh, two years. I used it for a while from my ISP, however, I eventually switched back to Avast since Avast has a much more advanced extended configuration that I can go through and set up.
In my opinion:
If you are a skilled computer user who knows how to recognize "bad" websites ridden with viruses, and if you only download from trusted sources AND you have a program in your browser that shows you when a site has had bad user feedback, go ahead and skip out on Antivirus.
If you are a new computer user, or have been using them but you arent extremely skilled with them, for the sake of reducing possible problems that may occur with viruses, keep Antivirus installed on your computer.
I keep Antivirus installed and updated on my computer for two major reasons:
My extremely large email inbox, and the fact that I am often connected to the schools network, and I use their network resources.
Software such as Sandboxie and other virtualization only go so far. Viruses can jump that "wall" if they are well programmed to completely infect all of your memory, even if its partitioned memory, some viruses can "get through"
Be afraid, be very afraid.
-
OK Here is my answer. ;)
Yes, anti-virus is important.
Is one better than another? Yes
A Lot better? Hard to say. :-\
Is some of it junk? YES. In fact some are Trojans . :o
Is there a sure way to keep you computer clean?
Yes, go to the public library and us the PCs there for your research and make only paper copies. Never use you own computer on the Internet.
No, this is not a joke :-[
Here we have three computer users and five computers plus backup hard drives and we also use anti-virus stuff and once in awhile we have do do a major repair on one of the systems. The two spare PCs not on the LAN are used to fix one of the others when an internet infection takes it down. About 15% of the sites you visit can ruin your PC , unless you have an active background anti-virus engine checking everything. But it cuts down on your speed. :'(
-
As a novice PC user I have Avast and AVG running together without apparent problem and not been "infected" as far as I can tell since using them.
I've considered doing my banking on-line but never taken the plunge because I am suspicious that if money was stolen from my account the banks would say I had insufficient security because I use free AV software as opposed to "bought" software. Also I use XP but have only got SP2 loaded not SP3 so again I suspect they would use that as a reason not to compensate me for any on-line theft.
Does anyone know if Vista is more robust than XP was/is in security terms as I understand XP needed loads of security patches to keep it secure?
Is Spybot also "free" software and worth running does anyone know?
-
Vista is extremely secure, however, its not worth upgrading for if you currently have XP. If you get a Vista computer, keep Vista, if you get an XP computer, keep XP...
You should keep XP updated, and change the default update installation time to a time where your computer is actually on. By default, its set to 3:00AM....
And, about SP3, I would recommend getting it if you do not have an HP or Compaq computer. HP/Compaq is not really all too well compatible.
SP3 is just part of keeping things updated as they should be.
-
My late reply:
McAfee has gotten MUCH better over the recent, oh, two years. I used it for a while from my ISP, however, I eventually switched back to Avast since Avast has a much more advanced extended configuration that I can go through and set up.
In my opinion:
If you are a skilled computer user who knows how to recognize "bad" websites ridden with viruses, and if you only download from trusted sources AND you have a program in your browser that shows you when a site has had bad user feedback, go ahead and skip out on Antivirus.
If you are a new computer user, or have been using them but you arent extremely skilled with them, for the sake of reducing possible problems that may occur with viruses, keep Antivirus installed on your computer.
I keep Antivirus installed and updated on my computer for two major reasons:
My extremely large email inbox, and the fact that I am often connected to the schools network, and I use their network resources.
Software such as Sandboxie and other virtualization only go so far. Viruses can jump that "wall" if they are well programmed to completely infect all of your memory, even if its partitioned memory, some viruses can "get through"
Be afraid, be very afraid.
I was interested in a couple of your commments there can you explain how to recognise bad websites (or does that come from experience) and also which browser programmes show bad feedback from sites please?
-
Vista is extremely secure, however, its not worth upgrading for if you currently have XP. If you get a Vista computer, keep Vista, if you get an XP computer, keep XP...
You should keep XP updated, and change the default update installation time to a time where your computer is actually on. By default, its set to 3:00AM....
And, about SP3, I would recommend getting it if you do not have an HP or Compaq computer. HP/Compaq is not really all too well compatible.
SP3 is just part of keeping things updated as they should be.
Hi,
I tried to update XP from the Microsoft site last year but it says it's not a genuine version (I bought the kit from a friend a couple of years ago) so can't do much about it really.
Can you explain what you mean by default update installation time and how I would go about changing it please? What effect does that have?
Thanks for the reply by the way. :)
-
If you have FireFox, check out WOT.
http://www.mywot.com/
If you have Internet Explorer, check out McAfee Site Advisor:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff.html
Both are free.
Recognizing if a site is bad:
Does it have excessive advertisements?
Most "bad" sites contain really flashy ads, however, there are good ones that do as well.
Popups on the page? Video ads? Its seldom that you find video ads on good websites anymore, most webmasters have stopped using those methods simply because of how intrusive they are.
Is the site "crappy" looking? Often, scam sites and virus sites are "thrown together" rather quickly with little to no effort actually put into them. Now, granted, this is purely based off aesthetics, and there are a TON of "good" websites out there that look horrible, but, combined with some of the above warnings, it could point to something not so great...
It really just requires a trained eye, and comes with a lot of experience.
Just looking can not prove everything though. Some sites are very well disguised, but, on the other hand, a lot are not.
-
<snip>
Hi,
I tried to update XP from the Microsoft site last year but it says it's not a genuine version (I bought the kit from a friend a couple of years ago) so can't do much about it really.
Can you explain what you mean by default update installation time and how I would go about changing it please? What effect does that have?
Thanks for the reply by the way. :)
Being as you dont have a genuine copy of Windows XP, updates might not really happen very often. This is a security risk. Contact your friend and find out of the disc is valid, and if another copy of it is being used elsewhere. If there isnt another copy, call Microsoft and validate Windows.
Important updates might not be obtained without this step, and that makes a flaw in your security.
To set up update times:
Go to the Start Menu> Control Panel> "Windows Updates"
Its self explanatory from there. Set the time to a time when your computer is on, but that it wont bug you very much if it asks you to restart your computer. You can always go to "Restart Later" when prompted.
I have my updates at 6:00PM, since I am usually through my email inbox by then, and not usually working on anything important.
-
Hi. I have Mozilla is Firefox the e-mail version of Outlook Express which is what I currently use?
Sorry for being a bit dim but I am learning as I go along!!
Edit : Just checked and realised e-mail version is Thunderbird!!!
-
I have Avast and AVG running together
Very bad idea.
-
Regarding McAfee. It seems to be much less intrusive, than Norton, causing less problems with everyday computer operation, but it's level of protection appears to be really low.
As for not using AV, because you're experienced computer user, I'll give you an example from my own experience.
I consider myself pretty computer savvy, but surely enough, I'm not mistake free.
Some time ago, I was reinstalling Win 2K on my old computer, and....I made a grave mistake.
I was doing reinstall with the computer hooked up to the net.
By the time, I reinstalled Windows, and put firewall on, I had couple of trojans already dancing around my computer.
I found out quickly enough only because my AV warned me about it.
If I didn't have any AV installed, how soon would I know?
Surely, I'd probably notice at some point, that my computer behaves little bit strange, but by that time all kind of bad things could have happened to my machine.
That was the only time in my 20+ years of operating computers, when I got infected.
-
I have Avast and AVG running together
Very bad idea.
Can you clarify why running two together is a problem and which of the two would you keep using?
Thanks.
-
Running two AV programs, or two firewalls is calling for conflict, sooner, or later.
Since AVG 8.0 has been having issues over, and over, I'd go for Avast.
-
I was interested in a couple of your commments there can you explain how to recognise bad websites (or does that come from experience) and also which browser programmes show bad feedback from sites please?
I've been using McAfee Site Advisor for quite a while and you can add it on to Firefox.
You can find it here http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff.html (http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff.html)
-
Windows XP can network in safe mode. This can give more security in some cases. Ironically, one company recommends that their anti-virus not be run in Safe Mode, but that was the only way I could find a bad infection. 8)
-
Am I the only one whose only had to deal with "self infection"- IE, running a *ahem* keygen....
I don't think I've ever spontaneously picked up infections. On the other hand, I surely would if I connected directly to my modem instead of through my hardware firewalled Router.
-
I've always found myself a bit of a skeptic when it comes to virus protection for one major reason:
The only viruses I have ever gotten was when I was about 12 years old, and I didnt know better. Those viruses, which mainly came through floppy disks my cousin and I shared, didnt even do anything. They just sat there on the system, never truly infecting anything. They were the viruses that just kind of got on, and stayed there.
Since I first downloaded Avast Antivirus, and learned how viruses actually worked, I havent ever had one since, except for once in an email, which was detected by Avast, however, the attachment was probably never fully downloaded (only a file signature, I suspect), and it never caused problems.
I still keep Avast, I dont have it scan every file, just anything that can be executed, and I do keep anything related to the network scanned on high.
-
Self infection is the absolute best way to learn about how to protect a machine...
-
Self infection is the absolute best way to learn about how to protect a machine...
Downloading Kazaa now...
-
hello my friend, the truth is anything free is not really good. Well an antivirus is good but you should know what is best as an antivirus. And protect your computer.
-
You can safely ignore the advice above...there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of excellent FREE software programs out there including protection applications...
-
The only difference in free and paid is usually live help.
The scanner/protection module and definitions are the same. That's what matters.
-
hello my friend, the truth is anything free is not really good
Source? If you don't have any, please don't post any statements like the above one, anymore.
It's simply misleading, not true, and worthless.
-
I use a lot of free software, and its all quite nice.
Its true, there are some programs that dont have that great of free alternatives, but, in most cases, I have found alternatives that are equal or better.
An example:
KLite Codecs Pack, better than what nVidia or any other codec company has
NVU/Kompozer, much easier to use than DreamWeaver, not to mention, a heck of a lot smaller. For what I need it to do, its perfect, Dreamweaver is too much
MyMobiler, which remotely controls my phone, great software, no lag or any of that whatnot. Many companies out there have similar programs they want you to pay for
Avast Antivirus, faster than McAfee or Symatec/Norton, better detection in some cases as well, and boot time scan? THATS A feature ANY scanner should have.
TrueCrypt, encryption software, free, fast, extremely secure. Absolutely no back doors, as you often find with a few of the larger companies. Not to mention, constantly updated in the event that there is a security flaw.
Thats just a few.
-
Avast Antivirus, faster than McAfee or Symatec/Norton, better detection in some cases as well, and boot time scan?
I simply have to comment on this, because it's very gently said.
Norton, and McAfee @$50/year are simply next to worthless, regarding any security protection, and on a top of it, they build themselves so deep into Windows structure, that they are hard to remove, and they interfere with normal Windows operations, causing all kind of problems.
-
AVG, Avira, Avast are all just fine, just pick one and have the automatic updates setup and just be sure you can get it to run properly on your computer.
Sure, security is important, you wouldn't want something bad to happen and all of a sudden some important data gets leaked off your computer fir example.
I use Sophos Antivirus and it's pretty good. You have to pay for a license, but it came free to me because the school I go to offered it free to university students.
-
You have probably gotten two ideas. One is that AV is important. Second, there are many opinions as to which is best.
I have six systems. I started with Norton, then moved to McAfee, and now switched to AVG. I found Norton and McAfee to be OK, but resource hogs. I tried the full AVG package about a year ago and never looked back.
Also, about "How do you know bad sites?", if you stick to the Google engine AVG will flag sites as to OK, Suspect, Bad, or not rated. This helps as long as you pay attention to the flags before you click on them.
Finally, I also run IOBit's Advanced SystemCare freeware once a week to keep my systems reasonably clean and tuned up. It's a great package. You can buy the Pro version for $20, but I don't mind getting updates and definition files manually each week.
Good luck.
-
possibly i should start my own thread, i don't mean to hijack this one. but we talk about certain AV's hogging up resources.
2 questions... firewalls.. do they hog resouces the same way a AV will?
and should i have a AV?
the reason i ask is:
the computer i am using is over 10 years old, it is slow and is only used for it's intenet connection (i use it to bridge the connection with other devices) and sometimes checking a few web pages.
web pages i already know and trust and sometimes connect to MSN Messenger. nothing else. i only have windows firewall running, but no AV.. but the machine is online 24hours a day almost.
so back to topic, which would be more important for me? Avast or ZoneAlarm.. or both or neither.
(bare in mind i don't really want the PC boot up any slower than it already does)
((and if your reading and wondering Zylstra and hiloed, thanks you did solve my slow connection last week, but today (hopefully a one off) has been a little slow again :(
don't want to have to keep switching wireless channels everyweek! maybe a firewall/AV is what i need?))
-
also, out of intrest.. in the bottom right of posts it says the IP that's logged? the one shown is not my IP at all, mines completely diferent to that one lol ???
-
also, out of intrest.. in the bottom right of posts it says the IP that's logged? the one shown is not my IP at all, mines completely diferent to that one lol ???
Your IP Address might change by itself, other than that, it is in fact the address that the forums are sending information to and from.
As for Firewall:
Personally, I Believe in Windows Firewall. Its more intergrated than any other firewall you are ever going to find, its directly inside the operating system. A lot of users dont like Windows Firewall since you dont "See it working"
It only prompts you when there is a direct connection, and it doesnt tell you when the most random non-threatening items have appeared on your network. Basically, it doesnt tell you about every single little friggin program that trys to get a connection, which, is a good thing, since that many popups and warnings decreases productivity. It blocks the ports that need blocking, lets the ones that need allowance in.
EDIT:
Not to mention, resource wise, Windows Firewall is low on memory consumption and system resources. Other firewalls, like ZoneAlarm, use a lot.
Also, Windows Firewall is constantly updated without subscriptions, its part of Windows. Things like ZoneAlarm, you have to worry about keeping updated. And, didnt they end their free version?
-
ZoneAlarm is no longer free? you tell me lol :P
basicaly i have a slowconnection tonight.. if it still persists tomorow, i'll get Avast to see if i hav somehow picked up something nasty.
possibly my ISP (Orange) is having a bad time tonight.
or i need to reconfigure my wireless settings again. (hope not)
it's funny, i don't really know what help i am asking for. but there is something wrong going on, i know that for sure.
just wondering if i should get Avast, despite me not using this computer for downloads/surfing.
i am sure there is something wrong here though.. will post again if there is a problem tomorow
-
If a computer has no connection to any sort of external files, including CD's that are made by other people and USB flash drives, there is no need to get AV protection, unless you are an evil virus programmer who makes them and infects themselves frequently.
Sometimes ISP's can have slow days, thats for sure.
-
You might try installing and running IOBit's Advanced SystemCare utility I mentioned before. It is not an AV or Firewall, but an adware, registry, disk defragger, memory mgt. utility. I was amazed at how many problems it found and fixed on the first scans of my systems. This tuneup might help you a little bit.
Just pick any download site listed in the middle column and wait for the dialog box to pop up.
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5927
Good luck.
-
ZoneAlarm still has a free version of their firewall. Link (http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/zonealarm-pc-security-free-firewall.htm)
-
Commodo firewall is pretty good firewall too. But if you have windows vista, the windows firewall seems to be fine, as long as you got a working updating antivirus going and also you have Windows defender or some spyware checking program on.
-
Prevention is better than CURE!
That is why ANTI Virus is important. We dont want our files to be corrupted or lost right?! so its important to have early warning device.
-
I hear all the time how all those mac guys are thinking they don't need any antivirus protection. What a bull!
You'd want to prevent getting sick rather than being sick anyway....
-
I hear all the time how all those mac guys are thinking they don't need any antivirus protection. What a bull!
You'd want to prevent getting sick rather than being sick anyway....
A lot of Mac users dont consider viruses that work through Macros actual viruses, when in fact they are.
A virus is any program that replicates itself in any way, and, if its spreading, its replicating.
Malicious software is any program that causes damage, or an un-expected action on purpose by the programmer without the users full knowledge and consent.
-
well, yeah viruses replicate and work through host systems. I don't think there is an operating system that is totally virus free. I think Windows has more viruses only because more people use the operating system so virus writers spend more time trying to infect as many people as they possibly can.
Mac's and Linuxes have viruses I'm sure even though it may be that there's less or the viruses are not half as bad as some of the big name ones that attack windows or have been attacking windows systems.
Again, there is a chance of you getting sick so you want to be preventive when you are not yet sick so that there's less chance that you'll catch one.
-
Is antivirus software that important?
If you don't mind that green square in the middle of your screen, then we sure don't. If you don't care that all your exe files now have txt extensions, then we sure don't. If your mp3 copy of "Stairway to Heaven" sounds like a recording by Alvin and the Chipmunks, why should we care, our copy is fine.
But when your virus starts bombarding us with spam, or a file you uploaded infects our machine, then we sure do think that anti-virus is important.
Unless you are reckless enough to drive without insurance, why would you run a computer without any anti-virus protection?
8)
-
Anti-Virus software, at least in it's "on-demand" incarnations, is designed for the computer illiterate who will enthusiastically run that "keygen.exe" open that "secret document.doc.exe" and agree to all ActiveX Prompts.
If you know what software your installing and running on your computer, and have multiple vectors to solve any problems that do arise- Anti-virus software merely get's in the way by locking files and confusing the heck out of other applications that just saved that file, and yet can't open it again...
-
Hi, Zylstra.
Your remarks about SP3 reflect the majority experience of users who installed it you know, However, some number of users who have had trouble with it later found out that they were supposed to have a full backup of the system before they installed it. Did you know that? ;)
Such a full backup requires either a tape drive, a second hard drive, or a stack of DVD-R media. Plus a recovery system that can boot from a floppy or USB or CD drive. Do a Google on "Windows Backup" and you can find both freeware and try-n-buy programs that will do the job.
-
Even more:
Look on your manufacturer website, see what they say about SP3, and also, Google:
"<insert computer model here> <insert manufacture here> SP3"
HP hasnt resolved all issues, but, they have a hotfix you can use to install it.
Always back up!
And, I wouldent recommend tape drives... Sure, they go up to, what, 800GB now? But, in so many ways, its such poor technology compaired to other storage mediums, and 800GB is going to be about a thousand dollars... an 800GB HDD would be cheaper. Cheapest Tapedrive I could find was 35GB, and costs around $300.
I'd like to see more network based drives... but, you can build those yourself.
-
Nope. We need a secure operating system.
-
Nope. We need a secure operating system.
Well done, you've just revived a 10 months old topic with an statement that is flawed at best!!
-
My answer to the original question : NO.
I don't use any scanner during 5 years already and my computer is installed in a special way.
The funny thing about malware is, that they betray themselves by CHANGING my system, I use the same CHANGE as a weapon to remove malware and this works already 5 years.
I have beaten the very best scanners so far, they can't find anything, except false positives.
(False positives is another disadvantage of scanners, they make scanners dangerous, especially for credulous users.)
All scanners are based on blacklisting, which means they will never remove :
- unknown/new malware that is not on any blacklist of any scanner.
- known malware that is not on the blacklist of the used scanner, maybe on the blacklist of another scanner.
Heuristics only remove more malware, but not ALL malware.
AV-scanners have a pretty good detection rate, but AS-scanners have a lower detection rate.
You need at least two AS-scanners and replace them regularly with two other AS-scanners
in order to find malware that wasn't detected by your previous AS-scanners.
You can have only "1" AV-scanners to avoid conflicts, which isn't really safe either.
Good AS-scanners are Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and SUPERAntiSpyware.
The scanner message "Congratulations! No malware found" works like a drug to make you feel
comfortable and sleep better, but that doesn't mean your computer is absolutely malware-free.
Don't spend any money on scanners, because some free AV-scanners are also ADVANCED+ AV-scanners.
This is one of the best AV-scanner tests :
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2010.pdf
-
@ ErikAlbert
Well done, if i ever need to wait nearly 2 years for an answer to a topic, now i know where to come ::) :-X
-
@ ErikAlbert
Well done, if i ever need to wait nearly 2 years for an answer to a topic, now i know where to come ::) :-X
No problem. If you ever want to get rid of cleaning software, like CCleaner and registry cleaners and want a superclean system, come to me. :)
-
Now i'm not sure who is being sarcastic. :)
-
Well,
Our computers are exposed to an increased amount of viruses, which subsequently make our systems corrupt as well as unfortunately, there is little we can do to protect our computers in such a case, except for installing the best antivirus software possible and also this software is extremely important, as without it, our computers will become broken and eventually stop working all together.
-
Well,
Our computers are exposed to an increased amount of viruses, which subsequently make our systems corrupt as well as unfortunately, there is little we can do to protect our computers in such a case, except for installing the best antivirus software possible and also this software is extremely important, as without it, our computers will become broken and eventually stop working all together.
Well done, here's a star *
-
In my opinion, antivirus software can and should be completely disregarded if people would take a little time to learn how to use sysinternals tools. I haven't installed any antivirus software in about 4 years now.
-
In my opinion, antivirus software can and should be completely disregarded if people would take a little time to learn how to use sysinternals tools. I haven't installed any antivirus software in about 4 years now.
Well, that's you and you're entitled to your opinion. But I urge anyone and EVERYONE else reading this to ignore his advice. AV software should be installed and run resident by EVERYONE.
-
I figured most people wouldn't agree. Have you ever tried sysinternals and/or nirsoft tools?
-
Yes.
What do they have to do with protection ? ?
-
What do they have to do with protection ? ?
Nothing, but they are the best at removing viruses.
As for the protection, firewalls and not randomly running unknown exe files.
-
Nothing, but they are the best at removing viruses.
haha
they can be used to remove viruses but...
A:) you need to know what you are doing, and
B:) it takes a large investment of time and effort to use it for that, as well as knowing what you are doing.
You can't just "learn how to use Sysinternals tools" (I better point out that I doubt you are going to be using contig or handle to remove viruses, it's mostly procexp's ability to suspend processes that comes in handy here) you are going to need to learn how to use them to remove viruses; the general method would be to first identify all the "bad" processes, suspend them ALL, then kill them all. After that, you delete their files. So we need several steps-
First, you need to know how to identify unwelcome processes. Do you truly think anybody can do this? Some people get shaky knees when people mention exe files. Most don't know the first thing about them, nor which ones are included with windows and which ones are part of drivers and software packages, it's silly to expect them to know how to identify malware processes, especially since they could easily piggyback on other processes like winlogon anyway, in which case they would also need to know how to use the dll view and be able to know which processes have loaded "bad" dlls so that they can be forced to unload said Dlls, and then you'll need to suspend that thread because chances are the virus simply inject a piece of code into the host process to reload the dll when it recieves it's DLL_DETACH message from windows via dllmain().
Meanwhile, you can avoid almost all of this hassle by simply running malwarebytes, or even better, use a background AV. Additionally, you assume that a PC's owner is the only person to use a machine. This is often not the case. Do you truly expect that people should learn how to use procexp and simply let their children/grandchildren roam free on the internet? using process explorer to remove a nasty infection can often take hours. Should they teach their kids/grandkids/grandparents how to use process explorer? Seems like a huge waste of everybody's time, all the grandparent wants to do is play some bejeweled and they're being lectured on how to identify malicious processes. I thought that was the freaking job of a AV program? It is.
-
Nothing, but they are the best at removing viruses.
As for the protection, firewalls and not randomly running unknown exe files.
Do me a favor, go spout your nonsense regarding anti virus software somewhere else.
-
Nothing, but they are the best at removing viruses.
As for the protection, firewalls and not randomly running unknown exe files.
I keep getting smacked in the face, i don't why, but i know how to use a band-aid
-
I think he's talking about prevention and sandboxing. Of course, the only way you can ensure your computer is 100% secure would be to disconnect it from any outside (the internet / network) or new sources (transfering data between). The firewall is your best defensive against getting anything on the system, you can do some extra things like sandboxing applications so they don't affect another, disabling auto-run, etc, but the virus scanner is still an important tool required for today's computering.
Estimates suggest that up to 40% of personal computers are infected with some form of malware program (lots of people don't know or even ignore it, learning to live with the issue). 90% will have had contact with adware or spyware in it's lifetime. Still no security is still better than installing a fake antivirus program, over 30 million are infected by trojan injected 'security' software.
I recommend getting a trusted Virus scanner / Firewall, even if your just playing one solitaire game all day long and not going to risky sites. It's a pretty good investment for your computer's health.
Source - infection rate: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/report-48-of-22-million-scanned-computers-infected-with-malware/5365
Source - fake software: http://www.pandasecurity.com/homeusers/media/press-releases/viewnews?noticia=9394
-
This thread is very old. Let me hijack it now. ;D
Terrorism and cyber attacks main threats to Britain
David Cameron, who co-wrote the foreword to the report with Nick Clegg Photo: AP
The new National Security Strategy identifies four ''tier one'' risks which, it says, must be the Government's highest priority.
The other major threats are a large scale accident or natural hazard such as pandemic flu and an international military crisis which could draw in the UK and its allies. ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8071198/Terrorism-and-cyber-attacks-main-threats-to-Britain.html
So he equates Cyber Attacks to major disasters or military conflicts.
Is that of any concern?
What if your computer shot bullets at you?
Or gave you Malaria?
-
What if your computer shot bullets at you?
I'd shoot back.
-
The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back.
-
Symantec came with the laptop I got from HP which also uses Vista, ugh. The Symantec has worked well, I think. It updates itself and so far no problems for almost 2 years. I have recently for some reason gotten a Macafee Virus Scan that has started up on its own. Not sure why. I hope it plays well with Symantec.
Any thoughts?
Harold
-
Do not have two active AVs on one PC. :)
-
Uninstall anything and everything "McAfee"
-
(I realize this is a little irrelevant to the OP, but it seems this thread is a general AV discussion anyway)
How can one be really sure an AV product is doing it's job effectively, and to expand on that, how can one know if it's doing it better than other software? For what reasons specifically are AVs still important for and what distinguishes them from each other?
Aside from memory footprints, shiny UIs, and competent tech support, I was under the impression that most AV products performed within a pretty close margin. During my highschool years, I was super gung-ho and would spout things along the lines of "Oh my goodness! This AV has a slightly detection rate! This one has a good review from X website! I need to be protected!!! My friends need to be protected. THE INTERNET MUST KNOW."
I've got Avira installed because back then (and for the most part now it seems), it seems to be the product that tops av-comparative's lists for detection most consistently (and it's also free). But now, I've come to realize that aside from the odd random suspicious file you want to scan after you've downloaded, that it really does take safe surfing and a little bit of intuition to avoid most viruses and active heuristics just seem to be a safety net. Since viruses, malware, and the like are developed/exposed and distributed so rapidly, zero day threats render those AV heuristics useless anyway. I also thought that most sneaky people on the internet enjoyed phishing more anyway.
So once a safer computing crusader who once championed Avira and anti-malware software, I've now become almost apathetic towards these products. My last full computer scan was 2 months ago and I found nothing. If I scanned my computer today, I would be confident I'd get a similar result. Viruses just seem so "old-fashioned" when it comes to malicious attacks on the Internet. It almost seems like I'm more likely to be DDoS'd than infected at this point (I'm not sure that even makes sense, but I'll go with it)
I'm not trying to be arrogant and I'm not trying to say "Oh ho ho, I'm so smart with computers, I'll never get infected!". I just don't feel the threat of viruses anymore.
But should I? I feel out of the loop. How close am I onto modern computer security threats?
-
'm not trying to be arrogant and I'm not trying to say "Oh ho ho, I'm so smart with computers, I'll never get infected!". I just don't feel the threat of viruses anymore.
But should I? I feel out of the loop. How close am I onto modern computer security threats?
The treat is greater than you can imagine. To archive their goals, the criminals only need to have a return rate of less than .01 % of all attempts. Right, even under one in 10,100 attempts to snatch you PC can bring them a profit that will pay them many times over the cost of the evil machination.
-
The treat is greater than you can imagine. To archive their goals, the criminals only need to have a return rate of less than .01 % of all attempts. Right, even under one in 10,100 attempts to snatch you PC can bring them a profit that will pay them many times over the cost of the evil machination.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Adding numbers to nonsense doesn't change that.
-
WoW...that's all i can say.
-
Would you like these numbers?
"Da Vinci Code" Grifters Fleece Man in $20 Million Computer Virus International Conspiracy Scam
That was yesterday. I mean it was posted yeterday.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/da-vinci-code-grifters-fleece-man-in-20-million-computer-virus-international-conspiracy-scam/14622
-
Would you like these numbers?That was yesterday. I mean it was posted yeterday.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/da-vinci-code-grifters-fleece-man-in-20-million-computer-virus-international-conspiracy-scam/14622
None of that has anything to do with viruses.
Basically the guy had a computer problem and was taken advantage of by an unscrupulous repair shop. I fail to see the relevance to AV programs. It's not about viruses, it's about scams. an Anti-virus isn't going to protect you from social engineering attacks, for that you need to not be stupid.
-
To archive their goals, the criminals only need to have a return rate of less than .01 % of all attempts.
A good criminal would never archive his goals.
You should never keep records of your criminal activities.
Think about it.
-
A good criminal would never archive his goals.
You should never keep records of your criminal activities.
Think about it.
I'm pretty sure he meant "achieve" :P
-
None of that has anything to do with viruses.
Malware, short for malicious software, is software designed to secretly access a computer system without the owner's informed consent. The expression is a general term used by computer professionals to mean a variety of forms of hostile, intrusive, or annoying software or program ...
And next you wile tell me that guns have nothing to do with murder, therefore we should let everybody have as many guns as they might want.?
And people who have computers are never stupid?
And if other people get a virus is will not hurt you? Really?
And you will never never get any kind of virus, Trojan or worm on your PC? Really?
And your PC has never crashed? And you think that would never have anything to do with a Malware attack?
Hey, are you the same person that said there was no such thing as a DNS attack?
As I stated earlier, the problem is larger than what you can imagine. Somehow, there is a popular thought that anything computer related just can not readily become harmful to people. "After all, they are silicon, we are carbon. They can never hurt us."
And yes, if there were not computers, criminals would still exist.
Many kinds of Malware are spread by computers that function well. Any PC could infect a number of others over any kind of low security connection.
Malware is a tool of a criminal mind. Having tools to identity Malware helps everybody to avoid some scams. No, not all scams. So if we can not stop criminals, we should just give up? Not me. And nether should you. Or anybody. Do not cave in, keep up the fight!
-
geek, nowhere in that article is there anything but a vague implication that malware or viruses are even remotely involved. All we know is the guy took his laptop to get it fixed because he thought he had a virus- a self-proclaimed computer newbie. I know people who think that if their icons are in the wrong place they got a virus. The entire article has nothing to do with malware, viruses, or infections of any kind, and everything to do with social engineering. Your entire argument is a post-hoc fallacy.
And next you wile tell me that guns have nothing to do with murder,
Yes. that will be exactly what I tell you. guns have nothing to do with murder just as ropes have nothing to do with people being hanged. Are you trying to place responsibility on inanimate objects or something? Guns can't kill people unless somebody is holding it. Making guns inaccessible will certainly reduce the amount of people injured or killed by them, but it doesn't begin to address the social issues underlying why that happens in the first place. All of this is a straw man argument erected on your part, of course.
therefore we should let everybody have as many guns as they might want.?
since you are in the U.S, I will go by the fact that to my understanding your constitution pretty much says that. Other countries differ, including my own, but that's largely irrelevant since again this entire thing is a irrelevant argument you've created to try to divert my attention from the original issues.
And people who have computers are never stupid?
Non-sequitor.
And if other people get a virus is will not hurt you? Really?
irrelevant.
And you will never never get any kind of virus, Trojan or worm on your PC? Really?
Having an Anti-virus is not even close to a guarantee that you won't get infected. I haven't had a infection, or any unidentifiable process or service since I switched from Windows XP. the new UAC and security systems implemented by Vista and 7 that so many people like to complain about are to prevent the most common infection vector- the user. Of course if you go ahead and allow them anyway it's not very effective, but that's no different then with AV programs.
And your PC has never crashed? And you think that would never have anything to do with a Malware attack?
The only crashes I've had in the recallable past were caused by video card issues.
Hey, are you the same person that said there was no such thing as a DNS attack?
There isn't. It's called DNS poisoning. Perhaps you should use the proper terminology, then maybe your non-sequitor straw man arguments will have some relevance.
As I stated earlier, the problem is larger than what you can imagine. Somehow, there is a popular thought that anything computer related just can not readily become harmful to people. "After all, they are silicon, we are carbon. They can never hurt us."
None of this has even a remote relevance to the anything you said previously.
And yes, if there were not computers, criminals would still exist.
Wow. I totally didn't know that. thanks for enlightening me. (That was sarcasm, by the way)
Many kinds of Malware are spread by computers that function well. Any PC could infect a number of others over any kind of low security connection.
That doesn't even make sense. Yes, the idea of many forms of malware(specifically, worms/ worm hybrids) is to spread through networks. I fail to see the relevance, however. You then facilitate your argument by adding in the concept of a low security connection, and then you imply that in order to combat these worms and viruses we need to have a strong defense of AV programs. Of course, the concept of preventative medicine and actually not having a low security connection didn't for some reason occur to you. Additionally, any form of malware, any kind of infection, will have a process appear, in either windows or linux systems. Sure, rootkits can be used to hide them, but in order for the rootkit to get there (as with the malware) another program needs to install it. Is it possible through exploits? yes, probably. but again, that's all pretty redundant on account of the fact that it's also possible to get past AV programs. your idea of basically living in a padded room and being wrapped in about 20 layers of straight jackets is anything but a workable methodology to use a computer.
Malware is a tool of a criminal mind. Having tools to identity Malware helps everybody to avoid some scams. No, not all scams. So if we can not stop criminals, we should just give up? Not me. And nether should you. Or anybody. Do not cave in, keep up the fight!
what the *censored* are you talking about? We are talking about Anti-VIRUS programs, not Anti-malware programs. they are not one and the same.
Additionally, as I noted about 3 times so far (and additionally with my references to how irrelevant your various arguments here are), wether the person in the article had a virus or not is entirely irrelevant to the rest of the story. For all we now it was a expository created by the author of the article. For all we know the entire article is a fabrication. Listening to your constant ranting about how everybody should be on their guard at all times because that abandoned kitten that you found on your doorstep 4 years ago could be infested with biological malware that rewrote it's base code and changed it's instintive behaviour to create a photographic memory of your facebook account details makes me realize that there is a large portion of the population that would consider themselves "tech savvy" who apparently could not tell a disk file from a pair of weasels.
-
I haven't been on this forum for long, but that has to be one of the most thorough counter-arguments I've ever seen. That was a splendidly constructed rebuttal.
-
I haven't been on this forum for long, but that has to be one of the most thorough counter-arguments I've ever seen. That was a splendidly constructed rebuttal.
Yes, BC has the gift of being very exact without being accurate. Amazing!
-
Yes, BC has the gift of being very exact without being accurate. Amazing!
Funny, that's pretty much my entire point against you as an argument. The events described in the article:
1.Computer newbie thinks he has a virus
2.he takes it to a repair shop.
3.people at shop take advantage of his stature as well as his general proclivity to be paranoid and squeeze him for all he's worth.
That's pretty much it. Somehow, you take from the first event that the entire debacle was caused by a computer virus. For all we know he only <thought> he had a computer virus. Wether he actually had one is entirely irrelevant to the rest of the story, and it would have played out the same either way. Additionally, there is no explicit or implicit reference that the people at the repair shop gave him the/a virus, which you seem to imply by making it seem like the entire thing was a planned attack on him. It was not. Really it's no different then a story like this:
1. mechanics-ignorant car owner hears a suspicious rattle.
2. she takes it to the repair shop.
3. Mechanics find cause of rattle; small stone in the ashtray. But they take advantage of her high stature and general proclivity to be paranoid and tell her that her engine was tampered with by the FBI and she'll need to have the entire engine block rebuilt, and other nonsense.
The only difference here is that the first story mentions "computer viruses" which of course totally sets you off on a crusade against them, despite that being only part of the expository introduction paragraph. It's analogous to if the story was my second example and you went on a crusade to push people to install anti-stone screens on their ashtrays to prevent the rattle. All it takes is a little education, and the same is true of viruses; you only need to now a relatively small amount to prevent people from taking advantage of your ignorance; since ignorance cannot be taken advantage of where none is to be found. which is essentially what the story was about. Providing that story as "numbers" is rather nonsense since the fact that the man was scammed is entirely irrelevant to wether he had an AV. it would be like getting scammed by a doctor and blaming the reason you had to go to the doctor for the entire scam. "This dang flu fleeced me for 20 million!". In such a case it would seem that arguing using logic and proper attribution of cause and effect is entirely pointless because you've already reached an ad-hoc hypothesis based on the introductory paragraph.
-
Now that was a real rebuttal. Much better than the first. It appears that your expressions are much more clear and forceful after I make some statement that annoys you.
Now as to the regional topic, the average computer user should have an effective Anti-Virus program. But of course, that does not eliminate all danger. In fact, as you correctly stated, lack of knowledge is a much more serious issue. Here we're not talking about agents of a lack of formal education, but rather ignorance of reality of the world in which we live. Or, as some would say, being streetwise.
Much more money is lost to other types of malicious activity on the Internet. Here is a video that illustrates the idea. Of course it's kind of silly and frivolous, but it does make the point and it's fun to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yw5hW_bH1U
So to answer the original question, yes it is important to have AV software. A much greater damage comes from other types of things that many people are just not aware of. The media would do well to direct more attention to computer education. :)
-
So once a safer computing crusader who once championed Avira and anti-malware software, I've now become almost apathetic towards these products. My last full computer scan was 2 months ago and I found nothing. If I scanned my computer today, I would be confident I'd get a similar result. Viruses just seem so "old-fashioned" when it comes to malicious attacks on the Internet. ...
I'm not trying to be arrogant and I'm not trying to say "Oh ho ho, I'm so smart with computers, I'll never get infected!". I just don't feel the threat of viruses anymore.
But should I?
You've raised a valid point. I haven't read through this entire discussion thread but I think computer users can more easily become lax in their perspective about the need for anti-virus software because ISP's have become active players in the anti-virus arena, compared to the situation some years ago. In other words, ISP's have become more pro-active in scanning email messages flowing through their servers before the messages are viewed or downloaded by their customers. So, when an end-user goes for many, many months with no virus detection by anti-virus software, it's easy for them to become complacent about using anti-virus software.
Honestly, I have a laptop computer - one of three computers I use at home - that I bought in July 2007 and have regularly used on the Internet, including email, and I've never installed anti-virus software on it and have never had a virus problem. [I do have anti-virus on two desktop systems.] But, would I tell senior citizens who take computer classes at a center for retirees/seniors in Licking County, Ohio? Definitely not. Would I tell my mother, a senior citizen, or my less-computer-savvy siblings they don't need anti-virus. No, that wouldn't be wise.
And, along this line, any responsible online computing forum should be very cautious about promulgating the view that anti-virus software is not necessary. The risk is still present. I recently worked on a computer for someone who got a virus; it was the one that appears to be legitimate message about a UPS delivery (a FedEx and USPS version is also floating around). And, her ISP is the same as mine and I had seen the same message come into my email. But, unfortunately, she opened an attachment to the message and her computer was infected.
-
Very bad idea.
Why?? JIM