Slashdot Mirror


What Free Antivirus Do You Install On Windows?

Techman83 writes "After years of changing between AVG Free + Avast, it's coming time to find a new free alternative for friends/relatives who run Windows. AVG and Avast have been quite good, but are starting to bloat out in size, and also becoming very misleading. Avast recently auto updated from 4.8 to 5 and now requires you to register (even for the free version) and both are making it harder to actually find the free version. Is this the end of reasonable free antivirus, or is there another product I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?"

635 of 896 comments (clear)

  1. Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Informative

    I still use Avast. Oh noes, it took me 2 minutes to fill out the little form. It takes up few resources, it has updates for it nearly every day, it's free as in beer, and I have gotten a virus in ages. What's not to like?

    1. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 2, Funny

      HAVEN'T gotten*

      Gah. no preview = epic fail

    2. Re:Uh...Avast? by Kelbear · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've found Avast registration to be even easier now. I don't even have to go back to the website to register and get a key from my e-mail address. I can just register right in the program itself.

      It gets the job done for me.

    3. Re:Uh...Avast? by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I used Avast 4.8 for about a month. Then they upgraded to 5.0. Didn't care about the registration, but everything else just irked me to no end. On the other hand, MSE has every advantage you listed, plus no registration, and the updates are gathered through Windows Update, so you don't have yet another service updating itself.

      Oh, and the quick scan takes about 3 minutes.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    4. Re:Uh...Avast? by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the registration process has been greatly simplified. If only I didn't have to dig through the options to disable voice announcements...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:Uh...Avast? by Jeng · · Score: 2

      I don't know what the authors problem is. With Avast the first time you install it you don't have to register, eventually you'll have to register, but that is not for a few months. After that you will have to re-register something like every 6 or 9 months. Hell, its not like you even have to give them valid information.

      I just installed version 5, absolutely no issues.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    6. Re:Uh...Avast? by magsol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and I have gotten a virus in ages.

      That you know of.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    7. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 5, Funny

      ::dramatic chipmunk::

    8. Re:Uh...Avast? by 228e2 · · Score: 2

      I would look into something different if I were you.

      I just got done cleaning out my gf's computer that got infected with Conflicker. She had Avast 5 and it updated every .3 seconds along with MS updates, etc etc.

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    9. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah...if I'm gaming, I want to game. There are enough configuration issues as it is running them in their native environment...I don't need to be adding WINE into the mix.

      I run Linux on my laptops, but my gaming rig runs Windows 7.

      Viruses? I only see viruses when I'm cleaning out friends' Windows machines. Nobody else gets viruses.

      I only see viruses when I'm cleaning out machines belonging to friends that surf the web willy-nilly without using common sense.

    10. Re:Uh...Avast? by GIL_Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'll second the plug for MS Security Essentials. My current machine came with a three year subscription to McAfee. It was basically "free to me" - but it was utter crap. It wanted me to reboot about once a week to install something (at one point they even emailed everyone registered with a "we're sorry" note because it went through 2 weeks of a reboot every day). I removed it in favor of another "free to me" version - Symantec. That one was because our work license has provisions for home use. It was better than McAfee in that it didn't ever ask for a reboot, but as people know it slows your machine down more than it should. As soon as MS Security Essentials shipped, I dumped that "free to me" Symantec and have never looked back. My wife, both kids, and my machine are all running MSE. I even signed up for the perpetual beta so I am testing the newest version on the machine I am typing this on. I really wouldn't even bother with any other one at this point.

    11. Re:Uh...Avast? by Nuskrad · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to do a think like that though? Those announcements are the main reason I choose Avast!

    12. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...seriously? Conflicker? Dude. There are many ways to prevent Conflicker at this point, the easiest of which involves a patch directly from Microsoft.

      No offense to you or your lady, but you should teach her safer browsing habits.

    13. Re:Uh...Avast? by allo · · Score: 1

      you haven't got a virus, you know of.

    14. Re:Uh...Avast? by zullnero · · Score: 1

      I've used Avast for years as well...just remember to disable the Avast! sounds. You gotta love that creepy "Virus database has been updated" voice blasting out of your speakers at 4am.

    15. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lately it complains to me that there is a new version available, but when I click to update it just gives me the page to buy the pay versions. It's getting annoying.

    16. Re:Uh...Avast? by Kelbear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because hearing "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED" is a moodkiller during sex.

    17. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Apparently, it's a Prairie Dog. Not a hamster, not a vole, and not a chipmunk.

    18. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because hearing "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED" is a moodkiller during sex.

      Really? We use it as our cue to do the insane "monkey banana swing" position, which yes includes making monkey noises mid-coitus.

      You gotta keep your lovemaking fun, know what I mean?

    19. Re:Uh...Avast? by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think it was a CNET comparison I read of 19 products. Microsoft Security Essentials was something like 2nd out of 19 products in detection, it was the only free product at the top, and it has the smallest footprint out of all 19 tested.

      You'd be hard pressed to argue there is a better free product right now.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    20. Re:Uh...Avast? by kyrio · · Score: 1, Funny

      Must feel good to know that your wife and kids are virus free!

    21. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I was helping a doctor clean out his family computer when he asked how does one contract a computer virus.
      I respond by visiting the seedier parts of the internet looking for cheap thrills and free software/porn.
      In a flash of understanding he responds, 'Oh, just like real diseases.'

      I then proceded to show him where to obtain free porn without needing to visit the sites that were infecting his computer.

    22. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      It literally takes less than a minute, and you can do it right from inside the program without having to go to a web page.

    23. Re:Uh...Avast? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      I'm using MSE on multiple machines at home, and have only one issue. One of the machines will not obey the scheduled scan time. It does it whenever it feels like, whether the machine is in use or not.

      Not a critical issue, but annoying.

    24. Re:Uh...Avast? by Karna99 · · Score: 1

      I don't know...that kind of turns me on...gives it that interactive feeling when getting it on with the ol' computer.

    25. Re:Uh...Avast? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      I'm sure they are devastated to loose the business of one so lazy.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    26. Re:Uh...Avast? by Kj0n · · Score: 1

      Mandatory xkcd reference: http://xkcd.com/400/

    27. Re:Uh...Avast? by zizzybaloobah · · Score: 1

      Registration is once a year, and is *not* new in Avast 5. About the only time I get a call from friends and neighbors whose PC's I've decrapified (and installed Firefox, Avast, and Spybot) is when the Avast registration reneweal comes around. After the first year, they know the routine and do it themselves. The only people I've had to do repeat decrapifications were for those who went back to using IE, or, just didn't understand the basic principles of avoiding phishing attacks and sneaky links.

    28. Re:Uh...Avast? by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      It was in 4.8. In version 5 they've changed the voice to female. Boing.

    29. Re:Uh...Avast? by raphael75 · · Score: 1

      The Eudora email sound (the 1st six notes from the Log Song on Ren & Stimpy) going off is about as bad. ;)

    30. Re:Uh...Avast? by dubious_1 · · Score: 1

      My only real complaints with MSE:
      1. On a single core Celeron (2GHz) system it takes 100% of the CPU when running the live (background) checking option.
      2. After scanning a known infected disk it found 14 infected files. Running AVG on the same disk found 2 more files, so although not a scientific analysis, I was inclined to go with AVG.

      Unfortunately as most of these tools are only really useful if run in "live" mode ( constant background checking ), they are not suitable on any systems lacking multiple cpu cores.

      Running MSE or AVG on quad core athlon 630 system shows no noticeable cpu load.

    31. Re:Uh...Avast? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who knows enough to ask on /. what AV program to use knows enough that they aren't going to get viruses anyway. I haven't run AV for a while now (on Windows), and have had no issues simply because I'm not an idiot about clicking on pop-ups that say "Click here for free smilies/games/iPods/porn!"

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    32. Re:Uh...Avast? by hatemonger · · Score: 1

      I get my free porn from torrents, which I would assume are too complicated to explain to your friend. So what did you suggest? Redtube? 4chan? (shudder)

    33. Re:Uh...Avast? by dskzero · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow, you linux-nerds don't waste anytime to troll into any topic to scream out "windows sucks". You know, the best way to not get virus is not installing Linux. It's just knowing what you're doing. The possibilities of getting a virus or some sort of attack on your machine is directly proportional to the ammount of porno preview sites you visit.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    34. Re:Uh...Avast? by Yamata+no+Orochi · · Score: 1

      lol "rig"

    35. Re:Uh...Avast? by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Admittedly your post may not have been a troll, but it was hugely misguided. To be honest, you could have posted it to _anyone_, no matter what their antivirus protection. No one knows of viruses they have that they don't know of, obviously. If you'd have posted information about how the OP was at risk because of his behaviour, it might have been useful.

      As is, your post is essentially meaningless.

    36. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      4chan has its uses! Alot of the porn in my collection came from rapidshare links found from animated gifs that are posted. 4chan is the absolute bottom of the barrel when it comes to intellectual stimulation, but it can be quite useful for other forms of stimulation (heh).

      Of course, the bulk of it came back in the early 2000's when I frequented various Hotline servers and even ran my own for a while...but that's a story for another time :p

    37. Re:Uh...Avast? by guygo · · Score: 1

      I've been using MS Security Essentails for a while and like it a lot (specially after going with nothing and having a nasty wake up on 1/1/2010). It is very lightweight, and seems to catch bad things. I also augment MSSE's capabilities with weekly MBAM and Spybot scans.

    38. Re:Uh...Avast? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I had an astounding track record not getting viruses while using Windows, without running any AV. Then I connected once to a college network, and had 3 infections, without me ever opening a browser or checking my mail. After that I keep some AV and Spyware software on my computer.

      MSE is very good. Right now it is only logging around 880K, which isn't a big deal, and I have a decent multi-core processor so load isn't a big deal whatsoever. Also, it is always better to be safer than sorry. How much work/overhead does a light-weight AV program actually take, versus the amount of headache an infection causes?

      Hubris never ends well.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    39. Re:Uh...Avast? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      I jumped on board the good ship MSE too and the first release was great - low resources, by all accounts v. good performance and silent, background updates to the definitions.

        Then Microsoft updated the client and now I get messages from Windows Update (which I have set to notify without downloading) sometimes twice a day, bugging me to install the updated definitions for MSE. Can't turn it off, and although some people seem to be having a problem, Microsoft doesn't seem to care since we're in the minority. I had to hide Windows Update notices just to get rid of the nagging. Not ideal, really and I'm thinking of jumping ship back to Avast! which I liked and which didn't mess things up for me like this.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    40. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So did he return the favor by showing you where to find disease free hookers and needles?

    41. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      My wife, both kids, and my machine are all running MSE.

      Where might I find one of these wives with the ability to natively run x86 code?

    42. Re:Uh...Avast? by magsol · · Score: 1

      I guess I made the fatal assumption that what you just pointed out was implied in my first post. It's well-known amongst techies that malware across the board has been becoming increasingly complex, even (as is the case with some existing botnets) acting as AV themselves so as to maximize their control over the infected system.

      Yes, my comment was applicable to anyone with generic antivirus protection, but my point was to address the (possible) intuitive error that AV software + no observable infection = effective AV software. Arguably, the infections that one should be most worried about are also the infections that are most likely to bypass AV systems.

      All this I assumed was implied, given the Slashdot audience at large is very technically savvy; plus I was hoping for brevity being the soul of wit. But I'm also willing to accept that I failed miserably in that task. It's the "Troll" label that has me scratching my head.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    43. Re:Uh...Avast? by magsol · · Score: 1

      Hey, I need something to whine about, and today was a damn good day just about everywhere else.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    44. Re:Uh...Avast? by c++0xFF · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I had a similar realization once. The way I explain it:

      Antivirus == Washing your hands
      Software Patches == Regular doctor visits

      On the other hand:

      Shady porn sites == Cheep hookers
      Clicking random links == Sharing needles

      A few easy prevention techniques plus avoiding the "seedier" places go a long way.

    45. Re:Uh...Avast? by pyrr · · Score: 1

      It's been my experience, at least in many cases (which don't involve stupid DRM or newer versions of DirectX, so yeah, slightly stale stuff), games run better under Wine than Windows. I think that might actually be indicative of serious problems with the native environment, which probably also cause some of the "enough configuration issues" of which you speak.

    46. Re:Uh...Avast? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Giant did a good job with it.

    47. Re:Uh...Avast? by socceroos · · Score: 1

      Dude, tick the 'Post Anonymously' box....please.

    48. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'll third this. MS Security Essentials, along with Spybot Search & Destroy, and I also use PeerBlocker. All free, all work well, and none of the B.S. such as I've experienced with other "free" programs.

    49. Re:Uh...Avast? by westlake · · Score: 1

      I'll second the plug for MS Security Essentials.

      Remember last month's hoo-rah over the Alureon rootkit? Rootkit May Be Behind Windows Blue Screen

      Which MSE nailed and Avast did not. File atapi.sys received on 2010.02.11:28:49 (UTC) The curious thing, whether it be Aleuron or Cornflicker, the MSE - and MSRT definitions - tend to be published months before the latest "crisis" makes headlines on Slashdot.

    50. Re:Uh...Avast? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it is entirely appropriate while watching Monty Python DVDs. But yes, I've had your problem too. The trick is to recognise the preceding ding and do something distracting while it speaks.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    51. Re:Uh...Avast? by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      I've got Windows Update turned off,

      Uh, enjoy your botnet? I dunno. You're running XP anyway, I suppose, so what's another exploit or two. I'm running Win 7, so Windows Update is actually useful.

      As for optimization, I'd figure that maintaining a minimum number of vectors necessary for updating would be optimization.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    52. Re:Uh...Avast? by dialbat · · Score: 1

      did he in turn show you were to go and not to get any disease? :)

    53. Re:Uh...Avast? by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that, I've used it for years now and it has Always required a registration for the free version. The registration is quick and easy, even if it does need to be redone annually.

      It's worth it for a program that while now starting to show a little bloat is still far superior to the masters of bloat known as Norton or Mcaffee.

      Avast! works and it works well. It isn't overly intrusive, and should I decide I no longer want it, it will remove easily and entirely, unlike the above mentioned products.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    54. Re:Uh...Avast? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      Ever since MS released it's excellent Security Essentials I've noticed a spike in Virus program email phishing and scare mongering. Looks like those virus companies are getting onto some really tough times, and should be kept at a distance.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    55. Re:Uh...Avast? by lga · · Score: 1

      That's just your computers way of saying it doesn't like it when you do that stuff to it.

    56. Re:Uh...Avast? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I used Avast 4.8 for about a month. Then they upgraded to 5.0. Didn't care about the registration, but everything else just irked me to no end. On the other hand, MSE has every advantage you listed, plus no registration, and the updates are gathered through Windows Update, so you don't have yet another service updating itself.

      Oh, and the quick scan takes about 3 minutes.

      I trust Microsoft to fix their problems like I trust a junkie to hold my money.

      Seriously, if MS wanted to fix the problems, they can do it at the OS level, not as an add on program.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    57. Re:Uh...Avast? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      I'll second the plug for MS Security Essentials. My current machine came with a three year subscription to McAfee. It was basically "free to me" - but it was utter crap. It wanted me to reboot about once a week to install something (at one point they even emailed everyone registered with a "we're sorry" note because it went through 2 weeks of a reboot every day). I removed it in favor of another "free to me" version - Symantec. That one was because our work license has provisions for home use. It was better than McAfee in that it didn't ever ask for a reboot, but as people know it slows your machine down more than it should. As soon as MS Security Essentials shipped, I dumped that "free to me" Symantec and have never looked back. My wife, both kids, and my machine are all running MSE. I even signed up for the perpetual beta so I am testing the newest version on the machine I am typing this on. I really wouldn't even bother with any other one at this point.

      McAfee is one of the worst AV programs ever made. It doesn't stop any viruses.

      One of them common things systems i've had to clean out have had is McAfee being installed. McAfee doesn't stop viruses at all. It's like those fake burglar alarms, car alarms, house alarms. You might feel good because it looks like your protected, but your not.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    58. Re:Uh...Avast? by Endophage · · Score: 1

      Seconded! I've been using avast for about 4 years now. I had the very occasional virus using norton before that but since switching to avast I've had none. I literally 2 hours ago installed it on a friends computer who was having some virus issues and it's fixed all his problems. I had no issue finding the free version and the registration... well I can't say it better that Pojut: "Oh noes, it took me 2 minutes to fill out the little form."

    59. Re:Uh...Avast? by BenoitRen · · Score: 1

      A few easy prevention techniques plus avoiding the "seedier" places go a long way.

      (emphasis mine)

      Which is bullshit. The tired "don't visit iffy sites" meme for security needs to die, because it's not the cause, but a symptom. The real issue is your web browser and/or plug-in(s), which are being exploited.

      • Use a reasonably secure web browser, and keep it updated.
      • Keep Flash updated. It would be even better if you stopped it from loading automatically with something like FlashBlock for Mozilla browsers.
      • Disable JavaScript in Adobe Acrobat Reader. At the very least disable its browser plug-in.
    60. Re:Uh...Avast? by gmagill · · Score: 1

      I guess I understand the 'insightful' mod but it's the first truly 'funny' I've seen around these parts in quite a while...

    61. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    62. Re:Uh...Avast? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Hijacked 3rd party ad pop-ups = Drive by shooting

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    63. Re:Uh...Avast? by ill1cit · · Score: 1

      MSE thirded. Install, forgot. Love it.

    64. Re:Uh...Avast? by blacksmith_tb · · Score: 1

      Jokes aside, Avast 5's "gaming" mode shuts up all the absurd talking alerts, along with most of the system tray popups, etc.

    65. Re:Uh...Avast? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Because hearing "VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED" is a moodkiller during sex."

      I turn off the volume when fapping.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    66. Re:Uh...Avast? by __aatgod8309 · · Score: 1

      In my experience, if AVG was to find 2 additional files on a system scanned with MSE I'd expect them to be false positives.

    67. Re:Uh...Avast? by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      Registration is easier, but too many false positives ended up scaring me away from Avast, as well as the fact that the free license expires yearly. This prompts a slew of calls from friends and family complaining that either their 'free' Antivirus software is saying they have to pay (it's confusing to the PC challenged and they click the wrong option), or they simply ignore it and hope nothing bad happens. Both ends are undesirable.

      I also found the CPU requirements seemed to be creeping up, especially with the last major update. It's starting to be a real issue on older XP era hardware., especially taxing on startup for some reason.

      I ended up switching to AntiVir and disabling the launch of the ad that pops up once a day using a policy. Although they only pop up once a day, I still found it irritating. Other than that, it seems lighter weight than Avast, and I haven't heard as many horror stories about false positives trashing my mothers iTunes library and whatnot.

      Instructions to disable popup here: http://www.wikihow.com/Remove-the-Popup-Ads-in-Avira-Antivir

    68. Re:Uh...Avast? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Stepford! they have a whole set

    69. Re:Uh...Avast? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly not McAfee's biggest fan (what's with the burst of 100% CPU? why is it suddenly so urgent to scan everything?), but I've been running it at home and work for the past few years and haven't seen this daily reboot feature. Generally, it seems to work, and doesn't interfere too much.

    70. Re:Uh...Avast? by ZosX · · Score: 1

      I then proceded to show him where to obtain free porn without needing to visit the sites that were infecting his computer.

      Never let an AC take you to a porn site.......next thing you know its goatse all over your screen and "looking at gay porn" blaring out of your speakers!!

    71. Re:Uh...Avast? by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      You are on the wrong site.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    72. Re:Uh...Avast? by Mage66 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, that's the first few notes to the Slinky song. Since Eudora existed before Ren and Stimpy aired. The Log commercial was a parody of the Slinky commercial.

    73. Re:Uh...Avast? by Dunkirk · · Score: 1

      Slashdot really needs to start supporting video. Or at least images.

      --
      Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
    74. Re:Uh...Avast? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Whining about moderation?

      Maybe I should cyberstalk you for a while with over-rated mods, and feast on the sweet, sweet tears from your tanturms.


      Seriously? YOU'RE Whining about HIS tantrums? Childish.

    75. Re:Uh...Avast? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Try Comodo. I have tried AVG, AntiVir, Avast, and MSE, and out of all of them I've found Comodo to be the best when it comes to resources, lack of irritation, and catching nasties. And if you are worried about PC usage? I'm typing this on a 1.8GHz Sempron I use as a netbox, and Comodo is using 0% CPU and just 12Mb of RAM ATM, and that is with both Comodo AV and Firewall.

      What I've found the best about it is that you can have it both ways. If you just want to install it and walk away that's fine, as its defaults are sensible without anything needing to be touched. On the other hand if you are the type that wants to tweak every setting or get really fine grained on the firewall, well it supports that as well. It really is a nice AV that doesn't bug the shit out of you with popups like many do.

      It'll take it around 3 days to learn your routine, after that you may get a popup once a week when you do something unexpected or an app suddenly tries to call home. It is so quiet I even leave it running while gaming and it doesn't bother me or slow things down. I really can't say enough good things about it, and it sucks that nobody ever seems to bring it up on the big review sites. I have some relatives that can pick up more viruses than a Bangkok whore and Comodo has kept them squeaky clean, and that's saying something!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    76. Re:Uh...Avast? by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      Japan, probably.

    77. Re:Uh...Avast? by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      whoa - you're making apple fans seem indifferent.

      nah seriously - its not a bad product by all accounts i've read.

      http://www.av-comparatives.org/ is the place to go for reviews on anti-virus software.

      My preference is Avira. The free version is great if you can tolerate the popup every time you boot up. I hardly use windows so its not a big deal for me.

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    78. Re:Uh...Avast? by denbesten · · Score: 1

      Where might I find one of these wives with the ability to natively run x86 code?

      Slashdot.

    79. Re:Uh...Avast? by CrossChris · · Score: 1

      I only see viruses when I'm cleaning out machines belonging to friends that surf the web willy-nilly without using common sense.

      You must be using broken "anti-virus" tools, then. I have NEVER seen any Windows computer that has been connected to the 'net for more than a moment or two that hasn't got some malware on it. Recent tests with Windows 7 demonstrated that it was invariably infected during its initial patching session when first connected to the 'net!

      Windows: an abysmal proprietary client for a Unix world.

    80. Re:Uh...Avast? by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Thanks, but it’s not as if I needed help finding it. There is an option in Avast’s preferences that turns it off. It’s just that I like my computer to keep quiet; if I want it to speak, it’ll be when I want it to.
      Speaking of which, Mac’s “say” command is quite useful. (Someone else link to xkcd; I don’t need karma.) ;)

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    81. Re:Uh...Avast? by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      Eh, Avast always had the registration, 5.0 just made it easier to do. Although I guess the only reason I use Avast instead of MSE is momentum; I've been using it for several years and it just has an untangible familiarity (silly, I know). Otherwise I would have switched to MSE a long time ago. On a related note, it would be nice if MS would allow third parties to tap into Windows Update and make it more like Linux package managers.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    82. Re:Uh...Avast? by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      One other

      Downloading unknown programs ~= trusting random person with your SSN

      As long as the expected behaviour of the program isn't known and the tools to restrict the program from malicious behaviour aren't used.

    83. Re:Uh...Avast? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      ...or you can use a real computer with some sort of Unix OS such as Linux or Apple Mac. Then you can visit anything and click anything with wild abandon.

      Real men do not use Windows, they use the front door.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    84. Re:Uh...Avast? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Just be sure to properly chisel out the prior AV stuff first. The AVG uninstall did not go well.

    85. Re:Uh...Avast? by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      mod over-rated without a link. Otherwise, this may as well be astro-turf.

    86. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Why? I'm not embarrassed by it (even though I should be, hah!)

    87. Re:Uh...Avast? by Doaner · · Score: 1

      I agree. We've been slowly changing from McAfee to Microsoft Security Essentials at work for the last 4 months and it's worked really well. Its fast, has a small footprint and you can't beat free. I've read that it doesn't do a great job on behavioral detection, but I think that's why it has that small footprint, it's not using processing power 24/7. Highly recommended.

    88. Re:Uh...Avast? by Aklyon · · Score: 1

      For your friends and family: get them macs. They will have a much harder time installing 53 flavors of solitaire filled with adware.

      And when they want to play something that's Windows-only? what do you tell them? "sorry, get another computer"?

      --
      I reserve the right to have a physical object so I can sell it later, and recover my money.
    89. Re:Uh...Avast? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      I have some relatives that can pick up more viruses than a Bangkok whore and Comodo has kept them squeaky clean, and that's saying something!

      Now that's a review.

    90. Re:Uh...Avast? by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      Clicking random links == Sharing needles

      which is exactly why the rise of shortened urls is scary. I realize that the twits on twitter have to use them because of message length issues, but that doesn't mean they should be used elsewhere.

    91. Re:Uh...Avast? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Just out of curosity I tried Comodo. It's incompatible with ZoneAlarm and wants me to uninstall it. What crap is this? All other anti-viruses work fine with ZoneAlarm.
      Well, no thanks. I'd rather run without an anti-virus than without a firewall.

    92. Re:Uh...Avast? by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Imagine if it said "VIRUS DETECTED!" just as you were about to really get it on instead.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    93. Re:Uh...Avast? by OutOfMyTree · · Score: 1

      Great if it works for you. From other forums, I am not the only one suffering from it expanding and bogging everything down. I am now back with Avast.

    94. Re:Uh...Avast? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh...Comodo actually HAS its own firewall with their AV, and is much better IMHO than ZoneAlarm, although if you wish to keep ZoneAlarm firewall you can just uncheck the Comodo Firewall and it will work just fine. But if you give it a try you'll find Comodo Firewall has much nicer controls, better ability to do fine grained control of the firewall if you so desire, all the way down to defining network security policies per port and IP if you so desire, but if you don't their defaults are actually sane and work just fine.

      Oh and the combined total of Comodo AV plus Firewall is using less than 12Mb of RAM, and that is with it monitoring 149 inbound connections and a dozen out as I download from multiple sites on this old 1.8Ghz Sempron box. So while I use to use ZoneAlarm and Outpost firewall back in 05/06 after giving Comodo a spin on one of my test rigs I found it worked so well I dumped both my AV and firewall and went with Comodo.

      But if you are really worried about maybe messing up a setting in ZoneAlarm or something simply install Comodo Time Machine first and make a snapshot. It only takes a few seconds to make a snapshot and then if you decide Comodo AV/Firewall isn't right for you in a day, week, month, whatever, you simply use the snapshot to go back before installation and it is like you never had it on your PC. It is really great for trying software you aren't sure about.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    95. Re:Uh...Avast? by sagematt · · Score: 1

      ...seriously? Conflicker? Dude. There are many ways to prevent Conflicker at this point, the easiest of which involves a patch directly from Microsoft.

      Maybe, but... do they have a patch for Conficker?

  2. Microsoft by dan828 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft security essentials http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/

    I mean, if anyone knows about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.

    1. Re:Microsoft by DIplomatic · · Score: 2, Informative

      MSE is pretty great on my laptop. Only 1GB RAM under Windows 7 and I haven't noticed any performance hit.

    2. Re:Microsoft by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I use it at home because it's free, and probably doesn't contain malware itself. Can't really say how effective it is because it has never found any malware on my machines.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Microsoft by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

      I put this on my latest Win7 build. I use Avast! on a vista laptop and ClamAV on another.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    4. Re:Microsoft by dsavi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have heard good things about MSE from several people, but I haven't tried it myself.

    5. Re:Microsoft by commodore64_love · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I trust MSE about as much as I trust IE.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Microsoft by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Security Essentials is a good antivirus app - probably not as good as some products but a lot better than nothing so long as you don't treat it as a substitute for common sense. It's incredibly unobtrusive which is a refreshing change compared to some of the bloatware out there.

    7. Re:Microsoft by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I mean, if anyone knows about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.

      Caring is another matter. Given their long history of "lightning fast" responses to security problems, I'm not overwhelmed with confidence in their commitment.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    8. Re:Microsoft by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

      "Microsoft Security Essentials runs quietly and efficiently in the background" Is there any software that is loud?

    9. Re:Microsoft by twidarkling · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, I can say it alerted me to one attempted drive-by trojan install, isolated the file, and deleted it, all before I did anything to react to the initial notice. First time I've gotten any sort of notice not related to tracking cookies in a few years.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    10. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      MS Security Essentials pulled up suspected trojans in a couple of old keygens that I'd had sitting around on my machine for years (hadn't used them in a long long time). These are files that both Avast and AVG glossed over when I was using them.

    11. Re:Microsoft by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      millionth-ed

      I've gone between Avast, AVG, and ClamWin (less annoying but, to me, lacking). I switched to MSE because it does both Virus and Spyware. It's faster and lighter than either Avast or AVG. It auto-updates well (and frequently). And coming from Microsoft, I expect them to have more insight into Windows exploits that are available.

      I don't have viruses, but I practice smart browsing, too. (And my family is locked so that they can't install anything to their computers -- that eliminates quite a few virii right there.)

    12. Re:Microsoft by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a product even bothers to tell you about tracking cookies, it's more about religion than security, and should be avoided.

    13. Re:Microsoft by mlts · · Score: 1

      I swear by MSE myself on the client side. The engine is the same as their enterprise level AV solution and so far has proven itself on a day by day basis. It also is very lightweight. I have used some AV products that have a lot of CPU/disk overhead, and in the end don't provide as much protection as MSE.

      To boot, MSE is licensed at no charge (its not free because it is paid for by a purchased copies of Windows, and will check if the Windows copy is genuine.) Another advantage is that MSE doesn't nag to be upgraded to a premium version like other "free" AV products.

      For clients who need audit trails, I either recommend Symantec Endpoint Protection or MSE's big brother, Forefront Client. Both work well on servers, and both can give a status of what the level of protection is on machines on the network with ease.

    14. Re:Microsoft by harp2812 · · Score: 1

      MSE + Immunet Protect, although I'll admit I started using Immunet more for their unusual approach to AV / Malware than their reputation for catching most of the bad stuff.

      --
      I've found that nurturing one's Zen nature is vital to dealing with technology. Violence is pretty damn useful too.
    15. Re:Microsoft by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      Norton is pretty loud in terms of constantly popping up messages. Probably beeps too if you don't mute it.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    16. Re:Microsoft by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's reasonably unobtrusive, not incredibly. Try opening and reading a few thousand small files with it active, and then try the same with it inactive.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Microsoft by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you are running Windows, you are already implicitly agreeing to trust MS, so why not trust their AV program? It's free and integrates unobtrusively into your system. It seems like the most sensible free choice.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    18. Re:Microsoft by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it actually seems to be pretty good. It's lightweight, simple, doesn't include any random junk, and doesn't try to up-sell you to any other products. As far as I know, it's even free to businesses (most other "free" AV software is technically only free for personal use).

      I've been using it more or less since its release, and no complaints so far.

    19. Re:Microsoft by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I never used an AV product at all at home. Using most of them, the cure is worse than the disease. Many viruses use less resources than McAfee and Norton.

      I did some work for a church for an afterschool computer lab and they really wanted (and needed) something. After reading that Microsoft's offering was free and the best and after seeing that it used virtually no resources, and updates itself with Automatic Updates, I went with it.

      After my girls got on Facebook and got a virus, I put it on their computer too. Virtually no impact at all.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    20. Re:Microsoft by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Oh and the afterschool program, which has had hundreds of teenagers going to thousands of sites (God knows what), they have never gotten a virus in about a year. They love the systems I set up for them.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    21. Re:Microsoft by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Were moving 6000 machines to forefront antivirus, which shares the exact same AV engine as Security essentials.

      It has more stuff for enterprise updates and deployments and reporting, but it is soo much faster and lighter than others we have looked at.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    22. Re:Microsoft by twidarkling · · Score: 1

      If a product even bothers to tell you about tracking cookies, it's more about religion than security,

      That would be why I dumped AVG, actually, which is what I used before trying Avast.

      Spy-bot will throw up some cookie warnings once in a blue moon too, but nowhere near as often as AVG did.

      --
      Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    23. Re:Microsoft by TheLink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah but are they really trojans? Or was MSE wrong about those?

      FWIW, I don't install AV on my main windows machine. If I do see something suspicious I upload it to: http://www.virustotal.com/

      So far I don't think my machine has been infected before. If my machine ever gets zombied, I'd probably notice since 1) I have a crappy internet connection, 2) I'd eventually notice the network traffic on the gateway machine - which is not windows.

      --
    24. Re:Microsoft by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Is there any software that is loud?

      Uh, yeah. Obviously you've never had a program crash while playing a sound or music file, and get stuck in annoying short duration continuous loops at near maximum output. Come to think of it, I've had Realplayer crash like that on several occasions.

    25. Re:Microsoft by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1
      Strongly agree! Who better than Microsoft to understand how to secure a Windows computer with minimumal impact?

      I've been using MS Security Essentials for almost a year now on every Windows machine I support (it was avaiable as Beta and then Release Candidate since Spring 2009) and I am quite ahppy with it. I use it in combination with the updated Windows Firewall, and find it to be an effective, low-impact replacement for my previous Zone Alarm + Avast!: it uses about 20% of the memory and maybe 5% of the CPU as did those two. I can barely tell an antivirus is installed, by comparison.

      The one time I witnessed it caught something --some kind of drive-by that my teenaged son encountered-- it was so effective, no one really knew anything happened. My son complained to me about not being able to follow some link so I tried the same thing on a second machine running ZA + Avast. The reason he couldn't follow the link is that the destination site was trying to install malware and MSSE had completely blocked it.

      The second machine (ZA + Avast) basically froze solid for five or more minutes as the security software combination dealt with whatever it was. Eventually, Avast popped up a question about whether to remove/quarantine the thing, but by this point the MSSE machine had merrily moved on and was long past the incident.

      --

      "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    26. Re:Microsoft by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

      AVG 8.5 installed on a co-worker's computer didn't catch a WONDERFUL webpage spoofing attack that asked for her pin number. Luckily she called me. I went to try Avast, but now it was harder to register and they took out the options to make the program operate silently (ie it forces you to use a dialog box for restart or force a restart, whereas in 4.8 there was an option for "Update on Next Restart", an awesome feature).

      Just heard a good review the day prior of MSE and installed it, updated definitions, did a quick scan which found 3 other things, and then a full scan which found the main culprit. It also apparently cleaned (not deleted) a Windows Backup file with the virus on an external drive, ensuring that their backups are actually working properly. I've had Avast delete these on me in the past, losing vital backups.

      It takes up little resources, is free for ANYONE (ie, most are only free for Home AND non-commercial use...which means non-profits are shit outta luck), and JUST WORKS.

      I heart it. so. hard.

    27. Re:Microsoft by moxley · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. MSE is really good.

      I used to like AVG - I even deployed their network version on the servers and workstations at the company I run IT for, but for a home computer, in my experience for 99% of people Microsoft Security Essentials is the best AV. I like it a lot better than AVG, it;s got a smaller footprint (AVG seems to use a bit more resources than it did inprevious versions) and doesn't detect stuff quite as well. It's still very good.

      A lot of people seem to like ESET, but I had issues with it using way more resources than I felt it should have needed.

    28. Re:Microsoft by Cillian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Admittedly, keygens are probably among the most likely software to contain a trojan or something. However, that sort of hand-hacked code does quite often throw up false positives. I've quite often found AVG complaining about cygwin executables or scene demos (Which usually have convoluted compressed executables, probably similar to trojans)

      --
      -- All your booze are belong to us.
    29. Re:Microsoft by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Avast update announcing, in the middle of the night, "Virus database updated"

    30. Re:Microsoft by scubamage · · Score: 1

      At our company we install MSE on all outgoing XP/VISTA/7 workstations. The cool thing is that in the license there's nothing that precludes the software from enterprise usage. So, we can install it on client machines, let them use it, and it doesn't cost us OR them a cent for AV protection. Good deal. Only comment on its effectiveness is that it detects VNC as unsafe software which is annoying, but 100% accurate as it can compromise security. I just wish it would remember that I want it ignored after a reboot. Overall, two thumbs up.

    31. Re:Microsoft by certain+death · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to nit pick, but the plural of Virus is Viruses, not Virii.

      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    32. Re:Microsoft by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Sophos is pretty loud too in terms of messages. Pops up all the time saying that it quarantined something due to a heuristics match (but the thing it "quarantined" doesn't actually get prevented from running which is stupid). It also pops up saying "updating failed" all the time when you take your machine out of sleep with no network available. Very "noisy" software.

    33. Re:Microsoft by thittesd0375 · · Score: 1

      I would also have to recommend MSE. It was the only program to completely clean a co-worker's PC that was used very promiscuously.

    34. Re:Microsoft by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

      On that one monthly test thingie where they compare all the antivirus apps, it apparently ranked pretty high in the last month. Which caused mass confusion and excitement, and why everyone here is recommending it. Including me.

      It works.

    35. Re:Microsoft by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      You can test the scanning and real-time capabilities of your AV with this:

      http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

    36. Re:Microsoft by God_TM · · Score: 1

      I am quite fond of the MSE tool as well... works well, and doesn't slow my system down.

    37. Re:Microsoft by doronbc · · Score: 1

      A lot of people recommend this, but's its core engine is MSMPENG, which is used in Windows Live One Care, Microsoft Security Essentials, Windows Defender, and Microsoft Forefront. None of which seem to pickup what they advertise they're supposed to. I'm using the latest AVG, although it has ONE advertisement, I still think it works really well. In my opinion it hasn't bloated enough to piss me off.

    38. Re:Microsoft by bemymonkey · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's because Windows 7 with 1GB of RAM is like crawling through a tar pit... the additional performance hit from MSE won't really be noticable.

      I'm running two systems with Win7, one with 2GB of RAM (ran on 1GB for a while... that was horrible) and one with 4GB, and both of them take a noticable performance hit with MSE running actively in the background. However, that performance hit is neglible compared to programs like AVG or Avira...

    39. Re:Microsoft by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Knowing how to let them in does not equal knowing how to stop them. In fact it’s quite the opposite. Like letting a botnet owner install a firewall on your system. Veeery trustworthy. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    40. Re:Microsoft by Sinning · · Score: 1

      I disagree. I use Win7 on a 2ghz P4 with 768mb of ram and it works rather smoothly.

    41. Re:Microsoft by Docboy-J23 · · Score: 1

      MSE seems like a good program but I haven't seen it put to the test yet, that is, finding or cleaning malware. A particular point in its favor is that its license allows corporate use. However, it's a management nightmare in an organization with many computers. Microsoft does state that it's not designed for business use. I had one client with 6 computers running a custom application. The computers' system drives were small, and there wasn't enough space to accommodate their usual AV client. A staff technician had installed MSE on these computers as a temporary solution. I had to remote to each machine to exclude the custom application's paths and its many processes because the SpyNet feature that submits new processes to Microsoft would cause it to crash. It also happened that a crash would ruin an entire days' work, since the purpose of the software was result collection in a lab environment. So, it's convenient for home users, Might be OK for small businesses... not recommended in an enterprise environment. And I'm eager to see how effective it is against malware.

    42. Re:Microsoft by ralx · · Score: 1

      +1 Working perfect here so far.

    43. Re:Microsoft by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      I never said it wasn't smooth - just slow as fuck. It works, and it's a usable system, but adding another GB of RAM and deactivating the page file makes it feel like a rocket. :)

    44. Re:Microsoft by Sinning · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to nit pick, but there is no plural form of Virus.

    45. Re:Microsoft by ericbrow · · Score: 1

      At our shop, we started recommend MSE after seeing some independent and objective testing done with it as well as about a dozen other solutions. MSE tested as good as (or better than) most free or subscription services. We have only seen one computer infected with a virus with MSE installed, and after reviewing his history, he deserved a virus for the sites he was visiting. I also find it to be rather non-invasive and not bloated, like so much other AV software is becoming. Although my personal preference is still Ubuntu.

    46. Re:Microsoft by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      I use it as well. It's caught enough stuff to convince me that it's probably doing a pretty good job of keeping my system clean.

      Best of all, I installed it on the computer I built for my mom. Much nicer not getting a call twice a day asking if she should accept or deny some firewall access request. I just pointed at the taskbar icon and told her "If this is green, things are fine. If it's red, and it's not asking you to upgrade it, then it's unhappy about something and you should call me." My cell phone bill has gone way down since then ;)

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    47. Re:Microsoft by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      According to the multiple websites I've seen that compared free AV software, MS Security Essentials is one of the best. I use it on all of my systems now.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    48. Re:Microsoft by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If thats your attitude, may I ask why (if?) you use a MS operating system? Neither the newest IE nor the newest windows are the weakest link in the chain anymore...

    49. Re:Microsoft by Feanturi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My favorite "security threat" found on my PC once was in a keygen. I think it was AVG that "identified" it as "harmful" due to being a keygen. The extended details said that the "threat" to my PC was that it would allow unauthorized use of software. Oooh, scary! Also, VirusTotal is awesome.

    50. Re:Microsoft by fuego451 · · Score: 1

      On the laptop I use most often, which belonged to my late wife, half the disk is Vista with all her files which I haven't the heart to remove. She allowed me to install the open source software we all know and love and after she passed away I kept the OS updated, installed MSE and backed up all her files. But I think the most important thing I did to protect this little piece of her life was to install Ubuntu on the other half of the disk where full access to the Vista side is just a click away without having to boot it.

    51. Re:Microsoft by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is why I don't let AVG use heuristics - lots of scene demos look suspicious because of packers and whatnot. Turn off heuristics and they all pass. I leave that setting for the system drive only.

    52. Re:Microsoft by lokiz · · Score: 1

      I use this as well. When it came out the reviews were great so I gave it a go. No system performance issues. So I am happy with it.

    53. Re:Microsoft by certain+death · · Score: 1
      --
      "My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
    54. Re:Microsoft by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 1

      Another vote for Security Essentials. I've replaced Nod32 at home, and Symantec at work with it. It's light, fast, free and does what it says on the tin.

    55. Re:Microsoft by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

      I remember reading reviews of this when it first came out. I switched over to it and it's been really nice. I've had no alerts or notice anything going through but the product was advertised as basic, but gets the job done. For the most part it's been true to the advertising. Way better then OneCare used to be.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    56. Re:Microsoft by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Theres a world of difference between having to patch an OS or one of hundreds of products and doing enough testing to push it out to hundreds of millions of customers than just getting a virus definition added to a scanner. Lets not trivialize the patch process for something as complex as windows. If MS's response time scares you then I'm guessing youre petrified by the response time of most vendors, especially Adobe (flash and reader are the most exploited apps currently).

      If anything MS is in a good position to produce an AV. MS doesn't have the incentive the third-party AV companies do: that is, to compete on bloaty features and demand yearly subscription rates. MS cant do this to their free product because it hurts the OS if they suddenly get stingy or slow down machines with bloat. MS has show AV companies that users appreciate a lightweight approach. Sophos, Norton, AVG, and the rest can learn from this.

      I also see shockingly poor decisions made by third-party AV vendors. The AVG url autofetcher thing, Norton's incredibly poor UI, Norton and Mcafee's shit firewall replacement for the built-in firewall, stupid heuristics that themselves become DOS exploits, etc. MSE doesnt generally engage in these things. Its a lightweight replacement for all of these for the home user. Heck, even the UI is dead simple.

      I'd love to see these companies change their stripes and see WinClam advance to on-access scanning. The idea of an AV as a premium service for home users is a ridiculous one. Its basic functionality in the windows world. Even OSX ships with something that keeps a look out for those trojans in pirated copies of photoshop. The AV industry is a mess and MS's move into free home AV was much needed.

    57. Re:Microsoft by whitefox · · Score: 1

      I've used Avast (okay), AVG (slow), and Vipre (annoying).

      Compared to those, Microsoft Security Essentials has presented me with the fewest problems (none in fact), runs the quickest from an old, trusty, 1.4 GHz Pentium with XP Pro to a newer HP Laptop with Windows 7, and more importantly, has stopped several drive-by trojan installs (one came from MSNBC of all places).

      Don't even get me started on Symantec.

    58. Re:Microsoft by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      I also agree that MSE is probably the best free antivirus out there. However, it's worth noting that the machine has to pass "genuine validation" (i.e a legit license).

    59. Re:Microsoft by Android8675 · · Score: 1

      I enjoy MSE as well, put it on my notebook and home system (Win7 and Vista respectively), it's quiet, when it's scaning it doesn't seem to slow down my gaming too much (Mass Effect 2, slight load increase, but barely noticeable), I wish there was an option to update and do auto scans in the background without having to click on stuff.

      Free though, who knows for how long, but nothing negative to say about it so far.

    60. Re:Microsoft by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that the anti-virus vendors haven't cried foul and run screaming to the FTC over "monopoly" issues. I am using MSE at home and use Symantec Endpoint Protection at work. I appreciate the management functionality that Symantec provides. Their Exchange plug-in works well too. I find that it often times catches malicious files that make it through Postini.

      If I hadn't just rolled out the latest version of Symantec onto the network I'd probably strongly consider Forefront. If it is like MSE but with better management and deployment tools, it is probably a decent product. I'd be willing to bet that it probably less expensive than Symantec.

    61. Re:Microsoft by Raistlin77 · · Score: 1

      Additional notes:
      (1) This file used to be named ducklin.htm or ducklin-html.htm or similar based on its original author Paul Ducklin and was made in cooperation with CARO.
      (2) The definition of the file has been refined 1 May 2003 by Eddy Willems in cooperation with all vendors.
      (3) The content of this documentation (title-only) was adapted 1 September 2006 to add verification of the activity of anti-malware or anti-spyware products. It was decided not to change the file itself for backward-compatibility reasons.

      Sure, if you wanna know whether your anti-virus programs is capable of stopping old viruses...

    62. Re:Microsoft by h3 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I never used an AV product at all at home. Using most of them, the cure is worse than the disease. Many viruses use less resources than McAfee and Norton.

      If you think the only problem with viruses is that they slow down *your* computer, and that since they slow it down less an AV solution it is preferable, then I wish you'd unplug from the Internet.

    63. Re:Microsoft by skydyr · · Score: 1

      You'd think that if you were going to come up with a pseudo-pedantic argument to justify your use of 'virii' you would at least take the time to actually examine the latin, where there is no plural for virus attested because it is a neuter mass noun. Nor are there enough similar examples to even create an analogy from.

    64. Re:Microsoft by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Virii ... has established itself as the plural for computer virii (at least it has in the scene)

      No one in the antivirus industry I've ever talked to said "virii". Heck, I remember a whole discusison of this being in the alt.comp.virus FAQ back in the day.

      If you want to be convinced that you sound like a tool to people in the industry when you say "virii", try googling:

      site:mcafee.com viruses
      site:mcafee.com virii
      site:symantec.com viruses
      site:symantec.com virii

      and so on.

    65. Re:Microsoft by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      my netbook w/ 1GB, wndows 7, and norton AV installed runs pretty smoothly.

    66. Re:Microsoft by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Do bear in mind a lot of smarter trojans now only run when you are not using the PC, for this reason. They also usually install their own AV, as they don't like the competition. I'd say you're screwed :p

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    67. Re:Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If a product even bothers to tell you about tracking cookies, it's more about privacy than security...

      Fixed that for you.

    68. Re:Microsoft by rockNme2349 · · Score: 1

      I would consider dictionary.com and its various cited sources fairly authoritative.

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virus

      --
      Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
    69. Re:Microsoft by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Why would you use VNC? Microsoft's RDC is so much better, and available for most (if not all) popular OSes.

      Plus, since it locks the computer being remote-controlled and encrypts everything, it's much safer than VNC to boot.

    70. Re:Microsoft by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One of our clients got a new SBS 2008 box along with an antivirus suite. While MSE is damn good (and free), Forefront is OTOH we feel is crap from deployment, management and reporting. It does share the same deffs that MSE uses, so protection should be good in theory.

      We've tried most of the major brands first-hand across many different networks. Of all of them, both my co-workers and I think Trend Micro Worry-Free Business Security is the best. It blocks spam at the Exchange server level, and stops drive-by web viruses dead in their tracks. It also has very good reporting and deployment methods. Oh, and it's really easy to use and requires very little (if any) customizations. It just works right out of the box per se.

      One thing to be aware of with that product however. It has a feature called Smart Scan. If your server is under powered and/or you have WAN connections to other networks, disable this feature. It doesn't seem to be much use anyways. We have seen strange issues with it on though when left on.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    71. Re:Microsoft by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the compression algorithms that often get used in demos that cause the problem. Compression is great obfuscation on the actual payload, but the problem is that the compression algorithm is an easy to target signature.

    72. Re:Microsoft by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      The question asked which one I use.....and I don't have any pirated copies. :)

    73. Re:Microsoft by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 1

      We speak English, not Latin. The Latin word "virus" has no plural. The English word "virus" does have a plural form, which is "viruses".

    74. Re:Microsoft by Byzantine · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want to be really nitpicky, the plural of "virus" in Latin would be "viri" (one i on the end) if it were a second declension noun—which it isn't. It's a fourth declension noun, which means its plural is—wait for it—"virus." (Trivia: Another fourth declension noun ending in -us is "Jesus.")

    75. Re:Microsoft by algormortis · · Score: 1

      Not to nit pick, but there is no plural form of Virus.

      I will nit pick. The plural form of virus IS viruses: http://tinyurl.com/amfm3q

    76. Re:Microsoft by algormortis · · Score: 1

      Not to nit pick, but there is no plural form of Virus.

      I will nit pick. The plural of virus is viruses: http://tinyurl.com/amfm3q

    77. Re:Microsoft by Spewns · · Score: 1

      That's because Windows 7 with 1GB of RAM is like crawling through a tar pit... the additional performance hit from MSE won't really be noticable.

      I'm running two systems with Win7, one with 2GB of RAM (ran on 1GB for a while... that was horrible) and one with 4GB, and both of them take a noticable performance hit with MSE running actively in the background. However, that performance hit is neglible compared to programs like AVG or Avira...

      My desktop runs Windows 7 with 1 GB RAM and I've never, ever had any performance issues. Even WoW plays smooth as butter on it. Not sure how or why we could have such different experiences. The only thing I've done is disabled a few Windows services I don't need, and the antivirus I use is Clamwin. It's FOSS and doesn't do realtime scanning (which is fine for me since I'm generally the only person that uses my desktop and I don't download a lot of questionable things to begin with) which surely keeps its resources down significantly.

    78. Re:Microsoft by Rallion · · Score: 1

      How is that possible? Things that i don't like can't ever possibly change or improve!

    79. Re:Microsoft by awyeah · · Score: 1

      Realplayer? Really? Is this 1998? :)

      --
      Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
    80. Re:Microsoft by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Given the nature of our software (medical) we often need a direct connection to the user's session. This is useful both for working on customer workstations, and on servers at foreign sites with field technicians. While we can (and do) use RDP for the occasional console connection to facilitate this, VNC is simply easier, faster, and more lightweight. TightVNC offers encryption but still allows the user at the far end to interact with the desktop. We *do* use both, but typically use VNC/Logmein for servers and the occasional workstation, and we tend to use RDP for NAS's.

    81. Re:Microsoft by mlts · · Score: 1

      MSE can easily let you ignore false positives. To test this, I downloaded the eicar.com test file. MSE caught it, put up a dialog, and allowed me to ignore it. It won't get rid of it unless you tell it to.

    82. Re:Microsoft by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Virii is the Latin plural

      No it isn't. Virii would be the plural for the Latin word virius (two i's), which doesn't exist. Viri is the plural of vir, meaning "man."

      which has established itself as the plural for computer virii (at least it has in the scene)

      Yeah, well "the scene" being as full of intelligent, literate individuals as it is, I guess we should go with that, then.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    83. Re:Microsoft by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      i guess you'd have to trust that i have better things to do than go around lying about the specs and performance of my wife's netbook.

    84. Re:Microsoft by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > Do bear in mind a lot of smarter trojans now only run when you are not using the PC, for this reason.

      Then that would be fine, since I usually turn off my windows PC when I don't use it- that limits the problems I'd cause to others (assuming my PC gets infected).

      In contrast any mainstream real-time scanning AV software would run and slow things down when I am using the PC - so they are often worse than the "problem" (unless the problem is stuff like keyloggers).

      --
    85. Re:Microsoft by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've had mainstream virus scanners identifying security tools as problems. They know exactly what it is, they appear to think that normal users shouldn't be having such stuff. Maybe they are right, but that's the reason why I think the keygen being detected as a trojan by MSSE might be a false positive.

      The motivation for the AV companies and MS to reduce false positives in cases like these might be kind of low.

      Symantec now has this suspicious.insight stuff that basically is "if few other users in the world has run this program before, then it is suspicious". So if you make a python win32 exe program it will be suspicious.

      --
    86. Re:Microsoft by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Huh. Three upmods and an "I agree". Last time I criticized a program for wasting my time on tracking cookies, I got flamed up the wazoo. I guess progress isn't a myth after all.

    87. Re:Microsoft by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Privacy has nothing to do with it. If you don't like tracking cookies, configure your browser so they don't work. Generating "virus" reports for them is a waste of time.

    88. Re:Microsoft by I'll+never+remember · · Score: 1

      Ah ha. You obviously weren't around for M$ Forefront V1.0. It sucked over a WAN. Designed for LAN deployment and did not like slower WAN links. I hope it has improved.

    89. Re:Microsoft by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      I'd wager we've had different experiences because I've experienced the same systems with 1GB of RAM and with 2 and 4GB of RAM ;)

      Windows 7 does run okay with 1GB of RAM, and it is usable (I know because I ran my X41Tablet with Windows 7 and 1 GB of RAM for a while)... but it really is slow compared to the same system with 2 or 4GB of RAM, especially if you have a slow hard drive (because the page file will be thrashing like crazy... obviously this is more noticable on a 5400RPM 2.5" laptop drive than a 7200RPM 3.5" desktop drive).

    90. Re:Microsoft by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      If you are running Windows, you are already implicitly agreeing to trust MS, so why not trust their AV program?

      In fact another view is "running one MS product - Windows" is a necessary evil and I'm not going to extend the amount of untrustworthy (due MS past performance) software on my system by running another product from MS - MSE. Also if MS has the knowledge to secure the system, then they should do it in the OS. Not as another layer on the top.

      Not that I have any huge experience with MSE or other AV products. Just thinking aloud.

    91. Re:Microsoft by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I have always been uncomfortable about giving the task to fight malwares to the company because of who they are there in the first time. Something sounds illogical in this...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    92. Re:Microsoft by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I mean, if anyone knows about viruses, it'd be Microsoft.

      In the same manner that Lipton knows about tea...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    93. Re:Microsoft by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that he uses both, practically in the same sentence.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    94. Re:Microsoft by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Why Troll? I really do use it...

    95. Re:Microsoft by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Installing another (or a milion others) MS software won't increase the untrustworthy of your system. You aready trust Microsoft, and on this case, trust is a binary thing.

    96. Re:Microsoft by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      if you are running windows and feel the need to install an anti-virus program than you are implictly acknowledging that their code is rife with bugs that viruses can exploit, so why would you install more MS code to fix the issue?

    97. Re:Microsoft by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      > If you are running Windows, you are already implicitly agreeing to trust MS, so why not trust their AV program?
      Obviously, because he's not stupid. Most people run Windows because they don't have any other choice, not because the trust MS. MS are makers of IE and Outlook, that's enough good reason not to trust their other products.

    98. Re:Microsoft by jpcarter · · Score: 1

      Odd. That hasn't been my experience at all. I found early versions of SEP11 more intuitive, and that's a Symantec product!

    99. Re:Microsoft by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I never stopped using Realplayer. Real's online music service was the first to support linux. Back when the choices for legally purchasing music online were Apple .m4p, Microsoft .wma, and Real .ra, Real's version actually appeared to be the least encumbered and their bit-rate was higher. I chose Real for those reasons. During the past decade I purchased a few hundred songs via the Real Store. In 2007 (?) they started moving everything over to Rhapsody and removed the DRM from purchased tracks. Unfortunately they have begun to spin off their assets. They've also started pushing an upgrade to the player, for which they want to charge me (again) in order to use the advanced features. All my music is converted to non-encumbered .mp4's now; so, I'm not sure I'll be continuing to use RealPlayer for much longer.

  3. Microsoft Security Essentials by TheLink · · Score: 2, Informative

    I install Microsoft Security Essentials if I have to install AV (and if it's available - only XP onwards).

    Doesn't do as well as Kaspersky and some other payware ones, but does better than most of the free ones.

    And is certainly less bloated than the McAfee and Symantec crap[1].

    [1] Why install AV software that makes your computer behave like it's infected by loads of viruses...

    --
    1. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Informative

      I concur, Security Essentials is pleasantly small to download, fast to install, easy on resources, and reasonably effective. Be aware though it does validate with Genuine Advantage.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Informative

      also beware of the fake Security Essentials that does bad things and also tries to get you to pay money:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/26/microsoft_security_essentials_rogue/

    3. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by verbalcontract · · Score: 5, Informative

      I respectfully disagree with your notion that Kaspersky is better than MSE. I had Kaspersky's basic anti-virus for 2 years before MSE came out, and it was a terrible resource hog. And not just during scans; the actual real-time protection would increase the time to open a video file from ~2 seconds after double-clicking to ~15 seconds.

      Additionally, when it detects a suspicious file, the program issues the most gut-wrenching squealing noise I've ever heard. And it does this by default; you have to go into settings to disable the noise.

      [/anecdote]

    4. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by William_K_F · · Score: 1

      I too switched from bouncing between AVG and Avast to now using Microsoft Security Essentials. So far seems to be working fine, although I rarely see viruses and the like in my experience.

    5. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by LoTonah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kaspersky doesn't make that noise anymore. Your information is obsolete and needs an update :p

    6. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      There are tons of fake antivirus/malware products like that.

    7. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by mikedep333 · · Score: 1

      From my experience so far, MSSE seems pretty good. It doesn't nag you with ads like AVG Free does now (I used to recommend AVG Free.) Also, I believe MSSE uses fewer resources than AVG Free, although I haven't done an objective comparison.

    8. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by muphin · · Score: 1

      I use Kaspersky, home and work, we use AVG at work (me being the IT Manager decided so) but after our website was infected with a javasscript trojan AVG didnt detect anything, i was wondering why the site keps on getting infected (default.aspx page kept on getting corrupted and generated errors), so i ran kaspersky on my pc, and it detected the trojan instantly (from the sites infected javascript), AVG said our site was clean. on that I have decided to look for alternatives, and will give MSE a try, but i'm keeping kaspersky on my PC as it seems to detect more than AVG (keep in mind this is NOT the free version but a fully licensed version)

      --
      It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
    9. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by markzip · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not available for Windows XP 64k pro

    10. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by bytta · · Score: 1

      I respectfully disagree with your notion that Kaspersky is better than MSE.

      The notion was that Kaspersky DOES better than the free ones - as in catching viruses, not in performance. It's like Columbo - always catches the bad guy, but it takes forever and annoys the hell out of everybody in the process.

    11. Re:Microsoft Security Essentials by cjb110 · · Score: 1

      Agreed, its the only one that stays in the background, doesn't bother the user unless there's a problem.

      Doesn't seem to need to many resources either.

      --
      ----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
  4. DBAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    fdisk works in a pinch.

    1. Re:DBAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I work for Geek Squad and what is fdisk?

    2. Re:DBAN by lupinstel · · Score: 1

      It is where you say "F this disk!" and then you tell the customer that they need a new hard drive for their CPU so that windows will get the internet again.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
    3. Re:DBAN by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      While we're proposing non-av solutions, how bout one that is actually practical in the real world-- like getting rid of adobe reader.

    4. Re:DBAN by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      I can understand posting as Anonymous Coward on this one. Who would want to admit to working for Geek Squad?

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  5. Comodo Internet Security by poopadavil · · Score: 1

    I have been using Comod Internet Security. It does the Job. http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php

    1. Re:Comodo Internet Security by McDutchie · · Score: 1

      I have been using Comod Internet Security. It does the Job. http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php

      I can second that, it seems to work well. And it's the only one I've found that is free even for commercial use.

    2. Re:Comodo Internet Security by Leekle2ManE · · Score: 1

      I would also suggest Comodo. I've been using it non-stop for almost 2 years now and I've been quite pleased with it. I have installed it on friends'/family's computers that had Norton or some other paid subscription AV and they're always amazed when Comodo picks up on a virus on their computer that their AV missed.

      And every time it's been NAV, NAV has piped up AFTER Comodo found a virus, like it was saying "Oh yeah, I knew about that virus all along, I just didn't think you wanted to know about it."

    3. Re:Comodo Internet Security by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      To add to the other comments here, Comodo has the best free software firewall I have found. (I don't know much about the paid versions, but it is definitely better than ZoneAlarm free or paid and some of the other personal use firewalls). I imagine the company built these tools for themselves and are generous enough to release it to others. They make their money from other business ventures.

  6. Avira by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.free-av.com/

    1. Re:Avira by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Avira's pop-up can easily be blocked, unless you run a Home version of Windows, which IIRC requires a Safe Mode boot and some mumbo-jumbo. On more functional versions of Windows you can easily disallow the execution of avnotify.exe and you're done.

      That being said, I've heard good things about Panda antivirus-in-a-cloud as well as Avast! - along with Avira, they would be my top three of free antivirus programs to install on my family members' computers.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Avira by C0L0PH0N · · Score: 1

      Totally agree, I used AVG free for years, but a couple of years ago, it became too annoying and as mentioned a resource hog, so I switched to AntiVir, and it is just right. Does a good job, and isn't annoying or a hog. Just what an antivirus program should be. Other AV programs could learn something from AntiVir.

    3. Re:Avira by dronkert · · Score: 1

      Me, too.

    4. Re:Avira by legio_noctis · · Score: 1

      Another +1 for Avira.

      The paid version always scores superbly (i.e. it is almost always in the top three) in the AV-Comparatives tests 1, 2 (although its award status often suffers due to a slightly higher than average number of false positives). If the quality of the paid versions has any bearing on that of the free versions, Avira absolutely smashes AVG and Avast!.

    5. Re:Avira by rschuetzler · · Score: 1

      The only thing you have to deal with is a daily ad that you can dismiss by hitting OK.

      The only thing I have to deal with is a daily popup?!?! Seems like a virus would be less intrusive.

    6. Re:Avira by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree about the resource usage. I tried Avira on an old 1Ghz P3 512MB running Windows 2000, and it nearly ground the computer to a halt. I took Avira off and put AVG on the computer, and the computer was usable again. Granted, on modern hardware you'd probably not notice the difference.

    7. Re:Avira by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      It's possible to disable the ad. Link here.
      IMO, the best part about Avira is its heuristics - they're miles better than all the others' and catch everything.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
    8. Re:Avira by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      Seconded.

      I switched to Avira from AVG a while ago because AVG was slowing things down. I chose it because it rated highest in the detection rates at Virus Bulletin. Unfortunately it also got the highest false positive rates on the tests, although I have never received a false positive on my machine.

  7. Install through ninite.com by mprinkey · · Score: 1, Informative

    Both Avast and AVG are on that site. Using there installer avoids all of the searching through six layers of pages, and it avoids all of the crapware. And you can bundle installers for multiple apps into one file. Quick and easy. You may be able to make an installer and mail it to your relatives and have them run it. I don't know though as I haven't tried it.

    1. Re:Install through ninite.com by TheNumberless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean I can download my anti-virus software from an oddly named third party that I've never heard of? Forgive me if I pass.

    2. Re:Install through ninite.com by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      Did you even visit the site?

    3. Re:Install through ninite.com by Gr33nNight · · Score: 1

      Ninite.com owns. It is very reputable and I've used it dozens of times on various computers. It is an extreme time saver and an excellent resource. Don't dismiss it because you haven't heard of it.

    4. Re:Install through ninite.com by radish · · Score: 1

      Ninite is awesome - always my first stop after an OS install. Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Install through ninite.com by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      filehippo.com is my favorite one-stop for all my Windows 3rd party apps and utilities. They even keep track of old revisions so you can grab those if needed. Also check out majorgeeks.com. They seem to have more stuff, but I don't like the layout of that site.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Install through ninite.com by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Good, I'll install it on my PC at work and mail the security officer that it's ok because it is from filehippo.com.

    7. Re:Install through ninite.com by toygeek · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ. I have used ninite on both my own and my customers computers for a few months now. It is very good, keeps the useless "yes I want to add the Yahoo! Toolbar (tm) to my browser!" unchecked (and not installed) and will do it all without a complaint. When I built my new Windows 7 box I used it to install everything from MSSE as discussed to OpenOffice, Gimp, and various others. My high speed isn't that fast, so I came back about half an hour later and it did about 25 software installs. Did I mention that I just checked the boxes, ran the downloaded installer, and walked away? Oh, I guess I just did.

      Don't knock what you haven't tried. And to reply to mprinkey: Yes, you can download the installer and use it on multiple computers. I have a couple of them on my USB flash drive that I use daily in my work, which is, getting rid of viruses that everything else misses.

      Additionally, MSSE has proven to be an excellent AV software. Not only does it work very well, but I've installed it on Pentium 4 2.4's with 512mb ram after uninstalling [norton,mcafee,avg,avast,nod32,eset et al] and the machine is *always* faster with MSSE. Remember, they know Windows API's better than anybody (including those that are undocumented) and even though I love linux (I type this from my ubuntu machine) I have to say that Microsoft knows how to make Microsoft software work with Microsoft OS's.

      If you don't believe me, look at the installation file size of MSSE for XP vs AVG 9.0 Free for XP. Lastly, I've seen MSSE install in under 20 seconds on many computers and be done with its first big update in just a couple of more minutes. AVG takes longer than that just to install, then half the time you have to reboot the system.

      MSSE FTW.

      PS- look at mprinkey's uid. 1434. I think you can trust him. He's been around a while. Wouldn't surprise me if he introduced /. to cmdrtaco.

    8. Re:Install through ninite.com by fluffyllemon · · Score: 1

      Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't legitimate. You're sounding like an old person. "You mean, you want me to change from the internet explorer to firefox? That sounds dangerous. I like to explore the internet. None of my friends ever said anything about that, and fire is scary. What does a fox have to do with emails? No, I like my internet. Yep. I think I'll pass."

      --
      Never play leap frog with a unicorn.
    9. Re:Install through ninite.com by TheNumberless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know what? That's entirely fair. I guess I've been away from the Windows world for too long.

      Actually, the idea of a centralized software repository in general is a fantastic idea, and I've been using apt and ports for years. I'm just set to default deny when it comes to the idea of installing anything from an unfamiliar on Windows. But if it's built such a strong base of trust among people more in the know than myself, it must be worth a second look.

      That is, if I ever find myself in the position of setting up a Windows system again.

    10. Re:Install through ninite.com by TheNumberless · · Score: 1

      I already replied to someone else on this subject, but: I believe that you know better than I do. It sounds like this tool brings some much-needed relief to the task of setting up a Windows system.

      Anyway, I'm glad to hear about so many improvements in Windows in general since I last used it on a desktop. I always kind of hoped that the success of its competitors would cause the improvement, rather than the death, of Microsoft, and I'm glad to see some evidence that that's happening

      As an aside:

      look at mprinkey's uid. 1434. I think you can trust him. He's been around a while.

      I suspect we have very different criteria for establishing trust :)

  8. Microsoft Security Essentials by jrronimo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Microsoft Security Essentials is free, lightweight, and pretty good. Even Ars Techinca thought so, if you trust them.

  9. Why free? by drdanny_orig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I should think "friends/relatives who run Windows" would be exactly the type to appreciate the convenience of a low-impact reliable AV package, which means they may have to pay a few bucks. It's fine to play FOS yourself or with trivial office or audio stuff, and I do it myself. But I still give ESET a few shekels/year for each windows PC in my house. It just makes sense to me.

    --
    .nosig
    1. Re:Why free? by Brit_in_the_USA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to used to get my parents to buy Norton for their home PC and remote support them. But if the years subscription was up they wouldn't have the latest protection until I was around to do the upgrade.

      I eventually went free as Norton started causing more problems than it was supposed to solve. Originally I rolled out AVG but that too had yearly requirements to upgrade. I switched all the family members I support a few months ago to the microsoft solution and "it just works", having the definitions and program updates rolled into the windows update has saved a lot of hassle. It being low resource usage is also a major plus. Everyone is happy.

      ...I wish 3rd party software would integrate into the windows update system, it would save a lot of bother (and pop-us, nag screens and update checking tasks loaded at startup).

    2. Re:Why free? by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I could have moderated you, but thought I'd agree with my 2 cents. I run Kaspersky, and it IS mostly free. I pick it up at Fry's when it's on sale, and there's a rebate (for the upgrade, so I guess I paid something at one point). But it's, if not 100% free, pretty cheap, usually gets pretty good marks on the various comparisons, and seems to be keeping my computer safe. And the license has been for 3 copies, so all the computers I have run it. For maybe $10-20 bucks to start, and not much more than $10 a year after that, if anything. I had been using AVG, I find I like Kaspersky a little better. But I have sent money to AVG in the past, I'm not averse to paying for good software.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    3. Re:Why free? by PenguinBob · · Score: 1

      My university installs Kaspersky on all the laptops they give out to students, and it makes all the laptops horribly slow.

    4. Re:Why free? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The kinds of people who need help to install an antivirus are exactly the kinds of people who forget to renew every year, then come back with a ton of viruses and other smeg.

      I've seen it far too often. The weakest link in a paid AV setup is the moment it disables itself.

    5. Re:Why free? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I used to used to get my parents to buy Norton for their home PC

      WTF? I wouldn't install Norton AV on PC of anyone who I care about even if it was free! It's one of the worst AV choices out there - even if you count all the free ones, Norton would still be at the bottom of the heap.

    6. Re:Why free? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's one of the worst AV choices out there - even if you count all the free ones, Norton would still be at the bottom of the heap.

      Based on my experience the last time I used Norton, you'd be better off with the virus.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    7. Re:Why free? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...I wish 3rd party software would integrate into the windows update system, it would save a lot of bother (and pop-us, nag screens and update checking tasks loaded at startup).

      This, a million times over. Windows Update needs an API for software to register itself with and load signing certificates so uploads can be secure and all dealt with through one interface.

    8. Re:Why free? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Is there ANY reason to believe the for-pay versions perform better than the free ones? According to EVERY comparitive ive ever seen, its a wash, with the lead many times going to a free AV.

      That argument doesnt work with software, compare Norton with MSE or Avast, or Roxio with CDBurnerXP, or IE to chrome.

    9. Re:Why free? by dthardcore · · Score: 1

      I agree with you about Kaspersky, I've been a big fan of them for a while now. I switched to it after Mcafee's software went down the tubes. (Their version 4.0 and prior were great at the time). Another product that I think is well worth the money even though its not an antivirus is MalwareBytes. Even the free version is fantastic. I have had more success using Malwarebytes to clean up peoples machines than anything else. Plus the small file size and relatively small definitions allow me to keep an updated version on my thumbdrive at all times, which is very useful when someone downloads those damn fake antivirus programs that prevent you from downloading a real Antivirus or Definition files to clean it.

    10. Re:Why free? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      It really didn't take all that much effort. Uninstall the old one, install the new one. If they can't at least learn that much they shouldn't be using a computer.

      How do you tell your father, who spends much of his spare time doing e-mail or playing with iTunes, "Dad, you're too clueless to use your computer."? My dad has had trouble updating AVG, iTunes, and You-name-it that has a downloadable "run this to update your crap" step in it. While sometimes I wish I could tell him that, I don't think it's a viable solution.

      I don't think it can be done tactfully. My father would be pissed at me, and I don't want that coloring our relationship. It won't be productive: he'd stop asking me for advice, and then continue on with a semi-broken and unsafe computer. Similarly, I can't put him on Linux, because (for similar reasons) he'd be pissed that mail wasn't Outlook and he couldn't play any of his music from iTunes, so the challenge is to ensure that he's a safe and productive user of Windows.

      I'd prefer that software, once it finds it needs an update, would give a big button: "Do you want me to automatically update myself?" When the user clicks yes, it would automatically contact its server, download (and resume as necessary) its update, and then completely update itself, with no further interaction from the user. If the user has to find where they downloaded your new installer, it's going to be over the head of many users.

  10. clam by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://www.clamwin.com/
    Although it is missing an on access scan, I am not sure if that is a plus of a minus.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:clam by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      NO. No to ClamWin.

      I've had two different office machines get hosed because ClamWin false positived on Windows' userinit.exe. If userinit.exe is missing, Windows doesn't even display an error message, it simply can't login to the system. Even in SAFE MODE.

      We're a small office and I've taken over IT from the person that installed ClamWin all over the place, we're going with Avast Pro because it's robust and I'm so grateful they offer a free Home version that I can recommend to my family for their personal equipment. Avast Home has always required registration so I'm not sure what sort of crack the OP is smoking.

    2. Re:clam by wtfbill · · Score: 1

      I gotta agree with the Captain on Clam here, but with a twist. I run a v-lited vista install without IE and a lot of the other junk. Other than a hardware firewall and the vista firewall, I don't have any protective stuff on my system and never get an infection. How do I know? From time to time, I boot from my Ubuntu thumb drive, update clam, and scan the system from outside windows (I don't trust a scan from within the os, but that's just me). So far, system's stayed clean, but I'm careful about where I browse (no porn or warez). I also turn off flash and/or javascript on many sites--I put buttons for that on my toolbar in Opera. It's funny, I've found about half or three quarters of the microsoft updates don'd apply to my system, since they're for systems I've removed and replaced with other options--Opera and FOSS stuff.

    3. Re:clam by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      I have used ClamAV for years and have never had this problem. I will point out:
      A) Deleting an executable without knowing what it is is stupid.
      B) Given that said executable is missing, it should be exceedingly simply to copy it from another machine, or the windows rescue disk.

    4. Re:clam by OttoErotic · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I've used ClamWin for years without problems, and just last weekend got my userinit.exe deleted. I hadn't even thought to blame ClamWin since it's so unobtrusive that I forget about it, and most of the forums I was checking were blaming AdAware; I don't use AdAware so I've been blaming Spybot instead. Guess I need to go check the ClamWin logs now.

      --
      "Once in Hawaii I had sex with a 102 year old male turtle. It is difficult to argue that it was consensual." - Steve Ma
    5. Re:clam by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://www.clamwin.com/
      Although it is missing an on access scan, I am not sure if that is a plus of a minus

      I could live without an on-access scan (tell your download manager to scan downloaded files), but Clamwin is completely unusable, IMHO, because it uses up much more system memory, and takes 4X as long to scan compared to the more common Free AVs.

      If you want real, free antivirus, go with MoonSecure (v2.x), which is GPL, does on-access scanning, and uses the ClamAV database. It does (momentarily) use up a lot of memory, and slow down the system, but only when first starting up, or updating definitions. Other than that, it's no more of a dog than any other free AV. Free for commercial purposes, likely to have definitions available forever, etc.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:clam by WetCat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clam sentinel is a program that detects file system changes and automatically scans the files added or modified using ClamWin. Require the installation of ClamWin. For Microsoft Windows 98/98SE/Me/2000/XP/Vista/Windows 7.
      http://sourceforge.net/projects/clamsentinel/

    7. Re:clam by CoolHnd30 · · Score: 1

      I use clamwin in some vm's. I create a folder with a small txt file inside, schedule clamwin to scan that folder every minute, and include a memory scan.... Close enough to on access scanning for the purposes for which I use it. Maybe not on my main desktop, though. Of course, my main desktop is Linux...

    8. Re:clam by mewsenews · · Score: 1

      A) Deleting an executable without knowing what it is is stupid.

      My predecessor set up ClamWin and configured it to automatically quarantine bad files. I'm inclined to agree with you but that doesn't leave ClamWin without blame.

      B) Given that said executable is missing, it should be exceedingly simply to copy it from another machine, or the windows rescue disk.

      When userinit.exe is missing, Windows does not even display an error message. It begins the login process and just kicks you out, even in safe mode. Do you realize how hard it is to diagnose the root problem when you are running google searches that read "can't login to windows"?

      The second time I came across it, I launched a repair session and extracted userinit.exe into the correct place. Easy. The first time? Holy crap.

    9. Re:clam by stakovahflow · · Score: 1

      Clamwin, as well, here...

      Also, Malwarebytes & Spybot S&D.

      Note: I do not really go trolling in Winderz, but if I have to, I'll use Firefox in "Private Browsing" mode...
      That being said, I generally do not have to worry about crapware.

      In Winderz, I used to use AVG & tried Avira for a while. (Stopped using Avira after being annoyed by the daily pop-up for the "upgrade" to the pay version...) And AVG is dog slow. Verdict: AVG & Avira, not so much.

      Clam has enough features for my taste, but the issue isn't so much with virus attacks, so much as malware, spyware, crapware.

      There are plenty of good malware/crapware scanners out there, but virtually none that will pick up on the smallest trojan or antivirus spoof right away. For either type of problem, most resolutions come after the crap is already on/in the system...

      If all else fails and you cannot help but look at social networking sites, pr0n, & junk, install a Linux/BSD system on a second partition or VMWare Server, Virtualbox, etc, to look at the pretty pictures, etc.

      Remember, kids, don't trust anyone online!

      That's my lame 2 cents worth...

      Cheers!

      --
      Holy happy hippy crap!
    10. Re:clam by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Clam makes no attempt to detect "Spyware". You might as well complain that Avast didn't fix your network configuration problem for you...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:clam by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      http://www.clamwin.com/ Although it is missing an on access scan, I am not sure if that is a plus of a minus.

      A definite plus. I've never gotten a virus infection on my desktop, period. If anything uses one iota of resources other than when it's doing the weekly scan to make sure this remains the case, it's junk. It's wasting time on something that's far too unlikely to ever happen for me to justify the wasted time and resources. But just because it's never happened doesn't mean it never will, and how would I know if I wasn't looking for it? Thus, I do the regular scans. I need a scanner, I don't need a "shield".

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:clam by evilviper · · Score: 1

      In what way does tacking-on on-access scanning, somehow negate the horrendous performance of ClamWin?

      I'm glad you mentioned it, however, as it's one of the few options for Windows 9x users still out there.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    13. Re:clam by WetCat · · Score: 1

      You doesn't need to have a great performance to scan only changed files. Rootkit self-defence of a clamwin is a completely other topic. I think the level of such defence of clamwin unfortunately is low...

    14. Re:clam by evilviper · · Score: 1

      You doesn't need to have a great performance to scan only changed files.

      Yes, yes you do. In fact even more than a full scan, which can be scheduled for some time when nobody is around waiting for it.

      People complain about existing antivirus programs dragging-down their system's performance. Game makers recomend shutting-off antivirus programs for the same reasons. Using MORE memory, and 4 damn times as much CPU time isn't going to make anyone a fan of Clam.

      Now, if you have a quad-core, high-end system that's otherwise idle most of the time, and you don't do any high-performance, I/O intensive tasks, you might just not notice... but even then, most people probably would notice the difference.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    15. Re:clam by evilviper · · Score: 1

      As for Moonsecure, the project seems inactive, moonsecure.com returns a good old 403 right now, and nobody seems to have bothered to upload the source tarball since like 2 years (see the SourceForge project at sf.net/projects/moonav). How is this free software under the GNU GPL?

      The last file release was ~6 months ago. Not the most active project on the planet, but has been going along just fine in the recent past... There have been periods longer than 1 year between releases in the past. Don't write the project off just yet.

      Besides that, since it uses the ClamAV definitions, the backend software doesn't really need to be in active development. It either works, or it doesn't, and will continue to do so, indefinitely.

      OTOH, if anyone is interested in contributing, or even forking, by all means, do.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  11. Avira by HellProphet · · Score: 4, Informative

    Avira Anti-vir. It is good, fully functioned with updates, custom scheduled scans and on access scanning. The only thing you have to deal with is a daily ad that you can dismiss by hitting OK and it won't pop up for another 24 hours. Also it uses up half the resources of AVG, McAfee, Norton.

  12. Avast history by flimm · · Score: 1

    You always had to register for the free version of Avast, and re-register every six months.

    1. Re:Avast history by specific · · Score: 1

      Check again.... it's one year.

      --
      If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.
  13. Registration isn't new by MisterBuggie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Obviously you've never actually used Avast. You've always had to register for the free version, and renew the regsitration once a year. They're giving it away for free, I honestly don't see registering as a big deal.

    And the new version is actually a lot better, it finally detects rootkits... If you're looking for something that actually does its job and yet doesn't take up any space or processing power, I doubt you'll find anything...

    If you're gonna pay for your operating system, and then complain about free antiviruses, you might want to consider changing to linux...

    1. Re:Registration isn't new by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Hasn't Avast always protected against rootkits? I have used that program to clean off quite a few of my co-workers computers, there have been no re-infections.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Registration isn't new by Docboy-J23 · · Score: 1

      I've always been fond of the pre-logon scan feature that Avast has. I haven't seen that in any other free AV package, and I've caught many infected items that couldn't be detected with the user profile running. OTOH, I've also encountered weird rogue anti-viruses that could only be detected *while* they were running.

    3. Re:Registration isn't new by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I'd rather buy and install an anonymously registered package than hand over registration information. I'm sure the company is legit, but I still don't feel comfortable trusting a company that has access to every file on my drives - hard, floppy, optical, thumb, network - and has registration information with my personal info. Even if it's just an e-mail address, you can do surprising things.

      I know, tinfoil hat time - but didn't MySpace just choose to sell user data? Isn't Google data mining for targeted advertising?

  14. Re:Install a linux of some sort by B+Nesson · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thank you so much!

    I had no idea there were other operating systems!

  15. Comodo by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

    Comodo has always had a wonderful firewall, and lately I have been thinking of trying their AV for my less than tech savvy relatives on windows. Avast has bothered me lately with their voice updates, though generally I still like Avast. AVG is the only one I think is not so good.

    --
    meep
    1. Re:comodo by edbob · · Score: 1

      I have been using this too. I used to use AVG and ZoneAlarm, but I got tired of all the nags to purchase. At one time, I actually gave ZoneAlarm money, but switched back to the free version since I didn't really see much difference. Since Comodo includes both antivirus and firewall functions it really seemed to be natural to replace both. I also switched my parents when they switched from dial-up to DSL last year. I haven't noticed much of a performance hit, but it does tend to update (and require a reboot) at the most inopportune moments.

    2. Re:Comodo by Viperpete · · Score: 1

      I used ZoneAlarm and AVG for the last 2 years. In the last month or so I noticed AVG using tons of resources at prime time for it's "optimization" (avgcsrvx.exe) and there was no way to schedule it for any other time. Additionally, ZoneAlarm started causing resource problems with the recent update, when I was surfing the web it would be using 30-50% of the processor.

      I switched over to Comodo firewall/anti-virus and have enjoyed it's small foot print and speed at boot for a few weeks now.

      --
      loose: not fitting closely or tightly != lose: to suffer the deprivation of
  16. Smaller AV programs? by Telecommando · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Techman83 writes "...AVG and Avast have been quite good, but are starting to bloat out in size..."

    Um, in case you haven't noticed, more viruses, exploits and malware are coming out all the time.
    I'd be very surprised if ANY antivirus software got smaller.

    In fact, I'd be highly suspicious.

    --
    Beta sux! Join the Slashcott! http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4760465&cid=46173047
    1. Re:Smaller AV programs? by EkriirkE · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't think he was talking about the database size, but the fact that both AVG and Avast (I use both) have moved to highly customized skinned UIs and have completely removed any native UI components and include useless junk that slows your system (eg safesearch/linkscanner) in their installers that makes "Custom install" the only practical method

      --
      from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
      to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
    2. Re:Smaller AV programs? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 1

      Um, in case you haven't noticed, more viruses, exploits and malware are coming out all the time.
      I'd be very surprised if ANY antivirus software got smaller.

      Whilst this is a good point, I personally believe that there is absolutely no need for an anti-virus program to have a skinning engine built in. It's not designed to look pretty (read: non-standard and usually worse), it's designed to be small, light and unobtrusive. The Windows UI may not win awards, but it's perfectly acceptable.

      Any kind of non-standard skinning is adding bloat to a program that, if it works well, you hardly ever see the UI.

      I've moved over from AVG to Microsoft Security Essentials and have been happy with it. It's lightweight, updated silently, doesn't nag me, doesn't pop up useless alerts and is ranked pretty highly in some of the antivirus test results I've seen.

      --
      Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
    3. Re:Smaller AV programs? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      The software bloat is different than the database growing. The software bloat is all the "shiny" interface crap and such that all the products do that are only marginally related to virus scanning. It's feature creep.

  17. Avast and MS Essentials by Anarren · · Score: 1

    I use Avast on my workhorse machine and MS Security Essentials on my netbook. I feel like Avast does more, but is a resource hog, so only use it on my heftier machine. Both are running XP.

    --
    "Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information." -Samuel Johnson
  18. Antivirus 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excellent [buy v1agra] product. I haven't have any malware [|\|iger1an 419] detected since I installed it [install Antivirus 2009 today!].

    1. Re:Antivirus 2009 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You know 2010 is out now, right? Lots of useful new features. Don't sweat it though, it'll be on your machine shortly.

    2. Re:Antivirus 2009 by Barny · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, a troll I know, but you do realise that "Antivirus 2009" was just one of the names they used? There are literally hundreds of different variations on this name floating around, and one of the funnier things is that it updates so regularly that just 2 weeks after the Microsoft "antivirus 2009 fix" went out to all the machines they had a resistant version infecting machines again.

      Latest one (came in yesterday with a smitfraud variant) was "Win Anti-Spyware 2010".

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Antivirus 2009 by etherwhisp · · Score: 1

      I've been using Antivirus 2009 for a full year now and it ALWAYS catches somewhere between 228 and 1384 viriI... It's the bomb! I'd highly recommend it to anybody. It does seem to cause some system instability though... go figure.

  19. Panda Cloud by Dotren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been trying this out on my home computers so far and its definitely less resource intensive than previous AV solutions I've used. I haven't gotten infected with anything lately (that I know of) so I don't know how well it handles infections yet.

    Actual web page is here and you can read up on it a bit here.

    1. Re:Panda Cloud by eulernet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting, but Panda Software is linked to Scientology.

      I'm not sure it's a good idea to let them send packets from your computer...

    2. Re:Panda Cloud by Dotren · · Score: 1

      Interesting, but Panda Software is linked to Scientology.

      I'm not sure it's a good idea to let them send packets from your computer...

      Wow, I didn't know that. I'm curious why this isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article I linked or the one specifically dealing with Panda Security.

      I may have to think a bit more on this software... gah, what a way to tarnish an otherwise good idea!

      Does anyone know if there is there any evidence out there to support that the software itself may do more than it's advertised AV protection?

    3. Re:Panda Cloud by eulernet · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Panda Cloud by Dotren · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link!

      It would appear that they have distanced themselves from Scientology in accordance with their board and investors in 2007. That makes me feel a bit better about using it but I'm still going to do some more reading on the subject.

    5. Re:Panda Cloud by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Source?

    6. Re:Panda Cloud by eulernet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20060713211614/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/05/03/panda_software_linked_to_church/

      The French are scandalised by the idea that an estimated six to nine per cent of the revenues paid by its police ministry for Panda's Global Virus Insurance might have gone into the coffers of the Church, which was founded by L Ron Hubbard.

      In french:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20010512221513/http://www.lexpress.fr/Express/Info/Societe/Dossier/scientologie/dossier.asp?nom=place

      The french article also mentions Diskeeper...

    7. Re:Panda Cloud by owlstead · · Score: 1

      The plus side is - of course - that it also removes the engrams from your system.

  20. A few options by kimvette · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are quite a few options actually. I'll list them in order of effectiveness.

    1. BSD or Linux. You won't get hit by viruses or any crap like that, unless you're enough of a moron to run everything as root and go out of your way to make the system open. Unfortunately neither option will run 100% of your Windows software.

    2. Unplug your Windows box. Guaranteed 100% effective. The drawback is that apps won't run. ;)

    3. Comodo antivirus; http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/free-download.html I have been trying it on various workstations and have found it to be reasonably good. Less effective than the above options! ;) Seriously though it's pretty good. It's not antispyware though, and it doesn't slow the system to a crawl like some other programs. That should be a non-issue. If not, then why are you running MSIE after you've been warned for years? ;)

    4. Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft actually did a very good job with this basic suite. It's not bloated at all, is straight and to the point, and catches some spyware even malwarebytes misses. It's good now, but then again, Microsoft has dropped the ball with every antivirus and antispyware software they have installed to date.

    5. You could try Norton Internet Security. I understand they've completely rearchitected it and brought over NO legacy code and are not bloated so you might want to try it, but I haven't looked at the Norton suite since the 2003 version that turned their antivirus into a failed abortion.

    I was using Moon Secure on various systems for a while: it's free, open source, etc. but it has not been updated in forever and is rapidly becoming less and less effective, plus it has quite a few defects including making the Windows logon process EXTREMELY slow on some configurations.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:A few options by melikamp · · Score: 1

      2. Unplug your Windows box. Guaranteed 100% effective. The drawback is that apps won't run. ;)

      This seems to be backwards. Most apps will run OK, but you may still get infected via USB storage (gotta love that autorun :).

    2. Re:A few options by Brucutus · · Score: 1

      Another good option I haven't seen mentioned is PC Tools Spyware Doctor Starter Edition. You can get it free when you download Google Pack essentials. The only problem I've had with it was when running simultaneously with Avira. The Avira scanner would freeze randomly while scanning until I shutdown Spyware Doctor.

  21. I install... by kungfuj35u5 · · Score: 1

    none, I prefer my operating system without a condom. It's more fun that way :). I also stripe without parity (mainly because I don't care what happens to my windows installations).

  22. Spybot Search & Destroy by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

    I've used Spybot S&D since my XP days. I like it, but I don't know how much cred it has with other people.

    1. Re:Spybot Search & Destroy by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Spybot searches for malware, not Viruses and the like as it isn't an AV. They are different products for different problems.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Spybot Search & Destroy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I still use Spybot S&D, but I also use Symantec Corporate Edition. You really need more than one AV these days. The NoScript plugin for Firefox helps a lot when it comes to random internet browsing. Prevention is the best protection.

    3. Re:Spybot Search & Destroy by Pete+Venkman · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clarification.

    4. Re:Spybot Search & Destroy by Machtyn · · Score: 1

      To clarify a little more, though. Spybot does have some system protection that can be activated. Things such as active monitoring and locking of the lmhosts file, monitoring registry writes/access, BHO entries, IE homepage changes, etc.

      Still, I like Comodo (see comments above in this thread.)

  23. Comodo by pnuema · · Score: 1

    Comodo gives you firewall and anti-virus in one package, and I have been using it for a couple of years.

  24. Re:Ummm... by tepples · · Score: 1

    The antivirus you recommend is not compatible with the video games that I play or the IDE that I program in.

  25. That's what we use by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At work (a university) the central IT has chosen to license Sophos. It is, well, crap to put it mildly and takes up amazing amounts of resources. So, instead we use Security Essentials on many systems. Works well, it has successfully stopped viruses that users have tried to get. Pretty light on resources over all, not the lightest weight program I've seen but up there.

    Best one for free I've seen. Personally ESET NOD32 is my favourite and what I license for home, but if the price requirement is $0, then MSE is what I use.

    1. Re:That's what we use by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

      IIRC it's the lightest, free antivirus with an on-access/on-demand scanner already installed.

    2. Re:That's what we use by ctsupafly · · Score: 1

      No, it says it's free for home and home business. It never explicitly denies any other use (I combed the relatively short EULA for anything about business use prior tto throwing it on a few work machines. I'm quite happy with it. It managed to fix a couple computers here where e-trust had failed.

    3. Re:That's what we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's another vote for NOD32, it's not free, but it's good (and very reasonably priced). I've installed it on everything from old junkboxes to my win7 machine, it stays out of the way, uses few resources, and does a good job.

    4. Re:That's what we use by Khomar · · Score: 1

      I second your endorsement of ESET NOD32. I used AVG for years, but finally the annoying pop-ups got to me. NOD32 is quiet, unobtrusive, and has a negligible impact on performance while seeming to be quite good at pointing out and blocking potential viruses. It is by far the best anti-virus program I have used yet. I have never had the need to turn it off for performance reasons even while gaming or doing digital recording. Great software.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    5. Re:That's what we use by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seconded on both counts. If you simply want top notch, and are willing to pay for it, then NOD32 is it. If you want free & "just works", then MSE is probably the easiest choice to go with these days.

      One bonus point for MSE is that it fetches virus signature updates (as well as version updates for itself) through Windows/Microsoft Update. That's one less "Foo Updater" process running on your PC.

      Oh, and it scores pretty well in tests. Not top of the line, but generally above average, and certainly competitive with other free offerings.

    6. Re:That's what we use by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Just so you know, though MS is awful at making this clear, MSE is only free for "home and home business" applications. Otherwise you really should be licensing forefront.

    7. Re:That's what we use by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Personally ESET NOD32 is my favourite and what I license

      That has to be the worst product name ever! Just try pronouncing that! I thought maybe there was line noise or something, or maybe your keyboard exploded while trying to type something else. Next time someone complains about GIMP's name, I'll point to this product.

    8. Re:That's what we use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From the Microsoft EULA
        "If you comply with these license terms, you have the rights below for each license you acquire.
      1. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.
      a. Use. You may install and use any number of copies of the software on your devices in your household for use by people who reside there or for use in your home-based small business. "

      It clearly states that you can only use this only in home or home-based small business. So unless you work out of your home you are violating the EULA by installing it.

    9. Re:That's what we use by adamdoyle · · Score: 1

      e (pronounced like "eel" without the "l") set (like the verb) nod (like the verb in: I nod my head) thirty two? It doesn't bother me...

    10. Re:That's what we use by GF678 · · Score: 1

      At work (a university) the central IT has chosen to license Sophos. It is, well, crap to put it mildly and takes up amazing amounts of resources. So, instead we use Security Essentials on many systems.

      My company uses Sophos (and IT techs like myself deploy it elsewhere). I haven't had too many issues with it really, but I suppose it's all personal experience. One think I know is that it has central management of all computers on a domain, whereas MSE doesn't, so why did your IT department decide to go with Security Essentials despite the fact it's not designed for enterprise-level networks?

    11. Re:That's what we use by Again · · Score: 1

      Personally ESET NOD32 is my favourite and what I license

      That has to be the worst product name ever! Just try pronouncing that! I thought maybe there was line noise or something, or maybe your keyboard exploded while trying to type something else. Next time someone complains about GIMP's name, I'll point to this product.

      I agree. And it sounds like the name of a virus.

    12. Re:That's what we use by chekk4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NOD32 version 2.7 was good, but all versions since are notably slower and more bloated. Version 4 is automatically antivirus AND antispyware with no option to turn off the antispyware. I tried Avira Personal (free) and then ponied up for Premium. On sale, it cost $22CAD. Cheap, effective and light on resources.

    13. Re:That's what we use by captbob2002 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is a shame to hear. I used Sophos for our Windows/Mac/Solaris/Linux machines for almost ten years. (the two later b/c the hosted windows files via Samba) And found it to be quick and light weight. NEVER had a virus issue on a machine running Sophos. The the edict came down from on high that we MUST use McAfee like the rest of the university. What utter crap. It rendered older machines unusable, would claim that it was updating when it wasn't, and had the feature that it kept missing viruses.

      I must admit that toward the end I was getting annoyed with Sophos - needing an MS Windows machine to act as the "Manager" for the enterprise install of Sophos. At the time we didn't *have* any windows servers, nor did we want them.

    14. Re:That's what we use by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      We asked, they are fine with educational use. We are a VLSC customer anyhow so they tend to be nice to us.

    15. Re:That's what we use by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      Because it's free and light weight. We are looking in to Forefront, MS's centrally managed product, however hopefully the whole university will get it (our Sophos contract is up in a month) so we aren't going to buy it ourselves. If they do go with Sophos again (resistance is very high but they are known to ignore everyone) we'll license Forefront ourselves.

      MSE was a stopgap to get something else out there that didn't hit the systems as hard as Sophos. Speed is important often, and particularly since we are a university and often have to use older computers. While I'd love to update teaching labs with the newest hardware every other year often I have to have equipment 8 years old in there. I can't have Sophos eating up all the CPU, as it loves to do.

    16. Re:That's what we use by GF678 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I wasn't aware of Forefront but it sounds like it should do what you want if Sophos is too annoying. I admit Sohpos does tax the system a bit when it updates, so if the desktop update schedule is too aggressive it may be a big cause of all the CPU usage. I use MSE on my laptop even though I'm allowed to use the Sophos Home Edition as part of my employment, so go figure.

    17. Re:That's what we use by Cyner · · Score: 1

      I work for a company where we use and resell Sophos. Sounds like your installation is misconfigured if it's impacting systems noticeably. The default settings aren't ideal.

      Also, when I looked last year MSE & Forefront were consistently behind most of the major vendors in catching new viruses. This was a major factor in our decision to avoid Forefront (formerly called Antigen), and may have influenced your IT department's decision..

      --
      FreeBSD.org - The power to serve
    18. Re:That's what we use by m85476585 · · Score: 1

      I used NOD32 for a few years when I was on XP, and I liked it. But when I installed it on my Windows 7 PC (32 bit, latest version of NOD), it made everything really slow. Right now I'm running with no AV, which is probably bad even with Win7's improved security compared to XP.

    19. Re:That's what we use by therufus · · Score: 1

      Eee-Set, nod thirty two.

      Not a real tongue twister if you ask me.

      Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware is tougher. We just say Em-BAM though ;)

      Better yet, see how many people can't pronounce Kaspersky. I've heard "Gas-ber-skie", "Kas-ker-skee" and "Ka-per-skee". Last time I checked it was named after Eugene Kaspersky who pronounces his name "Kass-per-skee".

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    20. Re:That's what we use by Simulant · · Score: 1

      I second both parents. MSE is the best free AV at this time. (and NOD32 is the best overall)

      My criteria for AV is that it has to be reasonably accurate and unobtrusive, not necessarily in that order.

      The only problem with MSE, recently introduced, is that it's now using Windows Updates for virus definitions, so you no have a Windows Update notification every single day. In my experience, this means that most casual & small business users will rarely be up-to-date. It's funny, but half of them seem to think the little yellow shield icon is a scam these days and simply ignore it & the other half just don't give a damn. Many shut their machines off at night so even if I have them set to automatically update, it doesn't happen.

      What was wrong with the automatic download of definitions by the client itself?

         

    21. Re:That's what we use by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Seen on a recent slashdot comment : "antivirus will use up bandwidth, CPU and RAM, will randomly block applications and slow down your system, they will cost you money. Virus do about the same, but at least they try to be stealthy at it."

      If your application is non-critical, make a risk analysis of running without anti-virus. If your system is critical, you should better not rely on antivirus (and I have opinions using windows in that case but I know that even on /. this is not a consensus).

      In my career, I have seen more data erased by an antivirus than by a virus.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    22. Re:That's what we use by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      It sounds like an error message.

      Oh no, I got an ESET NOD 32! What does that mean?

  26. None by AceJohnny · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Seriously, no antivirus. But then, I only use Windows occasionally to play games. I'm surprised I only had one (1) virus problem over the last 5 years in Windows, which I fixed thanks to a targeted tool. Apart from that, I practice Safe Computing, and that appears to have kept me out of trouble.

    However, for all that I know, my windows system may be part of a few botnets that don't cause me any problems :\

    On my family's computers... I forced Ubuntu upon those I could, and left the others to fend for themselves.

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
    1. Re:None by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ditto, I have not (personally) used AV for ~10 years. Yet to see a virus. Most vulnerable point would be running cracked game EXEs (makes me nervous, I crack them myself when I can; otherwise, I scan them online). Browsing => VM or other limited user account.

      Is it bad that I consider AV products worse than the viruses themselves?

      I wouldn't say that I have never been rooted however. Rootkits are extremely hard to detect unless you know exactly what you are looking for. And fwiw, neither have I seen unusual network traffic. Though one that calls home 1x/24hrs could easily bypass that.

    2. Re:None by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      Rootkits are extremely hard to detect unless you know exactly what you are looking for.

      Right. Anti-virus products amount to security by blacklast, and that approach doesn't work. Most specifically, that approach violates the principle of least privilege. It's a nightmare.

      What all the major operating systems need to do is provide more support for sandboxing --- that is, security by whitelist: allow only a few well-defined safe operations and ban everything else.

      It's worked marvelously well on the web. Sure, you have CSRF and cross-site scripting problems, but imagine how much worse the situation would be if every website could by default interact with every other website and your browser, and web browser authors had to continually come up with ad-hoc rules and heuristics to try to catch malicious behavior.

    3. Re:None by tknd · · Score: 1

      On my family's computers... I forced Ubuntu upon those I could, and left the others to fend for themselves.

      Here's what you do for those other family members:

      • Tell them to run Windows 7
      • When they get their machine, put a password on the default administrator account (usually the first account created).
      • Setup a new account for them to use that does not have admin privileges (password not required).
      • Tell them to use the regular account and call you when the admin uac account pops up.

      Now when a program does something fishy, they will call you because they don't know the password on the admin account. So you can ask them what they're trying to do and if it sounds reasonable (install some purchased software, hookup a digital camera, whatever), you tell them to type the password and they're back on their way. If they're doing something and uac randomly pops up, they can't hit the 'ok' button because they need the password so they'll be forced to hit the cancel button. They'll rarely call you in these instances and this will protect them from most malware.

      Also setup windows 7 to automatically download and updates in the background and sleep after a few hours of being idle (even if it is a desktop). Don't let them plug directly to the internet. Have a router in between with firewall enabled. That'll keep them clean for a good while.

    4. Re:None by Plekto · · Score: 1

      Pretty good advice, but the other thing is that you can't get free software to work reliably without multiple layers.

      I have XP on my machine.
      - Router has hardware based firewall enabled.
      - Zone Alarm for outgoing firewall/app control.
      - Adblock/Peer Guardian/etc
      - Two virus scanners. Two malware scanners.
      - Spybot
      This all is free and it still only works ~80% of the time.
      - Spyhunter (paid for this)
      - One other professional app I paid for (no, not Norton or anything typical consumer junk)
      The fact is that you need a professional AV and anti-malware/registry locker. The free ones are just not up to the task or updated days or weeks later than they need to be.

      Also,
      - Complete removal of the following from the OS down to the registry/core level:
      1: Internet Explorer - my machine throws up "what application should I open this with?"
      2: Remote Desktop/Remote Access
      3: File Sharing (also remove the relevant parts from the TCP/IP connection)
      Plus blocking of FTP and other remote protocols in and out of the machine. If I absolutely have to use it, I'll enable it for those few minutes.

      It takes all of that to lock down XP. And that's only if I don't get online and hit a bad site on the web or something that I purposely get caught in.(note - torrent, password cracking, and Online Gaming gold/money sites are nearly 100% infected - avoid like the plague) Secondary are social networking sites and online gaming forums and the like.

      Yes, this means you really should be using the net for work and a few specific applications you know are secure. Pretty much common sense. No AV in the world will help you if you start going to astalavista or other crack sites and start clicking links to various sites.

      So... What to do?
      Upgrading to Windows 7 or ditching it all and getting Apple/BSD or Linux makes a lot of sense if for no other reason than it's so new that the botnets haven't have time to adjust and are still going mostly after the biggest installed target group of users. They're not much more secure but they are a lot less likely to be targeted, which is something I guess...

      It stinks but XP is going to be no longer supported at all in a couple of years, tops, and then the entire industry will abandon it and stop keeping the AV and firewall software as up to date. So changing now to something else is probably the best course of action if this really bothers you.
      (myself I don't keep anything I can't replace on this machine so I don't care...)

    5. Re:None by Dmala · · Score: 1

      I was starting to wonder if I was the only one. I use Windows full time, though, for web, e-mail, games, everything. My rules are: 1.) Don't use IE, 2.) Keep everything up to date, 3.) Always use a hardware router/firewall. 4.) Don't execute anything unless you know what it is and where it came from.

      Every once in a while, I'll use Trend Micro's web-based scanner, and do a quick scan with Spybot and/or AdAware. They've never come up with anything more serious than tracking cookies. The one time I had a serious problem, I had launched IE (breaking rule #1) to look at a page that wouldn't render in Firefox and mis-clicked on a popup, hitting "OK" by mistake. I knew I had been infected immediately, and spent about 4 hours ripping the bastard out. I really can't understand how people who know what they are doing (or at least should) get hit with random viruses that "just install themselves."

    6. Re:None by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Tell them to use the regular account and call you when the admin uac account pops up.

      Wait... seriously? This may work if you're supporting a couple of people who never install new hardware (cameras, printers, satnavs, every last electronic device), but I do not want to be rung at all hours of the day with a relative asking if it's ok to install their new gadget. Not to mention upgrading drivers, etc.

    7. Re:None by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Odd, my last install of Win XP went 5 years with no infections. I was just smart about not browsing to shady sites. Even my filesharing went fine, I just scanned before installing anything.

      Never had a problem with the brakes on my car either, and that probably has something to do with the fact that I don't drive around with both pedals depressed.

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    8. Re:None by repetty · · Score: 1

      You and AceJohnny are bad news for innocent people who might actually see the claims that you are typing and believe them.

      You are describing usage practices that don't apply to 98% of people, plus your arrogance is particularly misleading.

      Be relevant.

    9. Re:None by Plekto · · Score: 1

      But the original post was about his asking what to recommend to his relatives. This implies that they are not going to practice such rigid self-control or have tight control over the machine. The average time for a normal install of XP without anything installed to protect it and being compromised is literally only a few minutes.

      My hardware firewall gives me this information:
      (last 365 days)
      1,711,091 access attempts.

      If you are online at all, you need to run something. And the truth is that public utilities just don't cut it.(nor does XP any more, to be honest)

  27. Re:I dont use... by kimvette · · Score: 2

    It's analogous to chain mail armor; it's effective against old weapons like broadswords and crap, but completely useless against guns. Today's malware are the equivalent of heavy artillary and most antivirus software is akin to chain mail or even leather armor.

    Or, to put it in a car analogy: many antivirus programs would be like wiping a coat of mineral oil ("baby oil") on your unpainted/freshly sandblasted car, and then driving your car through the winter in New England where they salt the roads very heavily. You're hoping the car will still be nice and shiny come April, but sorry, the body is totally rust-covered and has been perforated in several spots.

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  28. Trend online scanner nothing on computer by splatter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Used it for years. God help me if they ditch the old URL I'll have to start googling it.

      http://housecall.antivirus.com/

    --
    "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
    1. Re:Trend online scanner nothing on computer by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You do realize that it installed stuff on your computer ... right? Both the Java and ActiveX versions require it, you just change the definition of 'install' ever so slightly.

      Both of them download and execute code native on your machine. You're defining install as what? Something that shows up in add/remove programs, cause you can change those things to 'installed' by adding a single registry key then.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Trend online scanner nothing on computer by splatter · · Score: 1

      Yes I realize there is a download / install. I suppose if you want to be a dick about it I was defining it as antivirus software that continues to run installed in the background.

      Is that clearer? sheesh

      --
      "(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
  29. Avira or Security Essentials by Bos20k · · Score: 1

    I would recommend either Avira http://www.freeav.com/ or M$ Security Essentials.

    A while ago I read some link off Slashdot that compared the CPU/RAM usage of various virus scanners. Avira was at or near the top on all the tests. My use of it seems to validate that.

    Security Essentials is a Microsoft product so I figure they know all or most of the tricks of their own OS to make it reasonably low on resource usage which it seems to be. It also has no nag screens which is nice.

  30. Ars technica review of MSE by igomaniac · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars

    An in-depth look at Microsoft Security Essentials, it made me decide to try it out on my girlfriend's laptop (I run OS X myself) and it's worked great.

    --

    The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
    1. Re:Ars technica review of MSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm so glad you told us what you were running there at the end! I was reading along and I was like "His GIRLFRIEND'S PC?!?!?!?! What about HIS PC?!?!" And then you told me you run OSX and I was like, sweet dude. Sweet.

    2. Re:Ars technica review of MSE by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      pics or it didn't happen..

    3. Re:Ars technica review of MSE by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad you told us what you were running there at the end! I was reading along and I was like "His GIRLFRIEND'S PC?!?!?!?! What about HIS PC?!?!" And then you told me you run OSX and I was like, sweet dude. Sweet.

      It's all a lie, no one who runs OSX has a girlfriend.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:Ars technica review of MSE by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

      No, they all have boyfriends they met at the coffeeshop while composing derivative house music on their Macbook Airs.

      --
      Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
    5. Re:Ars technica review of MSE by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      No, but a lot of them have boyfriends. Maybe they both like being on bottom?

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  31. buy a mac or install linux by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    there.

    you're gonna get a lot of this here. so let's get this out of the way, shall we ?

    now, if you REALLY need to run some kinds of windows apps, since your computer probably came with windows already, no need to put it to waste. move it to a virtual machine with sun's excellent virtual box, plus fork some more cash for crossover office.

    here at my job, I got fed up with windows, so after the company replaced our old notebooks by newwer dual core machines, i moved to linux, office (i can't get rid of outlook yet.) runs on crossover, some proprietary tools run on windows xp inside virtual box, that i fire up only when needed.

    the good thing about virtual machines is that you can make snapshots. create a snapshot of yours right after installing windows. then use it whenever you need, just be carefull not to open anything funny, avoid using a browser inside it. even if all these precautions you get infected, discard the current state and boot the last clean snapshot.

    everything else, run on the linux host. this way you don't need an anti-virus any better than microsoft's own.

    i never used any virtualization solution on macs, but if vmware's fusion product is anything like the windows/linux counterpart, it certainly have similar functionality.

    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
    1. Re:buy a mac or install linux by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, thanks for the posting because you've put the seed of an idea into my head.

      I'm a Linux & security consultant at my place of work & therefore get a lot of freedom in running what I want to on my laptop. I've been using OpenOffice (on Linux and XP) at home for a while now, I finally managed to ditch Office 2003, specifically Outlook, when I recently got rid of the last phone dependant on ActiveSync and Outlook for synching contacts.

      The standard at work is XP and Office 2003, having messed about with Thunderbird & Sunbird recently, I'm pretty sure I can manage on those for email & calendaring at work - really the last issue to resolve is how to deal with Microsoft domain resources & cope with forced password changes every 60 days. I was planning to look more deeply into Samba to see what that's capable of, but now you've put the VM idea in my head, specifically because I also got updraded to a dual-core Lenovo laptop a few weeks ago.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:buy a mac or install linux by CxDoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Reinterpretation of "buy a mac or use linux" mantra every time someone asks for an Windows related advice in all too familiar car terminology:

      Windows user: I have this $non-descript-japanese-model hatchback and....
      Pundit: Scrap that shit, get a Mercedes!
      WU: Well, it's just this noise...
      Pundit: Mercedes! Japanese cars are shit!
      WU: I can't afford that - anyway I was saying...
      Pundit: Then you have to go for a tank!
      WU: A tank? WTF? Is this a car service?
      Pundit: Or F22 fighter jet. It will happen sooner or later, sonny boy, you car is a piece of shit, it will fall apart any day. Why delaying the inevitable? Switch to proven quality!
      WU: Uh... ok, I'll go with it. How do I drive a tank? How do I even get the fucking tank?
      Pundit: It's free! You just have to join the military and pass the training and you're good to go!
      WU: Can I drive it to work?
      Pundit: Not really but who cares! It's rock solid!
      WU: ...

      And so on...

      --
      "Blah blah blah." - [citation needed]
    3. Re:buy a mac or install linux by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      I have a similar setup so maybe some of the things I found may be helpful.

      I use a MacBook Pro (with Tiger) running XP in a Parallels 4 VM. I'm a domain admin and it works very well for me. I use OpenOffice, Thunderbird and Lightning on both OSX and inside the VM. Every couple of nights I shut down the VM and copy its file (actually an OS X package) to an external drive; I keep 2 copies. For AV I use Trend Micro in the VM. It's all good.

      I do not have the VM syncing to my iPhone / iPod Touch however -- I manually add events to iCal in OSX as they arrive in my email. Supposedly you can have it publish the info but it was a lot of bother and this works very well for me. My iPhone also syncs with our Exchange 2000 server; I use IMAP on both it and for Thunderbird and tell it to leave 7 day's email. The only thing I can't easily do is accept a meeting invite on the iPhone or for some Outlook 2007 requests people send to me that I receive in Thunderbird (the 2007 items have no ICS file, and the older ones with the ICS file won't open on the iPhone. Either way I have to open up webmail and handle it from there).

      For my typical usage (FireFox, Thunderbird, Terminal, Preview / Acrobat, and a bunch of rdesktop and PuTTY sessions running) Tiger works best by having 4GB of memory and allocating just over 1GB to the VM.

    4. Re:buy a mac or install linux by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The standard at work is XP and Office 2003, having messed about with Thunderbird & Sunbird recently, I'm pretty sure I can manage on those for email & calendaring at work

      Then either you don't use calendaring very heavy and have been using Outlook as a mere email client. I develop plugins for email clients. I freaking HATE Outlook in just about every conceivable way. If I was a sales person or a manager who gets stuck with lots of meetings and high email traffic, Outlook would be my preferred email client.

      Outlook is not an email client. Its not a calendaring application. Its a PIM, it does email as well and integrates it rather well even though its email system feels crappy and has horrible imap support (O2K7 and O2010 aren't bad for imap, too bad they ripped out the IE rendering engine). Thunderbird is an email client and its great at that. Sunbird is a calendar package, and its kind of shitty. The combination of the two is utterly ass-tastic.

      If you want calendaring just ditch sunbird and use gmail or apps for your domain. Yes you can use Sunbird with it, but unless that has changed recently, that too is a shitty experience. Probably should have kept some phones with ActiveSync exchange support though since thats about the only way to sync calendars that doesn't suck total ass.

      Its fine that you run the software you want to run, and if it works for you, thats great ... but ... If you're replacing Outlook with Thunderbird + Sunbird than you weren't really using Outlook for much more than an email client, which is probably its worst feature. Please don't go around suggesting to normal users to do the same.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:buy a mac or install linux by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 1

      well, since we're going the system admin path, i'm a unix SA. i manage the commercial stuff (solaris, AIX, etc.), but most of my skills translate well to linux, so, here we go.

      what you're looking for is LDAP.

      i remember once that i tried, just for the kicks, to install novell linux on a home desktop after they sent me a package with several DVDs for free. my biggest surprise was when it asked me for an LDAP server... so i said WTF !?! short sotry, i stoped the installation, configured an openLDAP on the host and informed the host IP address as my LDAP server. worked like a charm. after it was installed, i could authenticate my made-up user on the novell guest without any non-root user on the guest's /etc/passwd. that's your solution to enforce passwd changing and central management of users.

      now, e-mail and calendar. i don't know how evolution deals with more advanced exchange stuff without a commercial plugin, but if you have can fiddle with your exchange server, configure it to accept IMAP connections.

      here where i work, our exchange have IMAP open, so i'm testing the possibility of using KDE's suite KPIM. I already know that invites for meetings and stuff shows up on an IMAP folder as regular mail messages with an iCal file attached, so it's probably usable without having to resort to crossover.

      also, if you plan to run MS office, upgrade to 2007. exchange 2003 doesn't work with crossover nor regular wine. 2007 work right. the only problems i had were with activation (it doesn't activate over the net. you have to do it by phone or use a VLK that don't need activation) and attached files show with an OLE error message, you have to go on the menu/save as/save all attachments to get them on the disk before you can open them.

      drop me a private message if you need more help, ok ?

      --
      What ? Me, worry ?
    6. Re:buy a mac or install linux by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Please don't go around suggesting to normal users to do the same.

      Hey, I'm not a FOSS evangelist, I'm doing this for me... and I'll still need to dual boot XP and Office for a while until I'm happy that the alternative works well enough.

      No, I don't use Outlook or the Calendar for all it's features,

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    7. Re:buy a mac or install linux by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I might well do that.

      LDAP is actually something I've just started to do some reading up on in connection with some customer authentication work I might need to do, I understand its principle functionality without knowing how to configure it... yet.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    8. Re:buy a mac or install linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wow, you have drunk the apple Kool-Aid!
      You think macs don't have viruses? Think again. The truth is Macs have fewer viruses than pc's, but they still have them.

    9. Re:buy a mac or install linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yeah, "buy a mac" is a great suggestion for someone who is not even willing to pay for antivirus software.

      Kudos to the mods who acknowledged your amazing insight!

    10. Re:buy a mac or install linux by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I feel your pain. IExchExt and the broken #@$%& that is OnDelivery() still gives me nightmares years later.

    11. Re:buy a mac or install linux by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      I used purely Linux/Solaris for a few years, but in my current job I have a couple of apps that tie me to Windows. I hate it. I haven't found time yet to experiment with virtual machines, but it's on my list. How do they cope with 3D intensive apps? I need to run Solidworks and CST Microwave Studio. I think Solidworks is the real challenge here - does anyone know if it works?

    12. Re:buy a mac or install linux by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1

      That's the funniest post I've read all week - cheers :)

  32. GNU/Linux! by Subm · · Score: 1

    What Free Antivirus Do You Install On Windows?

    GNU/Linux, of course.

    1. Re:GNU/Linux! by filesiteguy · · Score: 1

      LOL!

      I know you're going to get modded down as a troll, but the answer is correct.

      Now, for the Wintendo virtual machines I run inside of GNU/Linux (Ubuntu 9.1 currently) I use Avast! as my AV of choice. Yes, it is hard to find the free version, but at least it updates.

    2. Re:GNU/Linux! by Corson · · Score: 1

      Really! And how do you run Delphi on Linux? DVDFab? DVDLabPro? Camtasia? The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. videogames? Vector NTI? There is no support for my Logitech webcams in the Linux kernel, at least not on Ubuntu 9.10 (i.e., the Linux distro that I run on one computer and two Windows machines in VirtualBox). How do I hook-up my Sony HD videocamera and my canon camera to a GNU/Linux machine? I know, it's sad.

    3. Re:GNU/Linux! by rec9140 · · Score: 1

      >Delphi on Linux? DVDFab? DVDLabPro? Camtasia? The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. videogames? Vector NTI?

      I don't use them, so who cares. If your going to ask lame questions about some program written for a DIFFERENT OS, whats the point. Find a Linux equal/equivalent, or you've answered your own question stay on the w virOS.

      >no support for my Logitech webcams in the Linux kernel, at least not on Ubuntu 9.10

      Hmmm... I use KMint and some Logitech Quickam or something works, it was cheap and I possibly needed a web cam, but the need went a way. All it needs is a little tweaking to get the color etc. set, but since I don't use it any way.. I am not putting the effort to get it tweaked.

      Can't tell you about the video cameras, have not owned one since one of those original VHS camcorders that were all so popular... just don't have the need...

      --
      1311393600 - Back to Black
    4. Re:GNU/Linux! by Corson · · Score: 1
      >>Delphi on Linux? DVDFab? DVDLabPro? Camtasia? The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. videogames? Vector NTI?

      >I don't use them, so who cares. If your going to ask lame questions about some program written for a DIFFERENT OS, whats the point.

      Most people chose an OS for the software they can run on it; so yes, I do care what software I can run. Besides, the question in the main posting is about AV for Windows.

  33. Re:Ummm... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    So change your IDE & program your own games for Linux, problem solved! :-)

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  34. Microsoft Security Essentials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was recently introduced to this, and it pleasantly surprised me. It's lightweight, and it's rated well. Pretty much the only packages that have better detection rates is payware, and this beats the payware in false positives. Also, the interface is easy to understand, and it stays out of the way.

  35. Obligatory answer... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux :)

    I don't mean that in the snarky, "everyone should only use Linux" sense. But my Linux computers are certainly the ones that require the least care and feeding. And Linux is free.

    1. Re:Obligatory answer... by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

      yep, I do all my banking/email/anything involving identity etc. in linux, windows is used for games only.

  36. Avast by yakatz · · Score: 1

    Really, TANSTAAFL.

    That said:
    Avast Free has always required you to register.
    I have been using it for years and recommend it to all my clients.
    In Avast 5, the registration process is easier than ever.

  37. Not a good idea by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    For one, on access scanning is generally considered pretty important. Ideally you want your AV program to act as a filter, making sure that nothing gets on it in the first place. After all if you system gets infect, it could well shut down the scanner. So just scheduled scans is only so useful. You really want to scan files as they come in to the computer.

    Then there's the fact that Clam seems to do pretty poorly in AV tests. If you look at Wikipedia you find that it is bombing many of them rather hard. While no virus scanner is perfect, it seems to be significantly below its peer group.

  38. i stopped using avast because of popups by HelloKitty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    avast kept popping up ads to buy their stuff.
    switched to avira, no popups. similar number of false positives as avast... i saw no difference between them. but really, who knows if they're working.

    is there a way to evaluate antivirus software? i mean, after it's 1.) no popups, 2.) not bloaty 3.) easy on the system 4.) convenient to use... how do you know if it actually works?

    I mean I could write a system tray app that's a "virus checker". and always tells you your system's ok... haha

    anyway, reading around, seemed like avast, avira, and avg were the best free ones. and after running avg and avast, I liked avira. but really, no idea who's the best.

    1. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by chill182 · · Score: 2, Funny

      This anti virus program also keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around do you? Bitsmack.com

    2. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by junglee_iitk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you sure it was Avast? Because it is Avira that gives popups asking for update.

    3. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      Seconded. Avira gives me about one popup per day asking me to upgrade.

    4. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by mxh83 · · Score: 1

      You get promotional popups with Avira. I use it cause it has the least overhead.

    5. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by Asgerix · · Score: 1

      It's quite easy to disable the popup, though. Just google for "disable avira popup". You can find a description here. The idea is to disallow the executable avnotify.exe to run.

      --
      Life is wet, then you dry.
    6. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by anderiv · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...but really, who knows if they're working.

      is there a way to evaluate antivirus software?

      Eicar (antivirus test file): http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

    7. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by Rigodi · · Score: 1

      I choose Avira three years ago after reading a comparaison test found on the net. Seemed to be tested quite honestly done by triggering attacks with several types of viruses.
      Avira went first but it was three years ago. I swapped from Avast that was a bit too fat for my system, Avira turned to be quite light with it.

      But today I would not be able to say which one is the best. So far so good, with Avira, no virus detected on my machine, thanks to it, to my firewalls (routers & desktop) and my surval habits on the net.

    8. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by xtracto · · Score: 1

      This anti virus program also keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around do you?

      Bitsmack.com

      Ahhh! so it *is* the antivirus what got chicks away from me uh? :( that's it, I am moving to Linux!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by EdgeCreeper · · Score: 1

      is there a way to evaluate antivirus software? i mean, after it's 1.) no popups, 2.) not bloaty 3.) easy on the system 4.) convenient to use... how do you know if it actually works?

      There are sites that test AV products, two are:

      Virus Bulletin and AV-Comparatives.

      These can be used to get an idea of the effectiveness of the product. As for 1, 2, 3 and 4 just trying the product will tell you about it. If one of those issues causes problems, discard the AV product and get another, this goes especially for the "easy on the system" requirement.

    10. Re:i stopped using avast because of popups by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I should have written upgrade

  39. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why do they make you download it?
    - it's to preserve their "partners'" (Symantec & company) market

    If MS was really, truly concerned about keeping malware off your PC, there'd be a free AV program installed when you got your PC, with automatic updates.
    But that would kill the market for independent AV software. And MS isn't really concerned about malware, except when it influences their profits. MS is certainly not concerned about the quality of your computing experience unless it involves you not purchasing any more MS products. // don't mind me, I run Linux, because I'm fed up with MS. // kids have switched to Apples for the same reason.

  40. I don't use anything. by andi75 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    - I let windows check for updates, but install them manually.
    - I mostly download my software from sourceforge / cygwin's mirrors (yes, I'm risking that those could be compromised).

    I haven't noticed anything fishy yet, and my WoW account hasn't been hacked in 5 years :-)

    1. Re:I don't use anything. by Inda · · Score: 1

      This is fine if you're old school; I do the same on my PC. Although I do upload some files to an online checker on occasion.

      The shared laptop is a different kettle of fish though. Who knows what dirty apps the women in this house will find on facebook?

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:I don't use anything. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Second this ; if you avoid risky behaviour and keep your computer behind a firewall, you can keep Windows infection free without installing software.

      Alas, "risky behaviour" includes the use of several of the most popular bits of Windows software - to whit, Internet Explorer, Adobe Flash, Adobe Reader, and also includes "letting a noob use your computer".

      My wife actually thought she'd infected my daughters netbook(*) with a bunch of trojans because a webpage showed her mocked up bitmaps from the Windows security dialogs alongside some ominous exclamation points and a "trojan counter". At least she asked. Many people would have installed the software that the page automatically downloaded which no doubt contained a trojan itself.

      My wife also wonders why I don't tell her admin passwords.

      (*) Not likely, because it's running Ubuntu Netbook Remix.

  41. A pretty good FREE anti-virus by Alanonfire · · Score: 2, Funny

    www.ubuntu.com Been using it for years and no viruses yet.

    1. Re:A pretty good FREE anti-virus by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I've got a Win3.1 'laptop' (okay, so its a luggable) sitting in my basement that will connect to the Internet and has no virus nor am I worried about it getting in it.

      Its just as useful and safe to me as your ubuntu box since it doesn't run a single application that I want it to run, not only because of its
      OS but also because its turned off.

      Yes, you've shown us that no one targets ubuntu because its practically useless to most of the world who prefers to run Windows so they can have the apps they are used to.

      Will you guys EVER figure it out?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:A pretty good FREE anti-virus by Alanonfire · · Score: 1

      Because, other than iTunes and Firefox, the average computer user has a ton of software that they use right?

    3. Re:A pretty good FREE anti-virus by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Will you guys EVER figure it out?

      Most of us (with any sense) figured that out years ago. The problem is that most business problems that are solved with software (eg. groupware, accounting, payroll or anything specific to a particular industry) really don't lend themselves to being developed using the bazaar model - frankly, the only way you'll get anyone excited about writing such software is by paying them. The distribution producers (RedHat, Ubuntu et al) are busy just putting together a moderately cohesive OS from all the software that's out there.

    4. Re:A pretty good FREE anti-virus by armanox · · Score: 1

      What apps (other then games) do I want to run that I don't have in the *NIX world? Or for that matter, that most people want to run?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  42. Avira/AntiVir by kroby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Avira get's my vote. Low resource use, high detection rate, and free for personal use. What more could you ask for? Since it is freeware the default installation has some nag screens, but those are easily disabled. http://www.elitekiller.com/files/disable_antivir_nag.htm

    1. Re:Avira/AntiVir by Four_One_Nine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      +1 I've put AntiVir on every computer I own. Very tiny footprint. Doesn't give me a bunch of crap I don't want.

      --
      I did it for Johnny.
  43. Avira... by guppz · · Score: 1

    I always found Avira Antivir personal edition very very good for detections. relatively lightweight but it does come with a nag window every once in a blue moon which can easily be turned off.

  44. MSSE by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft Security Essentials. It's really the only choice imo. All the others are trying to sell you something. Now, if you're willing to pay, there are perhaps better choices. The most important thing to remember is to not take it too awful seriously. All AV sucks, badly. It's reactive and it only detects a small percentage of the naughty things. It's the only option, but it sucks. MSSE is good.

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    1. Re:MSSE by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Actually I would say that being willing to pay puts you in a far far worse situation as I can't think of a single paid for product that is better than the free ones. The universal problem with the paid for ones is they are trying to distinguish themselves in a crowded market, they add uneeded features and options with fancy UI's that cause massive bloat and the inevitable crashes and issues that come with complex solutions, just look at Norton and Mcafee as prime examples of the garbage you get when you pay.

    2. Re:MSSE by toygeek · · Score: 1

      MSSE or any other antivirus should be complimented by Malwarebytes.org Anti-malware program. For $25 (not per year, its a one time fee) it will run in the background and keep malware from getting into the PC. Its an excellent product.

      Virus = common cold
      Antivirus = daily vitamins

      Malware = 9mm FMJ to the gut
      malwarebytes registered = Bullet proof vest

    3. Re:MSSE by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert on firearms or anything, but I do believe bullet proof vests are best at blocking hollow points and FJM goes through them fairly reliably... The cheapest armor anyway.

      Anyway, regarding your malware software. MSSE seems to include that anyway. Your best defense against it is reinstalling the OS anyway, why even bother with trying to clean it up. You can detect it with the naked eye (typically).

      I just fail to see the hullaballoo with all this software. All it really does is slow down your computer. Just plan on reinstalling your OS from time to time and quit taking it so seriously.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
    4. Re:MSSE by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

      If you want to play games, you wind up using windows. I do all my work in Linux. I make a really good living on Linux. All my email, code, and facebook statuses are written from a linux terminal. But when it's time to sit down and play games, I play them on windows like god intended.

      So, I did actually buy copies of XP, because I use it. I think that's fair. The bottom line is that if everyone (including your mom) used linux, then eventually anyone could be tricked (including your mom) into clicking some bit of malware and it would have no problem at all running on linux.

      In fact, I bet it'd be even harder to track down on linux since it could pick from all manor of cool hiding places. Your mom might really be inclined to type the root password if the malware were smart enough to pop up a gksudo. Problem solved. They can install simple shell scripts and to co-opt your already super powerful botnet node for their purposes!!

      Yeah, windows is a big pile of shit, but your argument is spurious. AV and malware detectors suck. Malware sucks. But signature based detectors are really the only choice for the time being -- maybe forever. As such, just pick something really easy to install and plan on reinstalling windows in a few months. You might even make it a couple years. Problem solved.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  45. None... by AdamTrace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At some point, I got fed up with running anti-virus software on my Windows XP PC. The benefits never appeared to outweigh the hassle. And AV software IS a hassle.

    After a year, I can't see any downside to this.

    Note that I'm a smart computer user who keeps everything patched and up to do, as well as knows how to configure a hardware router/firewall.

    1. Re:None... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's right. If you:

      • run as a non-administrator;
      • keep your software updated;
      • don't run suspicious code;
      • and don't use known-buggy programs like Internet Explorer

      why would you be more insecure under Windows than you be doing the same thing under OS X or Linux? Sure, the greater market share of Windows leads to more effort being put into creating malware for it, and that presumably increases the overall risk slightly. But that's a minor point. In general terms, used properly, a Windows system running without an antivirus package is adequately secure.

      The problem is that Windows users tend to have terrible security hygiene. They turn security features off, never update, and click the dancing bunnies. That's a separate, social issue. Never try to apply a technical solution to a social problem.

      These days, the Windows security model is pretty good; you can attach a security descriptor to practically any kernel object, and the NT kernel has supported ACLs since day one. Slashdot needs to stop living in 1999. We're not talking about Windows 98. You can't crash a machine by pinging it, and it doesn't blue screen every day. Hell, you can even keep it up long than 49.7 days!

      Bashing Windows today for the faults of the system a decade just makes you look ridiculous. It's like bashing Linux for not having hardware hot-plugging, or bashing Macs for not having preemptive multitasking. It's ludicrous. You want to bash Microsoft for pervasive DRM? Fine. You want to bash them for outrageous market segmentation? You want to bash them for their traditional embrace-extend-extinguish approach to standards? Fine. Want to bash them for still not having a real package manager in the OS? fine. Those are all still issues. But security and robustness aren't.

    2. Re:None... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Note that I'm a smart computer user who keeps everything patched and up to do, as well as knows how to configure a hardware router/firewall.

      I see a lot of people claim things like this. The question I ask every one of them, especially if they run XP (an outdated OS missing a number of modern security features, like application sandboxing and ASLR), is whether they run as Administrator or not. 95% still say Yes (beats the approximately 99.9% otherwise, but... still too high). Running as Admin is a *terrible* idea - you might as well be running Windows ME, in terms of security - yet far too many people do so anyhow.

      I'll grant you that running as a non-admin on XP or older is a pain - it was that pain which drove me to Linux in the first place. Now I dual-boot Win7 and Linux (Vista and Linux on my older machine) and things have worked out very well. I don't have any continuous monitoring AV running (I keep a copy of ClamAV for on-demand scans), I don't disable UAC or Protected Mode (in fact, I tweak the UAC settings and remove FlashPlayer's exemption regarding Protect Mode). A few UAC or sudo prompts a month is easily worth the extra protection that not running as Admin provides. Security is all about defense in depth, and relying solely on anti-intrusion methods is stupid.

      Yes, there's still a lot of harm that can be done with standard user permissions. However, most malware authors, especially for Windows, assume that their code will run as Admin/root, and therefore it would fail on my system anyhow. Furthermore, without Admin, malware can't make itself un-removable. It might send spam or DDOS attempts, but it couldn't edit my firewall settings, hide itself from task manager, install kernel-mode code, or prevent me from deleting it.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:None... by bunkymag · · Score: 1

      In general terms, used properly, a Windows system running without an antivirus package is adequately secure.

      The problem is that Windows users tend to have terrible security hygiene. They turn security features off, never update, and click the dancing bunnies. That's a separate, social issue. Never try to apply a technical solution to a social problem.

      I agree with your overall point, but this argument doesn't hold much weight. If people are going to click it anyway, why not provide them with some sort of protection, even if it's not perfect?

      It's like saying, in an uppity British lord accent, "Condoms? I have no need for the finickity things, and nor should anyone, poor or not! After all, I stay clean! Why aren't the rest of you as clean as me? Buck up I say, tally ho, pip pip".

    4. Re:None... by drfreak · · Score: 1

      I have a co-worker (actually our senior network engineer) who refuses to run anti-virus at home. He instructs his family to not click on links they do not recognise the source of and not to open e-mail attachments.

      Personally, I do run antivirus for my own home PCs for two reasons: Although I can instruct a teenager not to get click-happy, it is inevitable. Also, sometimes I want to visit the grey-areas of the internet, so I run Security Essentials even on my own PC.

      I actually haven't had a virus in years, but my family has, so running it for them is "Essential" because the last thing I want to do is spend a weekend re-installing windows and all the previously installed software again on my kid's PC.

  46. Avast registration by DaFallus · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Avast required free registration for Avast Home for quite a while?

    --
    No one cares what your captcha was

    Houston TX, USA
  47. Re:I dont use... by WinterSolstice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think your first analogy is more apt.

    Anti-virus may not protect against the 'heavy artillery' style attacks, but it does protect against the millions of older ones.
    Naturally, just like the Marine Corps can't protect people directly from shelling, it can protect them against some of the small arms fire, random bits of flying debris, and (most importantly) help keep them in contact with their command structure.

    Running a computer with no AV exposes you not just to massive malware, it exposes you to everything. It's nice to at least get an alert "Hi, program XYZ is attempting to send emails. Is this ok?" It also provides information back to the vendors (or should) regarding the most commonly found attacks.

    Just because you can't be 100% safe with any given product is no reason to abandon it entirely. You should still wear pants even though they don't stop bullets :)

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  48. PC-Tools AntiVirus/Spyware by MicahEli · · Score: 1

    I have been using PC-Tools Antivirus lately with good results. It seems to do the job very well while not killing my cpu time and memory/io.. Its also free and the license doesn't prevent using it for commercial use. You can get it from pack.google.com as well. If you need a version that'll install on Win2k3 server or higher, it'll need to come right from pctools.com.. The pack.google.com version is only for XP/Vista/7. Just my 2cents.

    --
    "I know this... this is a unix system" -- Jurrasic Park
  49. AVG + Common sense by SheeEttin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use AVG's free edition for on-access scanning, just for a little extra protection, because I am generally able to avoid getting infected with anything. (Even if something does slip by me, I can often track it down through a service it installs, entry in startup lists, or running processes.)
    If I'm downloading something that has a big potential for being a virus (e.g. a no-CD crack), I'll scan it manually with AVG, and also upload it to a scanning service like virusscan.jotti.org or virustotal.com, which take a file and put it through a number of anti-virus products.

    Natually, AVG has also been making it harder to find the free edition. They, of course, want you to buy the full AVG Internet Security package. (To find AVG Free, you have to go to free.avg.com, and look for the less-flashy, more hidden buttons.)

  50. I don't by riegel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Between my job, some side work and friends and family I manage close to 70 Windows machines. I have been doing IT since 1992.

    When I am asked this question my answer is always this. None. I think antivirus is more trouble than it is worth. First any new viruses will be undetected, second the pain of actually running anti virus outweighs any marginal benefit received from it.

    Of course this answer immediately creates a follow up question... Well then what do you do?

    The best way to protect yourself is to run as NON - ADMIN. That's it. A coworker recently got a virus and I simply logged in as admin and ran a free online virus scan. It found his problem and removed it.

    --
    http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    1. Re:I don't by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Considering how many privileged escalation bugs there are.... that's a really bad idea.

      Sure it was easy to remove that one specific virus. But it would have been safer if the virus didn't make it onto the machine in the first place.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:I don't by axor1337 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      YOU'RE an Idiot, 100% completely retarded. I think our a liar and know nothing about IT, Antivirus apps are essential. yes Norton, Mcafee and Trendmicro are a huge hassle and slow down your computer and don't work worth a shit, but AVG, AVAST, and MSE are all light weight free and easy to use. MSE is my fav. you need to stop giving bad advice.

      --
      there are 10 types of people in this world, those who read binary and those who don't. which are you!
  51. Re:Install a linux of some sort by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Web accelerator is nothing more than a cacheing proxy. install a proxy to replace it.

    emulators, sorry, but bothand more are available under linux.

    flash works fine.

    Opera 10 - dont know I dont use it.
    Realplayer-- WHY? Who cares?

    Ipod mp4 video works perfectly fine. did you even try?

    Sorry but 80% of all your claims have not been true for 2 or more years now, and some are simply forever false. I've played SNES games under linux for over 10 years now.

    I can add to your list that Linux will run IE6 and IE7 AND IE8 fine under wine. as well as REalplayer if you really want that.

    I'll try opera 10 tonight, but I suspect it will work perfectly under Ubuntu 9.10.

    Oh I can also play WMA and WMV files as well as other non linux file formats.

    P.S. I'm really sad for you, having to live with a Dialup ISP must suck. You cant get broadband at all? no WISP service? How about CDMA?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  52. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by kgo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's also the whole monopoly thing. They got into big trouble for bundling a free browser into windows. Because, I mean, what OS actually comes with a browser? (Of course things were a little different in 1995.)

    --
    Can you construct some sort of rudimentary lathe?
  53. Trinity by Tmack · · Score: 1
    Its probably not quite what you were looking for, but the Trinity Rescue Kit will boot directly into running several of the free virus scanners if you like (AVG (broken, soon to be removed too), Avast (coming soon), Vexira, F-prot, Clamav, and a bunch of people voting to get Avira added). Get an old 128Mb+ usb stick and use unetbootin to load the bootable image to it (or just burn the iso to cd), and make sure the computer in question is rebooted to it once a week or so (or whenever its "acting up"). It wont actively block things in windows (duh, its running from its own linux kernel on boot), but its a great off-line scanner that can scrape away some of the really nasty ones.

    Tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  54. Re:Install a linux of some sort by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 1

    I know we keep getting further and further off topic here, but I can't resist.
    Atari and Nintendo emulators are the only ones I run on my Ubuntu box (z26, Fceu, Mupen64Plus, Zsnes). Adobe Flash works fine (on a 32-bit computer anyhow, though I hear you can run the 32-bit plugin passably on 64-bit). Pretty much all of my videos are in MP4 format. The Dialup one I will give you, and I can't speak about your Opera problem (come to think of it, doesn't Opera 10 have a built-in accelerator?). When was the last time you tried Ubuntu?

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
  55. Re:Install a linux of some sort by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    Those web accelerators are hokey BS anyway.
    Many games run well in WINE - what game are you specifically trying to run?
    There are plenty of Atari and Nintendo emulators for Linux
    Flash runs in Linux, although admittedly it's a major resource hog compared to Flash for Windows
    Don't know about Opera 10. I'm happy with Firefox myself.
    RealPlayer - who the heck uses that any more?
    MP4 video - Um, there's probably 10 different ways to play this back in Linux, definately 2 ways without any doubt. Most common are mplayer and xine.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  56. And that kind of attitude is why... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ... the mythical "Year of Linux on Desktop" will NEVER come.

    You know, that self-righteous "fuck your needs - if you don't have the common sense to use Linux you are a fucking moron anyway"-approach to tech support.
    The guy asks nicely for advice on pest control for his apples (and probably his families', colleagues', customers'...), and he gets "Apples suck. Plant oranges. Or tangerines. Or lemons. Or some other citrus fruit."

    Do you also go around telling vegetarians how hamburgers are much better than lattice?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:And that kind of attitude is why... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Do you also go around telling vegetarians how hamburgers are much better than lattice?

      Actually, I do. :)

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:And that kind of attitude is why... by 2muchcoffeeman · · Score: 1

      I've found that while lattice is good for interior (and exterior) design work, it's not particularly nutritious and also doesn't taste as good as a properly-prepared hamburger. However, lattice probably has higher fiber content. That said, lattice made of pressure-treated lumber would probably be really bad for you in terms of toxic chemical content.

      I do, however, suspect that lattice made of untreated cedar would have an interesting flavor . . .

      --
      Prevent Windows piracy. Use Linux instead.
  57. Posted anonymously, so I don't get fired. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I run a network of -- well, it peaked at 70 XP SP3 workstations on a domain.

    IE(7) is hidden and FF3.0 or 3.5 on all desktops, with AdBlock Pro.

    Spybot 1.6 Teatimer in startup.

    Users are all non-administrator under domain control.

    In almost a year -- with *no* AV realtime at all -- we got bit exactly once, by Antivirus2009. Spot manual scans come up clean, done with a current Windows
    Ultimate Boot CD. No untoward flows seen out through the firewall.

    It may not be *about* viruses, anymore, per se, guys...

  58. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by adwarf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More likely, they don't want to find themselves with another antitrust suit from the western governments.

  59. Re:Install a linux of some sort by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

    Oh please - that's just trolling.

    There are Atari, Commodore, NES, SNES, Sega, and a variety of other emulators (and MAME).
    Flash has worked on Linux for ages. It's been out so long, it's even on PC-BSD by default.
    Opera 10 is available for Linux and BSD. Try their download page, and I confirmed it installs on Debian. http://www.opera.com/browser/download/?custom=yes
    Never tried RealPlayer. Can't help there :)
    Ipod-encoded MP4/AAC non-encypted works fine with handbrake and other such apps.

    There are plenty of reasons not to use Linux (preference, look and feel, specific games, photoshop, etc) but most of these aren't it.

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  60. ClamAV by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    I use ClamAV and now they have Windows client. http://www.clamav.net/

  61. I won't suggest you any specific software... by aylons · · Score: 1

    Mileage always vary. You may have speedier machine, a new one, or your client may be trying to get the last drop of juice from his 8-years-old Windows XP box. It may need to remove virus more often or will be better with a more reliable real-time detection. I suggest you to go to AV-Comparatives. They make nice (sometimes clever) tests and publish really extensive reports about them. Their tests are not limited to effectiveness (like the ability to detect viruses), but also to other aspects, as performance(meaning how AV affects system performance) or even "corporate reviews". Surprisingly to me, MS Security Essentials is doing quite well, according to their tests. Maybe an option for clueless users, as it's easy to use and nice to the system.

    --
    This comment may contain speech figures. Reader discretion is advised.
  62. AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

    Always used AVG -even tho I have to admit it has gone a bit crazy lately. My suggestion -get a Mac.

    --
    Death comes to those who wait.
    1. Re:AVG by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Your suggestion for what free antivirus to use with windows, excluding avast and AVG, is to get a mac........

      I can't think of a dumber (serious) response. Instead of suggesting a free software program, you have suggested an expensive hardware non-solution.

      I bet if someone asked about home security systems, you would suggest moving. From a car analogy standpoint of how bad your suggestion is, someone asked you how to tell the mileage when the odometer is broken, and you suggest getting new rims for the wheels.

      I'm all for reasonable, logical discussions on forums, but that suggestion does not fit.

    2. Re:AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

      Look. AVG and Avast have proven their point for quite a long period of time. If the person who posted this question cannot be asked doing the research for themselves and comes here -I'd definately ask them to change the hardware. And not necessarily for an expencive one. It'll spare you the trouble and lots of time (if you don't know it yet you're in for a surprise -Time IS money). Comments on a home security system and car are completely unneccessary.

      --
      Death comes to those who wait.
    3. Re:AVG by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Anti-virus software is necessary because of user behavior, not hardware. Buying an expensive mac or a cheap knockoff Chinese 'affle' computer will not stop you from getting computer viruses.

      The point of the examples is to illustrate why suggesting a mac is an inappropriate response to original question. Clearly the examples are necessary, because you still don't get it. Questions regarding what free options to use cannot be answered with expensive solutions, especially when they don't address the problem. As another example, if someone asked how to improve the battery life of their cellphone (to which the correct answer is of course don't use battery draining apps and make sure the phone goes to standby as default), you would suggest going out and buying an iphone.

      The article was titled "What free anti-virus do you install on windows?" The submitter was asking not for personal use, but for ease of installation and upkeep for helping out friends and family. The problems noted with Avast and AVG include - wait, why I am summarizing a paragraph for you? Go read it, like you should have in the first place.

      Now, if time is money (I really don't understand the thought process behind capitalizing random words in sentences, it adds no emphasis nor does it prevent mis-comprehension), you have wasted both by not reading the question and understanding it. Shame on you.

    4. Re:AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

      I offered a shortcut -buy a Mac. And to be completely honest -I would rather chew my foot off than buy an iPhone.

      --
      Death comes to those who wait.
    5. Re:AVG by kramerd · · Score: 1

      How is that a shortcut?

      Buying a mac for all of his friends and family? I don't see how that would reduce the time or energy required to lower the amount of calls from people due to the issues noted with avast and AVG.

      You didn't correctly respond to the topic, your solution to a question that wasn't asked was incorrect, and your response when this was pointed out to you was to claim that you were offering a shortcut. As a shortcut, this didn't address the issue either, it was just a faster response in which you incorrectly posted a non-solution to any question including the words "windows," "free anti-virus," and "suggestion." A minor glance at anyone else's response to the issue, never mind actually reading the 5 sentences (including the title) of the article would have let a rational person recognize that this was not a hardware issue. You are unbelievably wrong, and a pristine example of the downfall in quality of /. over the past couple of years.

    6. Re:AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

      Was the question about someones friends and family? Why wasn't that on the topic? You obviously (before suggesting or commenting on that topic) need to download commonsense.exe or visit findyoursenseofhumour.co.uk (I'd give you an US site but they don't make those) also have a look at getovermacbeingexpencive.whatever

      --
      Death comes to those who wait.
    7. Re:AVG by kramerd · · Score: 1

      Emphasis mine.

            Ask Slashdot: What Free Antivirus Do You Install On Windows? on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM
      Posted by timothy on Thursday March 18, @02:43PM
      from the is-clamav-no-longer-good? dept.
      security
      windows
      technology
      Techman83 writes "After years of changing between AVG Free + Avast, it's coming time to find a new free alternative for friends/relatives who run Windows. AVG and Avast have been quite good, but are starting to bloat out in size, and also becoming very misleading. Avast recently auto updated from 4.8 to 5 and now requires you to register (even for the free version) and both are making it harder to actually find the free version. Is this end of reasonable free antivirus, or is there another product I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?"

      You are an idiot. Don't post on /. anymore.

    8. Re:AVG by dskzero · · Score: 1

      That was really a pointless response. His argument is valid. Instead of suggesting a mac, you could have suggested some software that could work better. I mean, it's like you don't even bother to read up comments before zapping up some mac fanboyism.

      --
      Oblivion Awaits
    9. Re:AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

      Answer remains. Buy a Mac.

      --
      Death comes to those who wait.
    10. Re:AVG by punapea · · Score: 1

      Like I said I offered a quick way out of the problem (for the asker OR the askers family, dog, neighbours, their dogs...) I'm flattered out of my guts to have someone as qualified, well-trained and informed as you -my dear to enlighten me on this dark myriad of suggestions of making the world a better palce and interpreting the deep meaning of reading a slashdot story.

      --
      Death comes to those who wait.
  63. I install the only one worth installing by Smooth+and+Shiny · · Score: 1

    Avira AntiVir - http://www.free-av.com/ --- free version. It scores high on all independent tests and isn't crazy about hogging your resources or slowing your machine to a crawl.

    1. Re:I install the only one worth installing by Avalon's_Avatar · · Score: 1

      Another vote for Avira here.

      You may wish to have a look at these sites to help you decide:

      http://www.av-comparatives.org/

      http://www.av-test.org/

  64. Re:Install a linux of some sort by supremebob · · Score: 1

    Not that most people care, but Real does make a version of RealPlayer that installs via an .RPM file on their web site.

  65. http://www.malwarebytes.org/ by hduff · · Score: 1

    MalwareBytes has been effective for the few WinXP boxes I have to deal with.
    http://www.malwarebytes.org/

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:http://www.malwarebytes.org/ by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

      MalwareBytes is an awesome program, but it isn't anti-virus. There's no real-time scan.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
  66. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Just because you can't be 100% safe with any given product is no reason to abandon it entirely.

    I recently reinstalled Windows, and while I've historically used Avast, I opted to go with nothing this time around. I'm tired of resource usage and slower load times for everything thanks to antivirus; I've moved my e-mail to Google Apps, so they scan my e-mails for viruses. My use of Bittorrent is extremely limited (I only have it installed because Star Trek Online's installer is available via torrent), and I never visit the seedier side of the internet. I'm behind a firewall.

    Basically I'm not going to get a virus, so I see no reason to run anti-virus software. Rather than "Can't be 100% safe, may as well not use it", my reasoning is "I'm already 99.99999% safe, so why bother".

    (Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)

  67. Not sure about antivirus, but.... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    I understand that a lot of free virus are installed second on windows.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  68. Two words by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Windows Update.

    And stop clicking "Yes" to everything.

    That's all you need.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  69. I know I'm safe though by el3mentary · · Score: 1

    I use Windows Antivirus 2009.

    --
    I reject your reality and substitute my own.
  70. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by Goose42 · · Score: 1

    If MS was really, truly concerned about keeping malware off your PC, they'd rewrite Windows from the ground up so stupid crap like that isn't even possible, just like every other !@#$ing OS out there.

    There, fixed that for you.

  71. None - Too much of a performance cost by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I've found that anti-virus software is almost always more annoying than malware. In almost every instance the performance cost of anti-virus software quickly out weight the time it takes me to restore from a backup image.

    I've found this to be true of any software package (commercial or otherwise) that does on access scanning, which without on-access scanning theres no point to use the software for me since our servers can handle background scheduled scans using clam.

    I guess you could say I use clam running on FreeBSD accessing files via SMBFS on my Windows machines.

    With the exception of the BootCamp partition I have for gaming, my personal Windows instances are all VMs with lots of snapshots that I can roll back to should I come to a problem. Its just easier for me to use snapshots and virtual machines than to deal with av software. I have a method of creating new snapshot thats relatively safe (restore to a known good snapshot, install updates/known safe new software, immediately shut down and take a snapshot to work from in the future.

    AV would be easier, but all the time I spend waiting on compiles because the retarded AV software has to scan ever binary I make and probably is retarded enough to scan all the source files each access to just makes it too inefficient for my tastes.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  72. A better way of asking the question by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Which antivirus package do you infect Windows with?

  73. Re:Install a linux of some sort by nsstrunks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't see how the topic of different OSes relates to the topic of AV on a specific OS.

  74. Microsoft Security Essentials by TrevorDoom · · Score: 1

    It's free and works well.

  75. Re:Install a linux of some sort by Mr+EdgEy · · Score: 1

    - Atari or Nintendo emulators - Flash - Opera 10 (refuses to install) - RealPlayer - Ipod-encoded (MP4) video

    Huh? So really, you can do everything besides "games" and your dialup ISP. Linux isn't ready for the 2000 AOL desktop.

  76. Lazarus by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    You run it by getting set up with Lazarus. There is also Free Pascal for you. Both have good Delphi capabilities. GPC has merits, too. So you do have options if you were working on an electronic health records system.

    Someone has to "save your nation", in both senses. Why not you? Follow the Good $RANDOMCOLORGROUP Road with your hands, not just your pie hole.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:Lazarus by Corson · · Score: 1

      I have been a Lazarus and FPC fan for several years now. Believe me, it doesn't come close to Delphi.

  77. Panda Cloud AV by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

    http://www.cloudantivirus.com/en/

    I was looking for something better than MSSE for my wife's mothers PC. Her dad tends to stick to AVG (I'd rather him use something else but whatever)... I found the Panda Cloud AV after googling around wasting time. The reviews I've read are pretty positive, with some hick-ups listed in the forums but that's to be expected as it's a "Beta" and mostly related to UI.

    Another question I have about Free AV... has anyone found one that will work on a Server version of Windows? I have a small box that is running Server 2003 downloaded via Dreamspark, it's mostly just for fooling around with not actual server server roles. Every AV, even free, will refuse to install on it unless it's a Corp or Enterprise edition. Problem is, I don't have a ton of boxes I need a Corp or Enterprise edition on, and you can only get those versions of AV in 6 or more license packs for a pretty hefty chuck of cash. I will say I didn't try to install the Cloud AV yet, but I doubt it will work either. This machine doesn't have internet access unless I have it bridged via my laptop, it's mainly for just my internal lan use. Can anyone provide any feedback there?

  78. Windows??? by majesty2180 · · Score: 1

    What is this Windows of which you speak??? All joking aside, if it is just going to be used by me, I use ClamWin (www.clamwin.org). If my wife or anyone else is going to use it (the less "aware" folks in my life, I tend to go with something a little more thorough like Avast (albeit slower and a little more bloated.... thats even a little redundant). Avast has served me very well in the past, and would use it at the drop of a hat.

  79. Malwarebytes by Yeknomaguh · · Score: 1

    This is the one I use and reccomend to my not so tech savvy friends. It's very simple to use, free (for the basic version, which includes everything but scheduled scanning), and doesn't require registration. Its the only thing that got rid of that annoying fake windows security virus, so I've been really happy with it. www.malwarebytes.org

    1. Re:Malwarebytes by techdavis · · Score: 1

      Not an antivirus, though. It is a great tool, and I always install it, and recommend updating/scanning every couple weeks, but there is nothing active about it.

  80. Re:Install a linux of some sort by russ_allegro · · Score: 1

    >>>Install a linux of some sort

    Yep. And then I won't be able to run:

    - My Dialup ISP (the dialup is okay but the web accelerator refuses to run)

    web accelerator is an image compressor and is lame, so is dialup. If you really must, you can use a cache proxy instead.

    - Games

    You can get many games to run on Linux.

    - Atari or Nintendo emulators

    There are a lot of emulators for Linux

    - Flash

    There is flash for linux

    - Opera 10 (refuses to install)

    Never had a problem installing opera.

    - RealPlayer

    There is real player for linux

    - Ipod-encoded (MP4) video

    You can use ffmpeg with kino.

  81. Options for family support? by pavon · · Score: 1

    Yep that has always been my biggest complaint with Avast and Antivirus applications in general. I have no problem doing so on my computer, but it took me a long time to train my relatives not to enter personal information into random popups (or worse credit card info for the commercial options). I don't want to subvert that work now. Does anyone know of a reasonably priced product that I can reauthorize from my own computer, without it nagging the user? I am imagining getting an email when one of the subscriptions I manage is due to expire. Then I would go to a website where I can view the status of each subscription (when it expires, what version they are running, when it last updated it virus definitions, etc), and pay to renew. Options for emails when a computer has not been updated in a long time would be nice too.

  82. MS Virtual PC by dmmiller2k · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even better than fdisk: Microsoft Virtual PC.

    Create a VM and stash away clones of the files it creates.

    Browse the web in the VM with no protection. If it ever gets hosed by malware, just overwrite the VM files with the clones you made, and start over.

    What could be simpler? Of course, it's not for my 73 year old mom...

    --

    "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

    1. Re:MS Virtual PC by jimicus · · Score: 1

      You are assuming you'll notice if you get infected with malware. I've got news: there's a lot of malware around today which doesn't hog resources and stick out like a sore thumb. Zeus is one such, I'm sure there are others.

  83. Microsoft Security Essentials and Clam by DroppedAtBirth · · Score: 1

    I use Microsoft Security Essentials for my Windows 7 and Windows XP boxes, and use clam for windows 2003

    --
    Rob
  84. Cloud Immunity - ClamAV by richrumble · · Score: 1

    ClamAV is using Amazons EC2 Cloud. Real-time (upon execution) scanning, scanning on install, and scanning on service startup, as well as removal/quarantine. You do have to be connected however for the hash and heuristics checks to work. But best practices are much better than any AV any day. Don't use IE, don't run as admin, it is that simple: http://richrumble.blogspot.com/2006/08/anti-admin-vs-anti-virus.html -rich

  85. Just uninstalled AVG yesterday by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I just uninstalled AVG 8.x yesterday. I just want an virus scan software that I can keep on my system, and either manually scan a selected file on demand or occasionally scan a partition or the entire computer. I certainly don't want software that is running all of the time and using resources to snoop on my e-mail or scan every download. I supposedly have all of that extra snooping disabled in AVG. Yet I was appalled by all of the AVG processes that were running in the background, and further disgusted that they couldn't even be terminated in Task Manager (when I did try to terminate then it seemed two more started for every one that I tried to kill).

    So this is an interesting thread, I would sure like to find something that can be run on demand but otherwise doesn't waste cpu and memory resources when not needed. So far have not found it yet, and it is depressing that this topic isn't leading to any good choices.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Just uninstalled AVG yesterday by Arker · · Score: 1

      I used to the f-prot scanner on a boot floppy. They quit making the dos version though. I guess a keydrive with busybox and one of the linux scanners would be the way to go today. Regardless of OS, there is a logical problem with scanning the partition you booted from. Therefore the best policy is to always scan after booting from a clean (preferably write-protected) partition *before* scanning anyhow.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  86. AVG Purchase Popups by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    I installed the free version of AVG but uninstalled it because I started getting annoying pop-ups from the program asking me to purchase the full version. Which made absolutely no sense to me since one of the the programs functions is specifically to prevent those annoying pop-ups. It didn't instill much confidence in their product.

  87. Re:Why free? here's why! by petes_PoV · · Score: 1
    Looking at all the reviews, you can find studies that show pretty much any AV is the "best". they all have reviews (or tame reviewers) where they come out ahead of the pack. What that tells us in real life is the no single product is significantly better that any other. Under those circumstances, there are three approaches:

    - pick the most expensive, on the basis that it will have made the biggest investment in "getting it right"

    - pick any one at random, then select the reviews which show you've made the best choice

    - pick the cheapest

    If you're a doctor, you'd probably go for the first approach, if you're of the religious persuasion I'd expect you to plumb for the second and if you just want to get on with your wor, the third.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  88. I've tried them all. I use MSE. by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

    I have tried them all, I swear. Paid and free. And ALL of them annoyed me to no end, either with nagging, or slow-downs, or with pop-ups, or (shudder) VOICES that actually spoke out every freakin' time it updated its database...

    Until I tried Microsoft Security Essentials. Not only does it work as well or better than most of the others (paid or free), it's less of a resource hog, and doesn't nag or get in my face. It does it's job and says out of the way otherwise.

    I've NEVER been truly happy with an anti-virus package before. I'm kinda shocked that it's Microsoft's that I ended up being happy with, but that's the truth. I have since ripped out every other anti-virus on every other PC I use, home and at work, and use MSE exclusively now.

    --

    - Spryguy
    There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  89. Re:I've tried them all. I use MSE. by Yaddoshi · · Score: 1

    Same here - I never thought I'd say that I trust a Microsoft security product on my personal systems but I've steadily been making the switch across my network and I am satisfied. I've also found it capable of detecting malware that was missed by AVG during a cleanup of a friend's computer.

  90. A little known but great program: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    A friend recommended it to me. It’s called Zebu/Linus or something like that. I forgot. Something with a cow and a penguin... weirdly. ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  91. Change the language to French by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Funny

    HTH.

     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Change the language to French by Inda · · Score: 4, Funny

      "VIRUS base de données a été mis à jour"

      I just said that to the wife in my best Parisian accent. I'm getting lucky tonight!

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    2. Re:Change the language to French by selven · · Score: 1

      Change the language to French

      It is time to bring back the guillotine.

      There HAS to be a good joke to make here somewhere.

    3. Re:Change the language to French by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My wife just heard the word VIRUS and threw me out of the house.

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:Change the language to French by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Be super-french and pronounce it "Viroo"

      She might think it means virile and she gets another baby.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Change the language to French by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I just said that to the wife in my best Parisian accent. I'm getting lucky tonight!

      I take it that your wife is not Parisian, or French. and speaks no French. Possibly has never heard French spoken. And that your version of a Parisian accent involves licking your eyebrows.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  92. Immunet (also a cloud based) by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

    I'm trying another cloud based protection: Immunet http://www.immunet.com/. This probably one of the best uses I've heard for cloud computing. If a new virus is found, the signature is instantly loaded to the cloud so it can protect everyone else using Immunet immediately. You don't have to download signatures.

    You can also run this WITH another checker like AVG.

    --
    If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
  93. Av-comparatives by syousef · · Score: 1

    People have criticised the site and the report. I'll agree that nothing is perfect but it's the best I've seen.

    http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/summary/summary2009.pdf

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Av-comparatives by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      People have criticised the site and the report. I'll agree that nothing is perfect but it's the best I've seen.

      Well, duh. Any report that says Norton Internet Security is the best anti-virus is going to be called a big fat lie. See? I just called it one!

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  94. AVG, clamwin, adaware by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    We run AVG, clamwin (weekly scheduled run), and adaware on my wife's M$ XP Pro box.

    We liked AVG and ad-aware enough that we started giving them the money, and switched from free to paying for the licences.
    ***
    For my Debian box, I have clamav that I built from source code, and scan my box from time to time just for fun. It has never been compromised by virii, far as I know. I run it as an unpriviledged user, and sudo as needed for administrative tasks.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  95. Re:I dont use... by qortra · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just like the Marine Corps can't protect people directly from shelling, it can protect them against some of the small arms fire, random bits of flying debris

    Another effective way not to be shelled, shot, or hit by debris is to stay out of war zones. This is one of the ways in which suburban dwellers can justify not wearing body armor (except those living in Gary Indiana). Similarly, I choose not to use a virus scanner either because I find it cumbersome, and a poor performance to safety ratio.

    It's nice to at least get an alert "Hi, program XYZ is attempting to send emails Is that nice? I find that when my computer constantly questions me about what I am trying to do, I can become annoyed. For instance, I much prefer my Debian based systems that don't generate a pop-up every time one of my programs tries to make an incoming tcp port live.

    You should still wear pants even though they don't stop bullets

    I guess it's your turn to make an unsuitable analogy (perhaps the emoticon indicates you were doing so purposefully, I can't tell). Not all people should wear pants. Those who should wear them do so because it because (a) it's cold, (b) social pressures encourage modesty in some venues, or (c) local laws or dress codes sometimes require them. None of those has to do with safety. Virus checkers, unlike pants, don't really have any upsides beyond the supposed safety factors - don't pretend that any AV software is nearly as versatile as a comfortable pair of jeans.

  96. Re:Install a linux of some sort by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

    Is dial-up even fast enough to get modern viruses? :P

  97. Re:Install a linux of some sort by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

    Adobe Flash works fine (on a 32-bit computer anyhow, though I hear you can run the 32-bit plugin passably on 64-bit)

    The 64-bit flash alpha works well, too.

  98. GNU alternatives: by sageres · · Score: 1

    Clamwin http://www.clamwin.org/ virusscanner with ClamSentinel http://clamsentinel.sourceforge.net/ that provides on-access scanning. It works wonders for me!

  99. Microsoft Security Essentials by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft Security Essentials is all you need for non-enterprise A/V.
    It's free, it's unobtrusive and it works very well. What's more, commercial AV vendors, like Symantec, realise what a threat it is to their business model and have published a lot of FUD about you get what you pay for - however all the benchmarks I've seen have it ranking up there with the best of them.

    The only reason to go for a commercial AV package is if you need a management and reporting console to manage a large number of computers.

  100. Whatever Hypotoad tells me to use. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    all hail hypnotoad.

  101. I check the scored on Virus Bulliten and... by techdavis · · Score: 1

    I check the scored on Virus Bulletin http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary and AV Comparitives http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/summary/summary2009.pdf to get the best available. I have used Avast! for years with great success, and recently started using Microsoft Security Essentials, both of which are VB100 rated. I like the small footprint of the new MS offering, and the fact that it has such a high detection and low false-positive rating. So far so good, even on my in-laws' laptop.

  102. Avast registration a new thing? by LordLimecat · · Score: 2, Informative

    Avast has always required a registration key, and is now easier than ever to do-- you just click the button from within the program and it does it.

    As for good free AV, theres Avira, Avast, and MSSE, all of which are decent. More to the point, antivirus is the LEAST important thing you can do for friends and family-- FIRST, install firefox, update IE, uninstall Adobe Reader, and install foxit. This will prevent 100x more viruses than any AV will.

  103. Firewall too by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    How about extend this question to firewalls..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Firewall too by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      For the vast majority of people simply enabling the builtin windows firewall is by far the best option.

  104. Free , for how long by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You know they are just trying to beat out the free ones.. Once the free ones are gone they will target pay versions... then wipe them out and start charging.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  105. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

    If MS was really, truly concerned about keeping malware off your PC, there'd be a free AV program installed when you got your PC,

    And a complimentary anti-trust case against them to boot.

  106. Avast versus free ISP commercial versions by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

    Previous versions of Avast also required registering but they would send the key string usually in a few minutes of registration. I used it up until my ISP offered a commercial version for free. My whole family uses computers but none want to be bothered with running scans or updating antispyware so they have the free commercial version. It does slow the machines down a little but they are no longer bothered with having to do tasks as they are done in the background. If I get a virus on the systems then I may go back to avast but for now Symantec is ok.

  107. Re:I dont use... by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

    Well, that is certainly a choice. Using a firewall for example provides you with a much safer neighborhood - though it's still only 3 blocks from the warzone ;)

    Not sure if you check your firewall logs regularly, but I see dozens of port scans and intrusion attempts on my firewall every day.

    Regarding the pants? Yes, that was intended to be humorous. Obviously nudists and several cultures dispense with pants entirely. Still sucks when you sit on a rough park bench though :D

    --
    An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
  108. Good idea to have multiple defenses by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    It is my opinion that it is always a good idea to have more than one protection product on a M$ PC, as some malware may not be detected on any one particular product.

    Just thought was worth mentioning.

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  109. My take on the free antivirus by G00F · · Score: 1

    AVG - I use to have people use this, but it was not protection people, most of them got viruses that AVG couldn't find.
    Avira - Better than AVG, do custom install, may need to change some options.
    Avast - Better than AVG, do custom install, may need to change some options. Talking is annoying . . .
    Winclam(clamAV) - file scanner only, Its ok. Good as a 2nd protection measure. I use (clamav) on my firewall for all FTP/HTTP traffic.
    Panda Cloud Antivirus - Haven't worked with it much, but I know panda AV has been a solid performer in AV for quite some time.

    The best based on experience (and always do well in tests) is either trendmicro or kaspersky. Yes, they cost money, but $20 is well worth it. I feel bad when I fix peoples PC's using their products, and leave them with some free AV in hopes it keeps them clean. At least I suggest they buy one of those two products for better protection.

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
  110. AV Comparative by kubajz · · Score: 1

    I had the same question two weeks ago, and www.av-comparatives.org helped tremendously by providing comprehensive comparisons of free options such as Avira, Comodo, AVG, MSE and Avast in detection, proactive protection, performance and all-around usefulness. Depending on which of these you value most, I am sure their report summaries can be useful for you.

  111. Re:Ummm... by tepples · · Score: 1

    So change your IDE & program your own games for Linux

    So I've programmed the game. Now what models, textures, maps, and audio do I put into it? And to whom can I distribute copies of a Linux-exclusive game for a fee in order to pay my rent and food while I program the next game?

  112. Re:Ummm... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    Okay, so I gave a slightly over-simplistic precis of the task at hand... I can take that as a criticism! :-)

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  113. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's also the whole monopoly thing. They got into big trouble for bundling a free browser into windows. Because, I mean, what OS actually comes with a browser? (Of course things were a little different in 1995.)

    In 1995, the two main alternatives to Windows - OS/2 and MacOS - both came with browsers.

  114. 2 Comments! by Froppy · · Score: 1

    2 comments.. the first one will respond to your post. The 2nd comment will get all sorts of flames. 1. Panda Cloud Anti-Virus is pretty nice. It's pretty lightweight, kinda does its own thing and doesn't get in the way. I've had relatively good success with it. It has cause the internet to stop working one computer.. but a restart fixed it. 2. No Anti-Virus. Here's the deal.. these days most things aren't even stopped by a great, full featured anti-virus prior to get infected. Sure.. it'll catch some things or some parts of a virus, but in the end you'll still be infected and still need to have the computer cleaned off. They aren't worth the hassle any more in my opinion. They slow stuff down, don't catch 90% of what's out there and if you're not stupid.. you don't need one. I've been running about 10 PCs around my house for a good 10 years and have never once been infected with anything (and.. just for fun I've ran full scans with stuff before.. never once found anything). Anti-Virus is overrated. No matter if your'e talking your 90 year old grandma or yourself.. in the end, if someone gives a virus/spyware access/allow it to be installed.. it's going to bypass an AV anyway and the PC will be infected.

    1. Re:2 Comments! by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Ok first off 'wall of text' critted me for 10k damage.

      Secondly I agree; no antivirus running on the machine you wish to protect will do you any good against realistic threats.

      The only realistic antivirus so far as I can see is to boot from a live CD every so often and to have that scan your system while it is offline.

      The live CD would need to be prepared on a machine that you can reasonably expect not to be infested, say a Linux machine dedicated to this purpose.

      But thats basically it; hypervisor rootkits mean that any antivirus running under the OS you wish to protect is completely hopeless.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  115. Free antivirus and stuff..... by Vanderwaife · · Score: 1

    I've used Comodo's free Home & Home Office products

  116. Re:I dont use... by dskzero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're talking as if you only get virus while actively looking for them.

    --
    Oblivion Awaits
  117. Re:I dont use... by gangien · · Score: 1

    I used to run the same way. only problem i ever ran into was a counter strike map i dled off a popular site, had some sort of winrar exploit apparently. installed some crap.

  118. Re:I dont use... by Smauler · · Score: 1

    I'm basically in the same boat as you. I never run anything I don't actively go out and get. This simple rule has kept me virus free for 10 years, running win2k and Vista in the last couple of years, no antivirus or firewall (most of the time)

    I realise anyone with any kind of technical nouce could probably hack my machine, but I've been surfing and downloading and using the internet for that long, and have had no deleterious effects. I did get a virus on my win2k box about 10 years ago (I think it was actually from a file from a friend, but it's been that long that I don't remember), it corrupted a few files and was pretty easily removed - a couple of hours. IIRC, I did have antivirus active scanning on at the time. I have saved hours and hours by not dealing with antivirus at all since.

    Basically, my advice to people who are relatively savvy is not to bother with antivirus. Once antivirus detects anything, it's generally too late. AV can be useful for people who have _no_ clue, but they're bound to get infected anyway sooner or later.

  119. Re:Sebfgl Rapelcgrq Cvff by Prosthetic_Lips · · Score: 1

    Eep! Should I call the police myself, or ... wait, who's at the door? (&(*@ofiw9* [signal lost]

  120. I use this by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

    Use this Screenshot of my web browser as a reference for programs to install and I personally guarantee you'll never have another virus again.

    --
    Loading...
  121. The Panda is a Scientologist! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    A business publically distancing themselves from the Scientology cult and no longer being connected, are two different things.

    The Scientology cultists are all about *money*, so if a "church" connection is detrimental, they would probably try to hide it. That's the way cults are.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  122. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    No, I'm talking as if you only get viruses by downloading random crap from unknown places. (Also by using thumb drives that have touched public computers, but I don't do that either.)

  123. Re:I dont use... by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used to think this way as well. Although, I had a virus scanner installed for scanning downloads, I did not have it actively scanning. Turns out my thinking was as flawed as yours. The problem is that with one vulnerability in your web browser or a browser plugin, malicious code can be executed and that code may run a bunch of detectable viruses. This exact problem happened to me when I was surfing the internet checking out some information on a game I was interested in. Randomly out of nowhere my computer started crawling and upon loading task manager I saw tons of processes spawning. (I shut down promptly and fixed using another computer.) After all was said and done it turned out whatever the exploit was had installed a bunch of different viruses. It was a very interesting attack that I had never expected, just as you have not.

    This of course assumes that you browse the internet, which I assume you do.

  124. Re:I dont use... by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    It's analogous to chain mail armor; it's effective against old weapons like broadswords and crap, but completely useless against guns. Today's malware are the equivalent of heavy artillary and most antivirus software is akin to chain mail or even leather armor.

    Actually, it's more like a siege engine, with the first line of defense being whether the user chooses whether or not to open the gates. Of course, the user controls whether to open and shut the gates...

    Of course, even if the gates are closed, the siege engine may still break through the wall via a security hole.

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  125. Microsoft Security Essentials or Avira AntiVir by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

    Take your pick. Microsoft Security Essentials used to be OneCare (now free), Avira has had a decent free offering for years.

    --
    "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
  126. WTF? by cawpin · · Score: 1

    "both are making it harder to actually find the free version"

    Yeah, http://free.avg.com/ is really difficult.

    I personally use MSE now because AVG started getting a little bloated before 9.0 came out.

    1. Re:WTF? by taustin · · Score: 1

      There are several points where the obvious, default choice - including one during the installation procedure - is to upgrade to a paid version. It's dishonest, IMO.

  127. Re:I dont use... by dskzero · · Score: 1

    Well, while that isn't entirely true, I gotta give that it's the most common way of infection. But since I can't give an example out of my head of auto-installers or something similar, I will simply agree. No need to argue, anyway. That said; i still believe the worst offender are relatives using your computer. Something will always end up wrong.

    --
    Oblivion Awaits
  128. Nagware by jwietelmann · · Score: 1

    Tried the free version once. It gave me a nag screen after updates. I switched back to Avast the next day. I think I'm going to try MSE next, based on recommendations from other comments.

    Short story: free Avira = nagware = no thanks

  129. My Anti Virus by teknosapien · · Score: 1

    Is either Linux or FreeBSD

    --
    no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
  130. This is Easy by empathjoe · · Score: 1

    After using AVG Free for many years I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials and haven't looked back. Tiny footprint and up to date definitions make this not only the best free A/V available but one of the best all around A/V programs out there.

  131. Re:Install a linux of some sort by mugnyte · · Score: 1

      You may want to get a version of linux made after 2000.

  132. Comodo by mr_than · · Score: 1

    I've been using Comodo Anti-virus (http://antivirus.comodo.com/) for a while now. Started with their firewall a while ago and then they bundled the AV. Good timing because AVG was bloating out at the time. I've had good experiences with this and most of my siblings now use it to and I pretty much get no support calls now. I don't use the Defence+ thing most of the time though.

  133. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    That depends on what you mean by "browse the internet". I visit a very small list of sites, and rarely visit anywhere else. If I don't recognize domain name in a URL, I probably won't go to it.

    But you're missing the point. I'm not claiming I'll never get a virus. I'm claiming I'll most likely never get a virus.

    Even if I do somehow get a virus sometime in the next two years, to me it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower file loads just to avoid the chance.

  134. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I wouldn't let my sister touch my computer. The last computer I had to remove viruses from was hers... I've never seen a computer with so many viruses. Spent like five hours trying to remove them, but finally gave up and reformatted, saving what documents I could.

  135. Re:I dont use... by Mitsoid · · Score: 1

    With a good firewall in the middle and no other computers on your network that are compromised, you can run without AV quiet safely..

    Now I have a roommate that I would NOT recommend abandoning AV.... but even with him doing his downloading I very, very rarely run into virus issues (4 years clean now, actually)...

    I've come to the conclusion that with proper preventative steps to lower your risk (i.e. not using IE, etc.), Flash/Adobe plugins disabled in Firefox unless I need them... Your risk of getting a virus is a LOT lower.

    1) Download and visit only safe/trusted sites
    2) Don't use Internet Explorer
    3) Disable plugins for IE anyway, and disable firefox plugins unless needed
    4) Don't use Outlook for e-mail
    5) Always be behind a firewall, regardless of what the idiot from your ISP tells you to do to
    6) A few other tips but are mostly common sense >.>

  136. Vipre by Teunis · · Score: 1

    I've been using Vipre Antivirus since I started working as a computer tech. 90+% of the machines I see every day are highly infected and that so far has caught and cleaned all but one type of infection - Alureon/TDSS.y (which it will stop and remove just fine). Microsoft Security essentials gets that one (and cleans it out correctly, leaving a system capable of booting afterwards). Microsoft Security Essentials otherwise is about 80% as effective... again, sufficient unless you're in a "toxic" environment as I am.

  137. Re:I dont use... by dropadrop · · Score: 1

    All you need is an add from some trusted site and you are screwed. It could even be a banner on a major car manufacturers home page.

  138. Re:I dont use... by Hafnia · · Score: 1

    Basically, my advice to people who are relatively savvy is not to bother with antivirus. Once antivirus detects anything, it's generally too late. AV can be useful for people who have _no_ clue, but they're bound to get infected anyway sooner or later.

    Wrong , if the AV software reacts it's normally because it's actually doing it's job and preventing infection. One or two times a year NOD32 informs me of an infected file and i let it delete it. At work i often get notifications from Trend Office Scan that a couple of files on some users computer have been infected,detected and deleted. So in my experience AV software is mandatory ..... even on my own machine, and i believe i know what i'm doing. What i don't understand is the obsession with free ..... nothing is free, really. I don't mind paying an unsubstantial amount of money for beeing protected against loss of data , and more important for me , the hassle and time involved in a format and réinstall.

  139. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    I use Adblock Plus :)

    I only disable adblock on two sites right now, and that only because I feel they deserve the ad income.

  140. Re:I dont use... by Orm · · Score: 2, Informative

    I do work with network security (that is, I monitor clients traffic on a network, looking for suspicious traffic) and I can tell you that Bittorrent is not the way people get virus/malware today. Neither is it via the network (a worm), and seldom via e-mail.

    It is by visiting a website, which contains malware via Flash, Iframes and/or Ads. A so-called drive-by. This usually happens either by someone linking to a "dangerous" website in Facebook, Twitter or a public forum and saying it's a funny video of some kind. Or a popular website has gotten an Ad from a 3rd party where the Ad contains some dangerous Flash-code.

    As long as you do not run the latest version of Firefox/IE/Adobe Flash/Adobe Acrobat Reader and you are at the wrong site at the wrong time, you get infected! And sometimes the latest version of that software is exploitable too.

  141. Re:I dont use... by Reapman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've recently had to reinstall Windows at home as well. This time I'm trying out Windows 7's XP Mode. Since it hides the Desktop and integrates the app (in this case Firefox with NoScript) to Windows 7 other then a few seconds extra to start the app it seems to work decent enough. Reminds me a lot of Parallel's on my Mac.

    Inside the VM I have the AV, Anti Spyware, and Firewall running. But when I shut down the browser the system isn't bogged down with such crap. Takes up more resources while the browser is up, but less when it's not.

    Will see how it goes but I think it might be a nice way of getting the best of both worlds. Just a thought.

  142. Re:Ubuntu by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Funny

    I installed the Ubuntu anti-virus and now everything looks different and my games and a bunch of Apps I use don't work!

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  143. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    I can tell you that Bittorrent is not the way people get virus/malware today.

    I didn't mean that Bittorrent itself is a vector for virus propogation, only that back in my high school days when I pirated things via P2P networks, most every pirated game came laden with viruses. I suppose I simply assumed that pirated games obtained via P2P networks today would also have that problem.

    Yeah, I can see drive-by infections being more of a problem. Of course, as one of the guys on my Steam friends list could tell you, it takes me a long time knowing you before I'll trust random links you send me.

  144. I'll second "none." by fortfive · · Score: 1

    My office mate runs no AV. When we first started sharing an office, and I discovered she used no protection, I was shocked and convinced her to let me install one. It found no viruses or malware, and so slowed her machine she demanded I remove it, which I did. She's a lawyer, older, and not at all tech saavy. Of course, she never looks at porn.

  145. Re:Ubuntu by Again · · Score: 1

    Come on mods, a +3 troll at least.

  146. Re:I dont use... by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is why I would recommend to TFA that he install Comodo as so far the detection rate has been excellent. It's free, doesn't suck up resources (currently using a whole 10Mb) has a MUCH better firewall than the one built into Windows, is easy for noobs to use, in short it "just works".

    So if he wants something simple, easy, and free, with a really good detection rate and no bloat, I'd go with Comodo. I've even given it to my most clueless family members and so far nobody has had a bit of trouble understanding or using it. Comodo tries to make the alerts in plain English, doesn't pop up alerts unless there is something reasonable, very easy to manage. But you are right running without AV in this day and age is just stupid, especially when there are good AV programs like Comodo that doesn't cost a penny.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  147. if this isn't redundant, slap yourself, but... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    best free antivirus alternative = linux.

    just sayin'...

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  148. Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, running as non ADMIN on windows XP creates problems. One example is when a software updates, it can stop to work. I've had the case with firefox. Firefox will update silently and on the next reboot, the software won't start, producing an error.

    Also, it doesn't prevent malware from installing but only limits the how deep malware can infect the windows OS.

    --
    Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
    1. Re:Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. by riegel · · Score: 1

      Your comment validates my point. It does work. It makes software difficult to install. Virus work best when they are easily installed.

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
    2. Re:Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. by clarkie.mg · · Score: 1

      Your comment validates my point. It does work. It makes software difficult to install. Virus work best when they are easily installed.

      If your strategy against malware is to make the system unusable then i don't think you are doing a great IT support work.

      If microsoft introduced UAC in windows vista, it's for that precise reason, some software need administrative rights otherwise they stop working.

      And having limited rights doesn't stop malware, it just limits the damage to one account but it can still do whatever it usually does : using your computer in a botnet, slowing your internet connection, bombard dubious ads, steal information, send spam and of course infecting other computers.

      --
      Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
    3. Re:Doesn't work, unfortunately, on XP. by riegel · · Score: 1

      If usability is defined as letting anything do whatever it wants at any time without the users knowledge on a system then I suppose running as admin would solve that problem.

      Actually my strategy is to minimize down time in the event a system gets infected. Using anti-virus as a strategy will make that down time much longer than simply not running as admin.

      Your point that a person can still get a virus when not running as admin is moot since the exact could be said for the person running anti-virus software. But if a person is not running as admin the damage is greatly mitigated. Not to mention your chance of getting one are greatly mitigated also since it is more difficult to exploit a limited account than a full admin account.

      What software needs full control of a system? And why? Those are questions one should ask when managing any type of system

      --
      http://p8ste.com - Web based Clipboard
  149. Avira,Iobit 360/Advanced System Care,Malwarebytes by relaxinparadise · · Score: 1

    Avira rates consistently high on the AV-Comparatives.org site and even with high heuristics set, the overhead on the system is far lower than AVG or Avast. I use Iobit 360 with Advanced System Care to take care of threats other than virii, Peerblock and Windows Firewall behind a NAT router to keep things away and Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, a Kaspersky and Avira BootCD to clean anything if anything gets past the other layers. Just like when it gets cold outside, nothing protects better than layering.

  150. I don't think it matters by inkrypted · · Score: 1

    I also run Windows 7 on my gaming machine and I think you get just as much protection using the freebies as a good host file or a black hole DNS. I think it's not a question of if you will get a virus surfing or downloading with Windows but when and how destructive. My personal vote is for ClamWin. The new version features an add in for Outlook, scheduled scans, and a high detection rate. It is however not proactive but you can always pair it with a program like Winpooch.

    --
    Chris Sheppard
  151. Re:I dont use... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    (Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)

    Do you use FlashPlayer or Acrobat Reader, and if so do you run them as Admin? If so, you're not safe. There are numerous exploits for both, and Adobe is very slow about patching them. If your browser is configured to prompt you before downloading/displaying PDFs, then you at least have a chance to block those - I've had several completely legit sites attempt drive-by PDF downloads to my system, presumably containing malware (no other reason a webcomic or forum would try to send my a PDF upon loading the main page). For FlashPlayer, your only safe options are disable it or sandbox it. I went with sandboxing once I figured out how, and before that disabled it except for specific uses on specific sites.

    Of course, if you run as Admin/root you're *still* asking to get hosed. That's just a terrible idea all around. Zero-day exploits happen, and the attacks can come from pretty much anywhere. Short of disconnecting entirely, the best you can hope for is that they do little to no damage (most malware expects full access and won't run if it doesn't have it).

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  152. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    Why do they make you download it?

    it has more to do with not being sued by mcafee, norton, et al. than anything else. remember when microsoft tried to give you a browser for free? now they are being forced by law to implement a "browser chooser" that runs at OS install time.

    MS is certainly not concerned about the quality of your computing experience unless it involves you not purchasing any more MS products.

    surprise, but no company is concerned about you in any way at all other than whether you will buy and continue to buy more of their products.

  153. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder what sort of nefarious sites you people are visiting that you get attacked by drive-by PDF downloads. I've not once had this happen to me.

    Similarly, what nefarious sites are serving you malicious Flash? The only Flash-enabled sites I ever visit are Youtube and Hulu, and it's hard to believe *those* sites would let themselves get compromised. I have adblock blocking flash ads.

    As for running as admin... have you ever tried running Windows XP as non-admin? I have to, on my work laptop, and it's so much of a pain that for a personal machine you're better off taking the risk running as admin.

    Windows 7's got its little UAC thing, and I don't run Linux as root...

  154. Should all be in your respoitories, even by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    FlashPlayer, Acrobat Reader, RealPlayer, and Opera are all available for Linux. On my distro (openSuse) they're in the official "NON_OSS" repository, and will happily install and update automatically using the package manager.

    Installing support for the Microsoft, Apple, and Real codecs, plus DVD decoding (without installing RealPlayer, which I hate) was also quite easy. These are in "community repositories" that the package manager suggests when you select "Add repository"; you don't even have to enter the URL or anything yourself.

    I don't use console emulators personally, but I've noticed quite a variety of them in the repositories. NES, SNES, N64, several Atari, and others were all present.

    As for games, there are a couple of good games available for Linux natively (Battle for Wesnoth and Heroes of Newerth come to mind, but there are many others). The majority of games will also run, often flawlessly and with similar performance, under Wine; I play WarCraft 3, StarCraft, Total Annihilation, EVE Online, Heroes of Might and Magic III, and more using this method. Don't get me wrong; there are games that won't work. However, they're actually rather rare these days.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  155. Re:Install a linux of some sort by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    linux (unbuntu 9.10) won't play a DVD out of the box. don't need to ramble on about why, it doesn't matter. that's the type of thing that absolutely must work out of the box for linux to be viable on the desktop.

    also, linux doesn't run IE6, 7, or 8 under wine. the best (most supported) version, according to the wine app DB is IE7 with silver support,
    http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=4195

    from that page, i think this sums it up: "What works: Nothing"

  156. Re:I dont use... by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Using nothing you leave yourself open to infection from sites you use often but has been compromised and had unwanted 'additions'. Even very well known and trusted sites to fall victim to SQL injection or cross site scripting attacks...

    Having no virus scanner is like sleeping with 3 different women every night and not using a condom... one of them is going to have all the nasties and you will end up all swollen and sore with a doctor poking your soft bits and muttering 'who's been a naughty boy then'...

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  157. Re:Install a linux of some sort by yelvington · · Score: 1

    After seeing this thread, I installed Opera 10 on Ubuntu 9.10. Point, click, done. Posting with it now. Seems to work OK, but nowhere near as fast as Chrome.

    I long ago standardized on cross-platform applications. After my most recent hardware upgrades (new Acer personal laptop, Macbook for work) I blew away Windows 7 and Snow Leopard and switched both to Ubuntu Karmic Koala. On my hardware, it all Just Works. Don't have to worry about viruses. Couldn't be happier.

  158. I support what I use by markdavis · · Score: 1

    > for friends/relatives who run Windows.....
    > I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?"

    I feel for you.

    I am the only computer geek in my whole extended family and many of my friends. I refuse to support MS-Windows at all. Period. They all know I use Linux exclusively, and I can honestly say that I have no idea how to deal with or remove virii/malware. I will offer general advice about brands, equipment, peripherals, etc, but will not touch their machines nor walk them through anything. I will even give them the phone number of a nice, local shop that does computer work for reasonable prices (and I like the people and trust them; plus I like supporting the local economy and small shops that also offer Linux systems and support too).

    But I also offer 100% support for any of them who want to run Linux. And four of them do, and I do everything I can to make sure their systems are setup properly, backed up regularly, work the best possible, answer questions, perform updates, etc.

  159. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, it's not like that at all. It's like sleeping with the same woman every night while taking the chance that someone has come by and stuck her with a needle she wasn't aware of.

    The chances of that happening are extremely slim.

    So... the sites I use often. When was the last time Ars Technica or Slashdot was compromised with something spreading a virus? How about Penny-Arcade or xkcd?

    I haven't said it isn't possible, I've only said I'm willing to risk the extremely small chance that I'll get a virus.

  160. Re:I dont use... by eyeareque · · Score: 1

    You're more likely to get infected via a driveby attack anyway. Plenty of well known sites are being hacked through SQL injections. Malware is then served to you through the attacked sites. Malware/Virus writers have the upper hand at the moment, but I see this changing in the coming months.

    Also: It is well known that AV is an outdated and obsolete technology. Malware changes so often (once a day or faster in some cases) that AV companies can't keep up with their signatures. Malware is now written to evade detection from AV products. There is no one paid or free AV/anti-malware that will keep you safe. There is also no way to keep your windows box tuned to be completely secure. cyber criminals make big money off of 0-day IE, FF, Acrobat, and Flash vulnerabilities... so you can bet they are using them.

    For now, you can use a mac :) but we will see how long that holds true. The more popular macs become. the more attacks will start showing up.

    This is one product that gives me hope that we can someday fight off malware: http://www.fireeye.com/products/4xx0/index.html "FireEye security appliances detect modern malware using real-time, multi-protocol content analysis within virtual machines." (and no, I don't work for them;))

    And yes, you are going to get a virus/malware, unless you disable all USB ports, ethernet ports, modems, cd rom drives, etc.

  161. I've given up on anti-virus software. by maillemaker · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I just bought a new computer, and installed Windows 7 on it.

    I have decided to forego antivirus software.

    It seems to me that these things, like DRM, are circumvented nearly instantaneously. In fact, I have come to view computer security just like DRM - a futile endeavor.

    I know not to run .exe files from emails, and I know not to download and install files I don't trust. I'm behind a hardware firewall.

    I've run AVG for years, and never had a detection.

    That's going to be the extent of my efforts.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  162. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It wasn't just they were shipping a free browser with the OS. It was integrated with the OS. A bad idea even by today's standards. Why do it then? Embrace, extend, extinguish (or own) the internet. Sounds laughably evil? Sure it does.

  163. Re:I dont use... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

    Finally, someone actually takes the trouble to address the OP question. Thanks.

  164. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    And yes, you are going to get a virus/malware, unless you disable all USB ports, ethernet ports, modems, cd rom drives, etc.

    I think you're being far too pessimistic.

    Tell you what. One year from today -- I've put it on my calendar -- I'll post on my blog the results of a virus scan and a malware scan. We'll see whether I can stay virus-free for a year.

  165. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    More FUD - Microsoft were never in trouble for bundling a free browser. The slap on the wrist they received was for their anti-competitive business practices. At the time they claimed that the browser was an 'integral' part of the operating system!

  166. Re:I dont use... by Nyder · · Score: 1

    Just because you can't be 100% safe with any given product is no reason to abandon it entirely.

    I recently reinstalled Windows, and while I've historically used Avast, I opted to go with nothing this time around. I'm tired of resource usage and slower load times for everything thanks to antivirus; I've moved my e-mail to Google Apps, so they scan my e-mails for viruses. My use of Bittorrent is extremely limited (I only have it installed because Star Trek Online's installer is available via torrent), and I never visit the seedier side of the internet. I'm behind a firewall.

    Basically I'm not going to get a virus, so I see no reason to run anti-virus software. Rather than "Can't be 100% safe, may as well not use it", my reasoning is "I'm already 99.99999% safe, so why bother".

    (Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)

    Your not 99.9999% safe. You use windows, so you are not safe.

    0day exploits. you have nothing protecting you against them. While you might feel safe using gmail, what about a bad ad that installs malware?

    But really, what fucking bloat are you talking about? I use avg free and there ain't no bloat for the most part. Of course, i don't have it check links or any crap like that.

    Maybe the bloat isn't your av, but your computer in general? If you don't defrag your disk, your computers going to slow down. Not to mention any of the other things thats slows a computer down.

    Me, I use utorrent and download all sort of crap. games, apps, music, videos, porn. I don't get virus or malware. Why? besides the fact i'm not stupid, its because I check my stuff. I have an anti-virus installed, so I can check stuff with that. But I also browse internet using firefox, with adblocker and noscript running.

    The best part is, I tend to have to clean peoples computers and laptops out of malware/viruses. And these aren't people who download crap and go to the "darker side" of the internet. But damn if they don't get thier computers fucked up all the time.

    For all you know, you've already been rootkit'd and you don't know, and want to blame the slowness on your AV program.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  167. FortiClient by azahar31 · · Score: 1

    I am surprise that no-one here has mentioned the excellent FortiClient software that is free of charge and includes not just AV, but also a firewall and IPSec and SSL VPN clients. I have found it to be very lightweight and uses little resources. http://www.fortinet.com/products/endpoint/forticlient.html

  168. Re:I dont use... by blueworm · · Score: 1

    It's hard to argue for no antivirus at all, but at the same time there have been a large number of zero-day attacks such as the ones involving the flash vulnerabilities which antivirus did not detect. Sufficiently new malicious code which users are enticed to run has the ability to go unnoticed by up to date antivirus. While running no antivirus is probably a bad idea on principle, it's definitely becoming more marginalized as malware authors continue to develop a higher degree of sophistication in hiding themselves from it.

    Best practice is probably to install some kind of antivirus, but treat the PC as if it has no antivirus and develop some Internet "street smarts" -- to put it succinctly.

  169. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    You use windows, so you are not safe.

    Using Linux or OSX doesn't magically make you safe, you know, and Windows 7 is fairly secure, as long as you're careful what you download and install.

    0day exploits. you have nothing protecting you against them.

    Eh... antivirus programs aren't going to help you there unless the payload of the exploit is a known virus...

    While you might feel safe using gmail, what about a bad ad that installs malware?

    Adblock. Firefox is configured to not let things install without permission. Don't run flash on unknown sites. Etc etc etc.

    What I'm describing is "safe internet browsing". It's not that hard a concept, and the fact that you seem to think drive-by malware installs via ads are inevitable merely proves that you don't know how to browse safely.

    Don't take that to mean I think I'm immune to drive-by malware, only that I don't think they're inevitable.

    For all you know, you've already been rootkit'd and you don't know, and want to blame the slowness on your AV program.

    How exactly would one go about verifying that?

    No wait, it's easy to verify. Compare video game load times with antivirus enabled to the same game's load times with antivirus disabled. You'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

    You also get an additional slowdown when you first log in while the antivirus program loads itself, scans things already resident in memory, and so on. My work laptop has this problem - it is literally unusable for five minutes after I log in, because McAfee is so much of a resource hog. (If I stupidly start up Outlook while McAfee is still doing its startup routine, I get to wait a whole twenty minutes.) Granted, Avast isn't nearly that bad, but it's still a noticeable slowdown during the first minute or so of use after I log in.

    Anyway, you, like so many others, have completely missed my point. I haven't said I can't get a virus. I've merely said that the chances of actually getting a virus are extremely slim. To me, it's not worth two years of resource hogging and slower load times to defend against the extremely slim chance that I'll get a virus.

    Given that my computer usage habits have not changed in the last three years, and given that not once have I ever seen a virus warning pop up during those three years, I am led to the conclusion that my usage habits do not result in virus infections. Why then should I bother running antivirus?

  170. SuperUser Answer by Anadelonbrin · · Score: 1

    SuperUser has basically the same question (http://superuser.com/questions/2/free-antivirus-solutions-for-windows/), as well as a discussion of the costs of choosing free over paid.

  171. Delete IE by evanh · · Score: 1

    Solve all your woes in one foul swoop.

  172. None by ears_d · · Score: 1

    My Windows machine is seldom used and doesn't have anything on it that I care about.

  173. Microsoft Security Essentials by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Next question?

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  174. Re:Ubuntu by notrandom · · Score: 1

    ubuntu

    Nuff sed

    genau.
    i pulled the eth on my gaming machine when my girlfriend got me a lenovo s10e netbook.
    ubuntu. end of story.
    i know i can still get xssed and browser fucked, but hey, what you gonna do ? these things happen.

  175. Radialpoint Security Suite (Powered by BitDefender by spac · · Score: 1

    Radialpoint actually provides a really good security suite (Anti-Virus, Anti-Spyware, Parental Control + loads of other features) for free through its "user community" program: http://radialpoint.net/home/

    This is the same security software that ISPs like Verizon, Rogers, Bell Canada, Virgin, etc... charge their customers anywhere from 8$-12$ a month to use.They give away a limited number of copies for free in order to collect crash data and improve the product that's ultimately delivered to ISPs, kind of like a perpetual beta test. The software itself is powered by the latest BitDefender engine for real-time, on-demand and scheduled scanning. It also lets you use WebSense to do parental controls.

    They even have a Mac version that's freely available through their site. Check it out!

  176. Movie references by zazenation · · Score: 1

    From the movie "The Treasure of Silicon Valley", Bill Gates in a bandito hat indignantly replies to Humphrey "Don't" Bogart:

    "Antivirus? We ain't got no Antivirus. We don't need no Antivirus! I don't have to show you any stinkin' Antivirus!"

    Often misquoted from "Blazing Windows" as
    "We don't need no stinkin' Antivirus!"

  177. Re:I don't (and you sir, are an idiot) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Between my job, some side work and friends and family I manage close to 70 Windows machines. I have been doing IT since 1992.

    Congrats, welcome to being a Junior Systems Administator.

    When I am asked this question my answer is always this. None. I think antivirus is more trouble than it is worth. First any new viruses will be undetected, second the pain of actually running anti virus outweighs any marginal benefit received from it.

    The crimeware industry is collectively thanking you for spreading your fantastic and totally bogus advice. Running a Windows box sans AV might be fine for you because you're so smart and have never found a rootkit on your machine, but I suspect your motivation for telling your less aware friends to use no AV whatsoever on a Windows machine is so you can generate some more side work. News Flash: Running a non-admin account will not even slow down some of the major botnet penetration rates - Depending upon what other apps you have loaded on your machine, Zeus can pwn non-admin run machines too, smart guy - Google "privilege escalation". At least with some freebie AV, you might be able to catch the variant that came out yesterday, but probably not the one that came out an hour ago...better then nothing at all which is what your advice amounts to...but telling them to run something that's even free, or simply educating them about defensive internet use is too much trouble for you, in your mind. A screen door and a clue is better then no damned door and at all.

    Your security insights to the those who don't know any better then to listen to you is dangerous, and your suspect motivation is even worse. You'd be better off with the standard "Install Linux and you don't need AV" or "Get a Mac" spiel or better yet, take your advice back to 1993-1994 (and you were in IT then, so you say) when it was last actually correct.....that's about the last time Windows was safe from *requiring* some sort of AV. You've probably never seen what happens to someone who's great at what they do in the outside world (IE rather intelligent), and has a semi-clue with computers, have to put their lives back together after their identity was sold for a pittance (the going rate for a stolen identity is around $15.00 USD) after opening a well engineered landmine of a mail. All that horseshit you see about LifeLock and whatnot....Doesn't do jack squat after you've had your life pwnd. It's pretty sad that one little click on an email with a zipped EXE masked as a PDF attachment that was on a up to date XP machine with Automatic Updates on with an exipred licensed AV client and an older version of Acrobat Reader installed run with non-admin rights can have such ugly consequences....an up to date freebie AV client would probably have caught this little piece of trash....or have you told friends that Acrobat 7.0 Reader isn't really all that safe? I was told about it afterwards "when I clicked on the PDF it didn't do anything or launch Acrobat so I didn't think anything of it", she not knowing it had done its silent install and began mining away on her machine and was happy to report back her banking details to the C&C server. Her understanding of a virus was it would immediately alert her that she caught something like spring porn pop-ups all over the place (this isn't 2004 anymore) or change her background and tell her she was infected (she must have caught SpyFalcon or one of those fake AV types of rogue scareware once before) - do you educate your friends and users that these new viruses do whatever they can to not announce their presence, or is that also too much trouble for you? You were the hero with your free online tool and caught the one that did, congrats...here's your cookie. Did you get all of it.......?

    We live in a crime filled world, where some smart folks want to do as little as possible to make the fat bank and don't give a shit who's lives they ruin. Your identity sells for next-to-nothing on the underground n

  178. Can't Fault AVG Free - But I Use Comodo Internet S by taichibabbo · · Score: 1

    I currently use Commodo Internet Suite (Free Version) and ThreatFire (Anti-Malware) concurrently. And since I tend to be very paranoid, I will update and run malwarebytes on full scan mode maybe every two weeks. I started with AVG 0.9 way back when and still recommend the free edition to anyone who asks me for a good "free" anti-virus suite, I also recommend running an additional resident anti-malware program concurrently.

  179. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch... by YankDownUnder · · Score: 1

    I don't see why it's so hard to use the situation as a point of marketing for GNU/linux, or to show the person(s)/relative(s) that overall costs of using/maintaining a Microsoft Windows based workstation (or server) far outweigh the other options. Ok, a Mac costs a bit, but how much is spent on maintenance? Ok, the public is freaky about using GNU/linux, ,but what about total software costs and maintenance? My mother and father living in Texas (rather far-off for me to support them from Sydney) finally *DID* bite the bait, and bought a Mac. Happy? Very. Many of my personal clients have either taken the step to move to GNU/linux, or have purchased Macs. With the odd exception here and there, they're all happy. The exceptions are mostly along the lines of "Well, I'm supposed to run *THIS* because of work..." - or "My workplaces doesn't support GNU/linux or Mac" (Even though it's just a matter of running Microsoft Office and nothing more). Remember that you get what you pay for. I would, however, stick with doling out AVG for folks - and that being the case, stay on top of having the latest installation EXE for it - along with AdAware by Lavasoft and Spybot Search & Destroy. There is also ClamAV (developed initially for UNIX/GNU/Linux) for MS Windows - and it's F.O.S.S. - but hey, in the end it's your choice.

    --
    YankDownUnder Veni, Vidi, volo in domum redire
  180. Re:Microsoft - why no AV in Windows install? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    Yeah. That too. Perhaps I was being too kind.

    You'd think that a company that has been in the OS business since the dawn of the PC would have figured out how to write a good one by now.

    A multi-billion dollar company that can afford to hire the best minds in computer science, and their flagship desktop OS product is just barely able to compete with a free OS written by a bunch of longhaired granola heads.

    (I'll take the free OS)

  181. Re:I dont use... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    As long as you do not run the latest version of Firefox/IE/Adobe Flash/Adobe Acrobat Reader and you are at the wrong site at the wrong time, you get infected! And sometimes the latest version of that software is exploitable too.

    I don't use Acrobat, I use one of the free alternatives. I use a proxy filter that screens all ad sites, scripts, and media players (even GIF animation) on all sites by default, unless I put them into a whitelist. I also use Process Guard to let me know when things are trying to run on my computer, and I don't even allow many "legit" things to run. I DON'T update things very often, and don't auto-update ANYTHING. Updates are only done for a few MS OS critical patches, which I hand pick and install individually after reading the security bulletins. I don't use IE or Firefox, but an old version of another browser, but it hardly matters because all of this constitutes a locked-down sandbox where a virus can't get near the browser.

    I DON'T use antivirus. I also don't use a FIREWALL on my computer, though I do use one on my router. I've been doing this on several Windows systems (all XP) and they all run like a bat out of hell, since virtually all of the resource hogging stuff is disabled. I've been doing it like this for at least 5 years, and have never even seen a virus attempt, much less gotten infected. I have seen a lot of crap from Adobe try to muscle into my system, which is why I finally uninstalled Acrobat in favor of an alternative.

    Antivirus software is like closing the barn doors after the horses have bolted. By the time the virus is in the database, it's old news and something new that hasn't made it into the database yet is the current threat. The whole concept of antivirus is fatally flawed, and there is a serious conflict of interest in the AV companies to actually produce something that works outside of a subscription (oh no, you need our latest AV defs!) model. If they sold that, they wouldn't be able to keep dinging you for regular updates. It's a scam that I think is at least as bad as the virus programs themselves, I doubt that a bot running on my system would make it perform any WORSE than running AV software on it does. I've been there, done that, and it turns my entire system into complete crippleware for no good reason.

  182. IF antiVirus is a security measure . . . . by cjacobs001 · · Score: 1

    there's a MS-sponsored paper that states that users are RATIONAL to reject all security advise like running updated antivirus. see: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=3275&tag=nl.e036 which has a link to the .pdf of the paper

    --
    cjacobs001
  183. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Yes, I realize that 7 9s was an exaggeration. It was meant to be.

    I've often considered NoScript, but then, I've never had a Javascript-based exploit infect me (or if it has, Avast hasn't detected it, so antivirus wouldn't help anyway). Basically I have no motivation to install it.

  184. Re:I dont use... by BagOBones · · Score: 1

    No antivirus on the net, is like having lots of casual sex without a condom and claiming your "SAFE" because you only choose the clean ones.

    Condoms are not 100% effective as well, but it is still a good idea to use them.

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  185. Re:I dont use... by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

    It has to do with computers. Don't fret your little mind over it.

  186. Tried many, went with MS Security Essentials by DarkMagician07 · · Score: 1

    I have comcast, which gave me McAfee for the last few years, but then they switched to Norton, which caused nothing but problems for my machine. So, I went on the same search about a week ago. I tried quite a few, but after reading about many, I settled on MSE as well.

    Clamwin had issues in that all the testing reviews I could find only showed it recognizing about 50% of the viruses that were thrown at it. Avast! was listed higher, but it slowed machines down, AVG has always had one issue or another on the computers I've installed it on, and the free versions of any commercial product are so watered down that they were not worth it, either.

    I went with MSE after reading quite a few positive reviews that put it above most other free AVs out there. It's got it's own issues (only finding about 95% of the viruses thrown at it), but it's still much better than any other option I've tried. I've even found it to not interfere with any other processes that are running.

  187. simple. by FormOfActionBanana · · Score: 2, Funny

    One virus
    Two viru's

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
  188. Re:I dont use... by symbolset · · Score: 1

    If you're going to try XP mode, get a copy of Windows XP and install it in a VM. VMWare Player is free, probably more secure, easier to deal with, and doesn't require the VT enabled processor technology that XP Mode requires. While you're at it wipe the machine first, install Linux as your primary OS and install Windows 7 as a virtual machine too. Almost everybody has a few legacy XP licenses lying around. If you're going to use virtualization to sandbox Windows you might as well be thorough and sandbox W7 as well. As a bonus, look into LTSP, and you'll find you can do quite capable VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) quite capably with Linux with a little tweaking.

    Most Linuxes come with virtualization tech standard, but VMWare player works on Linux too, and there are a number of different brands you can use.

    This Spring this is going to ruin your gaming experience if you're into that. Over the next year VM technologies will adopt PCI passthrough, and that problem will hit the dustbin of history.

    Linux people are so spoiled. I have to have a private cloud server architecture in my house (DRBL) with redundant networks both wired and wireless and virtualized everything because my family demands a five nines SLA and my teens think it's perfectly normal to play their games via RDP on their iPod touches.

    I'm going to get a few replies here. Does anybody know of an RDP client for the Nintendo DSi?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  189. Re:I dont use... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    You're most welcome. And if you or TFA want total protection and control I would highly recommend combining Comodo AV/Firewall with another lesser known of their free products Comodo Time Machine which is kinda hard to describe, best description would be system restore on steroids.

    It makes a snapshot on first install, makes it easy to schedule snapshots, unlike System Restore it allows you to mark certain snapshots never to be erased (like when you install an app you aren't quite sure of) and according to Comodo you can even use it to roll back before malware got on board, but since Comodo AV has caught everything I haven't had a chance to see that particular feature in action. What I have used it for is those that are the type to bork their machines, as the built in GUI console allows for even a noob to restore windows after a failed boot up, very handy.

    The only warning I have about it is DO NOT use if you are dual booting with Windows 7, as Windows 7 changes drive letters (for example my win 7 is installed on E: but shows C: when in win 7) which can throw it off, but it won't cause any damage, it simply fails to install. But for those that only have one OS it is a simple way to have insurance against boot failure due to bad software. It also uses few resources and can be used with system restore if you desire, but it works so much better I usually just kill System Restore to reclaim the space.

    But with the two of those together, Comodo AV/Firewall plus Comodo Time Machine, you have an easy to use Windows install that is pretty damned hard to permanently bork. Comodo AV protects against the bugs, Comodo Time Machine protects from bad installs and most basic PEBKAC problems. And of course both are free, so you really have nothing to use by trying them. Note-Not affiliated with Comodo, just a happy user that is glad he doesn't have to spend so much time fixing relative's machines any more.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  190. Digital signatures might be the future by dannns · · Score: 1

    I like AVG and have sold it to most of my clients, but it is getting to the same level of bloatware as Norton and Mcafee that it is starting to not be competitive. The problem fer me is that now a days classic viruses are no longer the problem in fact I no longer find any value in an antivirus product for my personal use, Windows 7 and UAC have been great in controlling threads, and my laptop runs great without any antivirus software. I still don't get why all the antivirus software with all the bloat they bring can't properly fight malware which is really what is affecting our computers today. They seem to just want to collect subscription fees to fight threats that no longer exist. At the end what may fix all the problems is requiring digital signatures for all software available, and only allow white listed products to be installed. Obviously Microsoft will be attacked for doing this.

  191. Re:I dont use... by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

    Well, I followed my old (your current) philosophy for about 15 years, so I certainly can't refute you might not get malware for a while. ;-) However, realizing the abundance of information on my computer, I now feel it is worth it for me to have the virus scanner hogging my resources. :( Not to mention the peace of mind in knowing there isn't a detectable keylogger in the background grabbing my banking passwords. To each his own, though. Different situations have different risks.

  192. Re:I dont use... by symbolset · · Score: 1

    The ad engines that commercial sites use sell ads to whoever pays. Flash is one of the top three malware vectors. Do the math.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  193. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    So... turn on adblock, and disable flash. The math seems fairly simple, to me.

  194. Penicillin from the hooker that gave you clap by symbolset · · Score: 1

    That's great guidance. At least it saves time.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  195. Re:I dont use... by sasami · · Score: 1

    (Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)

    The chances are extremely slim if you only consider the infection vectors that you know about. I ran my system without AV very successfully for a good while, but over time new vectors cropped up that I was unprotected against. I thought to myself, "This has worked well for a long time," but stupidly equated that with, "This will continue to work well." In fact, the correct conclusion should have been, "It probably can't last much longer."

    Security researcher Rafal Los tells this story, which appeared on Slashdot not long ago. Since you won't visit unknown sites, I'll excerpt the key points:

    "They volunteered a URL and I started by opening up the page... I tried a few permutations of the common SQL Injection attack [and found that] I wasn't the first to hack at it... someone had not only pillaged their database and broken it - but had also injected it to distribute malware. Malware you say? Yessir... analysis revealed it was a dropper script for the Zeus-bot. So... in 45 minutes the room had gone from non-believers to realizing they not only had a massive SQL Injection problem - but had also been rooted and were now distributing the Zeus bot from one of their main websites."

    The author includes some slightly-anonymized screenshots that indicate this is no "seedy" website but the professionally-developed SQL-backed main page of a large restaurant chain. I see no reason to think that Ars or xkcd would be any less vulnerable.

    Avoiding the unsafe is easy if the safe stays safe, but it doesn't. Fifteen years ago, users would consult me in a panic upon receiving prank warnings of destructive email viruses. I assured them that email viruses are impossible, because email is not executable. And this was, for a time, true.

    --
    Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
  196. Try Comodo. by brian2hand · · Score: 1

    I look after a number of networks and find that Comodo offers one of the best solutions, both free and non-free.

  197. The 'Popular Linux virus' myth by u64 · · Score: 1

    I agree that common sense helps to aviod several viruses.

    But 'Linux dont have viruses because it's not as popular as Windows' is a myth.

    Example, Apache is far more popular then Microsoft IIS, yet Apache has near-zero viruses.
    Also fun is that running Windows-programs in Wine is much safer then running them
    in Windows.
    Linux security model has fundamental differences from all Windows versions.
    Windows simply wasnt made from the ground-up with proper security in mind. And now
    Windows has grown in size that a re-write is impossible.

    Even when/if Linux becomes 100% popular and all the worlds criminals etc tries
    to create malware for Linux, they wont succeed in building one that spreads. Each
    machine must be infected one by one, manually by each user. These users must be
    dumb enough to manually infect themselfs *while* smart enough to know how to do so.
    Any automatic spread will be extremly rare and extremly short-lived, if it ever
    happens at all.
    There will never be a need for running anti-malware to protect Linux.

    There's some material on the subject, here's a good one,
    http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=virus#virus

    Here's a challange to try to write a Linux virus,
    http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/skoll/anti-virus.php

  198. Blame the user by symbolset · · Score: 1

    No offense to you or your lady, but you should teach her safer browsing habits.

    Blame the user. That's nice. Maybe you guys could just deliver this "Trusted Computing" platform Bill discovered in 2002.

    FYI, if you don't use Windows you can click on the Internet with reckless abandon. We call it "browsing". It doesn't require reading every URL before you click it, worrying about whether your computer will become useless with each click. You should try it - it's fun. Since you're a Windows user, let me recommend to you the quite capable Knoppix.

    This "safe browsing" you recommend is neither safe nor browsing. Hand-translating each URL beforehand, researching the domain name and ASN of the host IP, avoiding links to video, PDF documents or unusual image or audio formats before clicking the link isn't the process that was being described when Tim Berners-Lee invented the web client "WorldWideWeb" on NeXT. Even taking all that trouble isn't safe. Even a perfectly normal and accepted top-100 site can carry flash banner ads sold to the advertising syndicate by affiliates who sold those ads of unknown provenance to anonymous strangers. Since flash itself is a top-3 vector, and the link could go to literally anything, it's entirely possible to hose a windows box with a plain flash ad. And then there are the popovers, unders, and whatnot. To a Windows user who's read Microsoft guidance, browsing the Internet must seem like hugging a porcupine.

    Mac users and Linux users don't have that problem, mostly because they don't take their Infosec guidance from a company so obviously ignorant of the topic.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Blame the user by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Mac and Linux users don't have this problem because it is not economically viable to target them with malware

      So, what you're saying is that I could choose to not have this problem until it's "economically viable" to hit Linux and OS/X clients until they became the market leader (in the theoretical sense). Since you would also assure me that Linux or OS-X as the market leader could never possibly happen, I and my users could be more secure for essentially forever - but regardless of what happens we could be secure for now.

      It's been seven years since I first saw this "Mac and Linux have no malware because they're unpopular" meme. It's run its course. If you had ignored it then, that's seven exploit-free years, and that's a lot. You would have skipped Vista too, and that's a bonus not to be missed.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Blame the user by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      remember that pwn2own contest where Vista was the last one to be hacked, and the explanation of the guy who did it

      The one I remember had Ubuntu going unhacked and Vista going down second following Mac OS. Could you give me a link to the contest you are talking about?

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    3. Re:Blame the user by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I must be confused, since I can't find it now that I've tried to look. All I see is the same story you link to.

      That said, do read the interview with the guy who hacked Vista in that context. The security flaw he used was actually in Flash (a stack overflow), and he says that it is cross-platform in a sense that you can exploit it with the same results on all platforms where Flash plugin is installed (though you'd have to write different code, for obvious reasons). He went with Vista because he was more familiar with its internals, and not comfortable with gdb; and, by rules of the contest, a single (conceptual) exploit can only be used against a single OS.

      So in this case Ubuntu kinda got lucky, and it could just as easily have gone the other way - vulnerability was present in both OSes, it was only a matter of which one would be exploited.

      I wonder if the guy happened to be a Windows developer because Windows is more popular - if so, it would, in fact, validate my original point (that Windows security story is worse because it's targeted more often, which is because it's more widespread).

  199. Re:I dont use... by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

    The ads pay for the sites. If you block the ads, you're stealing content. Didn't you get the memo? Have you no respect for intellectual property? This may even be a DMCA violation - are you giving legal advice?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  200. Re:Ubuntu by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Hi, I used to work Microsoft tech support and we've seen this issue before. You'll need to reinstall Windows, just like you would have to do if you had any of the other 50000 problems in my script. In fact, that's why I don't work there any more. They replaced us all with a voicemail greeting that says "Reinstall Windows" in a totally sultry sexy female voice. It's so AI, it waits for you to stop talking before it plays the message. That's an amazing innovation, and technology that only Microsoft and Dell have (I guess they cross-license it).

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  201. Re:AVG is the opposite of Common sense by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    AVG sucks a lot.

    It updates using the C drive, regardless of your profile folder or temp folder settings. I had a 3GB XP installation, with program files on the D: partition. XP SP3 and related files filled up the drive - now AVG can't update. Many complaints on the user forums and the reply is basically eat a bowl of something unpleasant.

    Little windows popping up all the time - advertisements, the scan started, scan stopped. It's pretty annoying. Many people have no problem, but if I see something move, even out of the corner of my eye, it gets my attention.

    I might have figured this one out, but often you can't stop a scan. A scan you didn't start. I have no scheduled scans, and did not start a shell extension scan. Open it to troubleshoot the above update problems, and it's scanning. What's it scanning? Currently scanning: [blank]. 0 files. Scanning. Stop and pause buttons are clickable, but the animation keeps going and it's scanning whatever. This is in the user forums since version 8, then 8.5 and I saw it in 9. Still not fixed, but they managed to add lots of annoying popup windows and notifications.

    AVG used to be the only thing I would recommend, but since about version 8, and the transition from Grisoft to AVG Industries or whatever, it's impossible. My gf saw me fighting with it and refuses to even consider installing it.

  202. Re:Install a linux of some sort by some_guy_88 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he's trying, it just hasn't finished downloading yet.

  203. Re:I dont use... by toganet · · Score: 1

    I can back this up -- I have been using Comodo for over a year after switching from AVG, and have had great success. I've switched my family over as well, and the virus complaints have gone way down. On top of that, I've started recommending Comodo for clients of mine, and they have been thrilled with the result. The smaller memory footprint alone makes it an easy sell over AVG. Aside from one nasty upgrade bug last October, it's been a huge improvement. Let me put it this way -- it made me stop thinking about anti-virus software. Isn't that the whole point?

  204. Free AV from Microsoft by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Check out Microsoft Security Essentials If is free, if you have a licensed copy of XP , or Vista or W7. I find W7 with Office 2007 as tempting for the desktop as using linux. And with free AV, there is something to learn from it's different architecture.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  205. Reply to parent, bad form by symbolset · · Score: 1

    I know you're going to be a jerk and insist on proof of seven years. Here's a nice link from seven years ago. Oh, my. There was Google seven years ago, and the Internet Archive too. You're hosed. Your entire argument is based on the premise that people forget. People do forget, but Google doesn't.

    Will Bing forget? I think so. That's why when I want to know someting I google it.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  206. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Since you won't visit unknown sites

    You don't have to be condescending. hp.com is hardly an "unknown site".

    I realize that new attack vectors pop up from time to time. I'm willing to take the risk.

  207. Re:I dont use... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    If it's a site I respect, I disable adblock. Sites I respect tend to have respectable ads, as well.

    For example, Penny-Arcade approves every ad that shows up on their site. They're not going to approve an ad that distributes malware, and I like Penny-Arcade, so I disable adblock on Penny-Arcade. I do this on a case-by-case basis. You may not agree with doing it that way, but that's not my problem ;)

    This is only relevant for pay-per-impression ads. If you never click pay-per-click ads anyway, then blocking them has no effect.

    Have you no respect for intellectual property? This may even be a DMCA violation - are you giving legal advice?

    Those are three completely unrelated topics, and they're unrelated to ads as well. Blocking ads has nothing to do with IP, nor with the DMCA, nor with legal advice. I'm left assuming you're trolling :P

  208. Re:I dont use... by sasami · · Score: 1

    Condescension not intended. It wasn't clear to me whether your whitelist was strict or not, so I figured it wouldn't hurt to include the excerpt. Apologies if the wording was poor.

    --
    Freedom is not the license to do what we like, it is the power to do what we ought.
  209. Re:I dont use... by tuxgeek · · Score: 1

    My laptop has vista on it.
    I don't connect it to the tubes at all.
    It still does weird shit all the time.
    Does this mean vista is one large steaming pile of malware?

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
  210. Re:I dont use... by geezer+nerd · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, if you simply go to comodo.com you are introduced to only their non-free version of the antivirus, which costs $49 per annum. It is a bit tricky to find your way around the website to find the free version, which does exist.

    I actually use Avast!, and am quite happy with it. I think I will not change anyway soon. And I like the voice messages on updates from Avast!

  211. A nice option is to browse from a virtual machine by master_p · · Score: 1

    A very safe way to browse is to do the browsing from inside a virtual machine. A good option is to copy the virtual machine hard disk image each time you start, so next time you start from a clean machine.

    This ensures that your computer will not be infected, and that you can run an antivirus in it but not bother with it very much (AVG, for example, is the one I run). You could even risk running your machine without an antivirus.

  212. Re:Ubuntu by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

    How is this considered troll or off-topic? There is some serious pro-MS modding on this article, which is weird. Maybe I'm not on Slashdot? Better check the date... um, not April yet.

  213. some reference by chenjeru · · Score: 1

    I use Nod32 on my corporate network and at home, and can highly recommend it, but this doesn't fit the 'free' specification. AV comparatives is a great independent site where they do regular testing (several times a year) including both free and paid AV software: http://www.av-comparatives.org/

    --
    Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
  214. Re:Sebfgl Rapelcgrq Cvff by Nesman64 · · Score: 1

    This post is double encrypted, so the penalty for decrypting it should be increased as well.

    --
    coffee | nose > keyboard
  215. My Virus Experiences by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

    As a professional cheapskate I have been using free antivirus programs for years, here are my recent experiences. tl;dr version: Avast or MS Security Essentials are the best choices on a Windows machine.

    Avast
    Virus Detection: Medium to good
    Resource Use: Medium

    This is my antivirus of choice, they have recently updated the interface at long last. A friend had a bunch of malicious software only a few months back. I ran multiple antivirus and antimalware programs until nothing was found. Then I installed Avast as his antivirus was way out of date. Avast's email scanner was going crazy and I realised the computer was sending out spam. I would never have noticed if it was not for the email scanner.

    Avira AntiVir
    Virus Detection: Don't know
    Resource Use: Medium to light

    Seems OK though it does harass you with a window to buy their products.

    AVG
    Virus Detection: Don't know
    Resource Use: Medium

    Last year I had problems on two different machines. For some reason the AVG browser plugins were blocking access to the Internet. This took me ages to track down the problem. On another machine a few months before that it started causing all sorts of problems and crashing. I will avoid it for now but it seems to be only me who has had these problems.

    MS Security Essentials
    Virus Detection: Good
    Resource Use: Light

    MS Security Essentials is very similar to Windows Defender and uses the same framework and engine which probably accounts for its small footprint. A great leave and forget solution, I tend to install this on friends machines.

    Symentec Endpoint Protection
    Virus Detection: Good
    Resource Use: Double decker bus size.

    OK it's not a free program but this is what I have to put up with at work. I hate it! I hate it! From the 20Gb files it used to create to the recent problem where they screwed up their date settings. It increases boot time no end and the weekly scan cripples every computer in the company. Arrggghh!

  216. Yeah, I know... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    I need two things (actually I need many more than just two, but I am condensing that to just two regarding the lattice-lettuce mix-up).

    A better spellchecker and a new mouse.
    Those two bloody words are right next to each other and my mouse has shown affinity towards clicking all by itself lately.
    I am guessing that it has something to do with all that DNA I've impressed into it during the years - it has finally become sentient and it is trying to communicate.
    The other day it clicked on a spyware link all by itself. Took me three days to finally get rid of all of that shit.

    But I've found a way to control its outbursts of "behaving".
    I've plugged in another mouse. Of "El Cheapo" variety that you find in a box of biscuits these days.
    Ergonomically it feels like you are holding an empty deodorant stick of Chinese manufacture - but it clicks where it is supposed to. When you press it hard enough.
    The real advantage comes from having both mice plugged in at the same time (Wonders of USB. Couldn't do that back in the day.).
    If I was really up to it, I guess I could use one for the clicking and the other for moving the cursor around. Loads of fun that is.
    You can keep yourself entertained for... umm... seconds at a time.
    But that is secondary. (HA!) See, now that it is sentient, my old mouse is realizing that I can still easily replace it (him, her, them... whatever) with its dumb cousin.
    So, it is acting nicer now. It will only double-click on some porn from time to time - just for laughs.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  217. The irritatingly obvious answer by jandersen · · Score: 1

    is there another product I can entrust to keep the 'my computer's doing weird things' calls to a minimum?

    Linux?

    More to the point, what I do is absurdly enough a bit simpler: Run linux at the actual HW, install something like VMware or VirtualBox, install Windows and other essential SW in a virtual machine, configure, and then immediately make a snapshot. Whenever the Windows systems screws up because of malware, restore the snapshot. Keep essential data on a filesystem shared from the linux system or something similar.

  218. PCTools by donak · · Score: 1

    Don't know if anyone has mentioned this one yet, but I've installed their products on my netbook,
    to no ill effect so far. They have 3 free products: Anti-virus, Firewall and Threatfire antimalware.

    Website is http://www.pctools.com/

    --
    Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
  219. Natural Immunity by Convector · · Score: 2, Funny

    The best thing is to drop all this and let your system's natural immunity develop. Overprescription of AV software just encourages the growth of AV resistant viruses. Basic hygiene is still important, so wash your computer and all peripherals daily with warm soapy water. That will eliminate 99.9% of all viruses. Also data.

  220. BLINK by setrops · · Score: 1

    I use blink which is a home version of the Retina scanner by eEye. It has a virus and firewall and other stuff.

  221. Re:I dont use... by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 1

    "I never visit the seedier side of the internet. I'm behind a firewall."

    That's OK, he seedier side of the internet will visit you via cross-site scripting attacks and ad networks running malicious ads on reputable sites.

    --
    0 1 - just my two bits
  222. Re:Typical cop out. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    There are millions of Linux and OSX computers.

    And there are hundreds of millions of Windows computers.

    And any malware author looking at these figures will realize that he can either spend N man-hours working on OS X or Linux malware, and infect K machines; or he can spend the same N man-hours working on Windows malware, and infect K*100 machines. Why would he ever choose to do the former and not the latter?

    Absolute numbers don't matter. What matters in the proportion.

    The difference is that UNIX based OSes have cleaned their act and are not as cavalier with security as you know who is.

    You're welcome to list specific design problems in Windows that you believe result in worse security compared to Unix systems, so that we can discuss those in particular.

  223. Antivirus 2009 by CyBrett · · Score: 1

    Antivirus 2009 is the best!!!! Just kidding. :-) Security Essentials (home) or Client Forefront (business) highly recommended.

  224. Re:I dont use... by atamido · · Score: 1

    Basically I'm not going to get a virus, so I see no reason to run anti-virus software. Rather than "Can't be 100% safe, may as well not use it", my reasoning is "I'm already 99.99999% safe, so why bother".

    (Yes, I know it's still technically possible to get a virus. But the chances are extremely slim, given the way I use my computer.)

    This was basically my thinking. I used antivirus for years and never ran into viruses. (I once had a file that was obviously a virus and, in a fit of sleepiness, hit enter instead of delete on the file, infecting myself. The installed Norton Antivirus did nothing and was quickly disabled by the virus.) Without antivirus my computer is more responsive and I'm at essentially the same chance of infection as I was before. If I run across a file that is suspect, there are numerous websites that allow files to be uploaded for scanning.

    That being said, I recently installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my inlaw's PC and was impressed by how little overhead it seemed to have. I may install it on my PC on the off chance that someone else using my system downloads something that escalates privileges.

  225. Re:I dont use... by atamido · · Score: 1

    I use a series of Firefox Add-ons to reduce my risk. QuickJava lets me leave the Java and Silverlight plugins disabled by default. If I encounter a site where I need one, I'll enable them temporarily for that site, but it's pretty rare. Flashblock replaces all Flash objects with a play button, which lets me selectively enable applets. (Flashblock can be altered to do the same for Quicktime and other plugins, so I have taken advantage of this). PDF Download asks me to download PDF files instead of automatically running Adobe Reader. Adblock takes care the the miscellaneous bits.

    If you really wanted to, you could browse with NoScript and be perfectly safe, but I've found that to be a pain.

    For me, not even plugins are a good attack vector.

  226. Re:I dont use... by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Unless you are only ever reading one site (slashdot, never reading TFA?) then you are already sleeping with multiple women...

    and can you be sure that they are being faithful?

    37% of men and 22% of women admit to having affairs.
    70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.

    OK... maybe taking the analogy too far ;)

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  227. ClamWin by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    As usual, this is a problem that can be solved with open source. See ClamWin.

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
  228. Not Avast! MSE! by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    And Malwarebytes free for that extra on-demand scan when something acts a little funny and you want to make sure.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
  229. Re:Not Avast! MSE! by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    I always recommend using a dedicated anti-spyware scanner alongside a dedicated anti-virus scanner.

    Malwarebytes is decent, but it isn't 100% free. It is a free trial. It does harass you upgrade.

    I recommend Spybot Search and Destroy because it is 100%, and the Immunize feature helps protect you from getting infections in the first place.

    The stack I recommend for most users is:

    Firefox + Adblock Plus (+ Noscript if you know what you're doing, but it doesn't pass the Grandma test)
    HOSTS file
    Spybot Search and Destroy
    MSE

    I don't run the Spybot real time protection, so the above stack uses very little in the way of resources yet provides very good security.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  230. Immunology by jman.org · · Score: 1

    There are 2 main alternatives. Alas, only one is free:
    1) The free one is called "Ubuntu".
    2) The other one is very shiny, and very expensive, but the good news is it comes with a free computer. Its name is "Snow Leopard".

  231. One question.... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

    Were you using IE?

    (I find this highly relevant)

    1. Re:One question.... by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 1

      I knew someone was going to ask that question and I almost made a preemptive comment, but figured it was irrelevant to my point, since technically a browser attack could happen to any browser and/or plugin with a zero-day exploit. The browser I was using was the latest Firefox at the time.

    2. Re:One question.... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      Ya, you were probably correct in not mentioning IE. You'd just get the "don't use IE" response.

      But the browser type is relevant, or was, since there was a period when the chance of getting a virus was far higher for IE users - especially novice IE users.

      It's like the crash tolerance of your car, or the insurance plan you choose. There is always a benefit in selecting the safer alternative, but ultimately none of them will prevent disaster for sure.

  232. Re:I dont use... by madclicker · · Score: 1

    Two weeks ago installed windows xp-pro on a laptop with all security updates etc. Java (the latest), Foxit (the latest), IE8 etc. to keep it short. I setup a user account, added it to a domain, set the user as "Power user" (no admin rights). Pufff, done in less than two weeks. Pop-ups slow as sin. Words of advice, install an AV it might not work well and give you a false sense of security, but might last a bit longer between re-preps. I never tried the Microsoft AV, but from what I read. it's free.

    --
    "History is the realm of the true lie." A.Szerb
  233. Re:I dont use... by Xamusk · · Score: 1

    Nice... Keep thinking that you're safe, and I won't tell you how I would have gotten a virus just today when I downloaded a basic app for my HP calculator, were it not for my AV software, which detected it just when I downloaded the installer from HP's official site.

    I hope you never download anything from anywhere, including sites which should be safe and trustful, but just aren't.

  234. Re:I dont use... by Smauler · · Score: 1

    Just to let you know, I thought I'd actually have a look to see if any antivirus detected anything on my disk, so I downloaded and ran MSE. It picked up a trojan in an ancient zip that I never ran because I knew it was suspicious, so fair play for that. Nothing else though, MSE detected zero apart from that one file, and nothing else suspicious. MSE then proceeded to completely hose my system. Booting into Vista produced a BSOD and immediately rebooted. I caught "bad disk" before it rebooted once. Repair did not work, system restore to before MSE was installed did.

    So a quick trial of MSE actually caused me way more problems than any virus ever has. A cost/benefit analysis would produce patently obvious results. I'll stick with my way.

  235. Re:Install a linux of some sort by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    I can see why you don't like linux, if you claim flash, opera 10 and realplayer don't run on linux. They work fine for me and millions of other people.

  236. I use Avira by shnull · · Score: 1

    It seems to detect stuff that AVG never detected, it's free and it doesn't require you to do shit, except download and install ... try it , let us know :)

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  237. Microsoft Security Essentials by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not, I use Microsoft Security Essentials - I figured since most antiviruses are useless at detecting new threats anyways (bad guys can access the same antiviruses and make sure that they don't catch their new malware), I'm better off letting the guys who created my operating system, protect it. I've used Avast! and COMODO in the past and they were all good, but MSE has a very low footprint, updates well, and I'm pretty sure will be the first to protect against zero day vulnerabilities that Microsoft discovers... Next, I will try Panda Cloud AV.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.