|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 15, 2014 19:38:00 GMT
I've been looking at sale ads in order to determine what sorts of laptops are available locally. I've saved up enough to get a fairly decent model, and so it's just a matter of making it through the holidays. Back when we bought a new family desktop this summer, one of the workers at the Office Max store we got it from got my mom spooked. The worker claimed that you could never trust anything which was downloaded, including anti-viral software (like, say, AVG). Better, the worker claimed, to purchase an anti-viral program from a store because everything with the anti-viral itself would be on a disk that (supposedly) was secure and untouched (never mind the need to download updates from the company  ). Her panic was cemented when a family friend whose husband is a technophile echoed the sentiment. Because of this, mom went and bought Kaspersky for use as the main anti-viral on the desktop. The disk we bought has a license which allows for up to three machines to have installs from the same disk, and so I know that my folks will on me about installing Kaspersky as soon as I get a new machine. I know that Spybot and Kaspersky don't get along, as Spybot even displays a warning saying that it may potentially flag Kaspersky software as a threat. But how well does Kaspersky behave with programs like CCleaner and Malwarebytes? It worries me to have a computer with only one line of defense (not counting the expired McAfee trial), but if Kaspersky can't play nicely with any of the usual support programs then I don't know what I'll do. (It was all I could do to even convince my mom that Internet Explorer was a disaster waiting to happen and that some day I'll need to put either Firefox or Chrome + Ad-Block Plus on the desktop; I can't imagine having to tell her that in this day and age anti-virals rarely get the job done alone). Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 16, 2014 8:51:44 GMT
You got the wrong package.
Norton does a perfectly good all-in-one that does anti-spyware and all other anti-malware.
Spybot is now trying to outgrow its self to compete with other anti-malware packages.
Kaspersky is good, but not that good.
As for downloads....
Oops.
You been had.
So you put the install disk in, and, it installs....
Well, actually it doesnt.
It installs "Something", sure, but that is just a hollow last-years pack to make it look good....
The next time it does an auto update is when you get the current up to date version....
Those disks that are in the store?.. they can be anything up to a year old, they are sent out with next years deal on the packaging half way through the year to make sure they are on the shelves in time for next year...
So the software can be anything up to six months out of date at the earliest you can get your hands on it.
Six months is a long time in Cyber Warfare.
Sales people in the stores that sell you this stuff have the knowledge of how to spook you, to make you panic and buy "Scare ware"....
Which is sort of what you just bought.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 16, 2014 15:54:56 GMT
I used Kaspersky on my first toughbook for about three years before the update patches became too topheavy to remain stable. that was the point at which I returned to Norton.
silverdragon is right to a degree about the difference between a downloaded AV software and a storebought, except his terminology might have been a bit more political.
the political way of saying it is that antivirus software is made up of the base software and the definitions. if you buy it on a disc, it gets the base software and as many definitions as were available when the disc was made. as soon as you load it, it connects to the internet and downloads the rest of the definitions. - the only reason this would be superior to just downloading it complete would be that you're not tying up bandwidth downloading the majority of the software - or if you have an idiot in the house who will immediately upon turning on the computer, go browsing through shady websites, on their way to the antivirus provider's secure site.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Nov 17, 2014 7:21:33 GMT
TLW, have you not done the latest "Check for new version" with Norton?..
I am now no longer on the actual program, or any part of it, that was on the original disk...
All the software has been updated in serious ways since.
Yes maybe some of the lines of code are the same, but none of the important parts....
This was what I was aiming at... the definitions update frequently, yes, but so does the code.
Same with all anti-nasty.
They no longer look at the viruses, but the actions the viruses do, if all type G viruses open a certain gate, why bother holding a copy of every single one of thousands of viruses when all you need to do is watch for anything opening that gate?... that is how they now watch for "ports" being unblocked, if anything tries and its not the user, they will trace the code responsible and eliminate it.
Thats a simplified version of how it works of course.
They also keep an online database of all known "Nasties", if anything web based tried to install, they "phone home" and check it against that list.
That is how you get that "Updater.exe is safe" message bottom right of the screen from some (Norton) when Firefox updates...
It checks the program name against the makers name and verifies that it has been digitally signed.....
This is how they keep it lighter these days, not having huge files on your actual computer, and blocking at source... we now have bandwidth that doesnt get affected when it phones home.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 17, 2014 15:04:22 GMT
TLW, have you not done the latest "Check for new version" with Norton?.. I am now no longer on the actual program, or any part of it, that was on the original disk... All the software has been updated in serious ways since. Yes maybe some of the lines of code are the same, but none of the important parts.... This was what I was aiming at... the definitions update frequently, yes, but so does the code. Same with all anti-nasty. They no longer look at the viruses, but the actions the viruses do, if all type G viruses open a certain gate, why bother holding a copy of every single one of thousands of viruses when all you need to do is watch for anything opening that gate?... that is how they now watch for "ports" being unblocked, if anything tries and its not the user, they will trace the code responsible and eliminate it. Thats a simplified version of how it works of course. They also keep an online database of all known "Nasties", if anything web based tried to install, they "phone home" and check it against that list. That is how you get that "Updater.exe is safe" message bottom right of the screen from some (Norton) when Firefox updates... It checks the program name against the makers name and verifies that it has been digitally signed..... This is how they keep it lighter these days, not having huge files on your actual computer, and blocking at source... we now have bandwidth that doesnt get affected when it phones home. well, certainly they do tweaks as well - but even streamlined, it is still a big chunk of data. |
|
|
|
Post by watcher56 on Nov 18, 2014 4:11:13 GMT
Been running NIS on my wife's machine for a number of years now. Coming up for renewal. Norton wants $70 for a 1 year renewal, or they want her to 'upgrade' to Norton 360 for $60. That's getting ridiculous. Norton is not getting any money this time.
I've got a license for Emsisoft, which is a very good anti-virus/anti-malware application, but it can be a bit intrusive with it's warnings. I've been running MSE and MalwareBytes (on demand) on this machine for as long as I've had it and that combo has been adequate. Think I'll put that on her machine too.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Nov 25, 2014 9:38:59 GMT
All the major names tend to be close in useability and safety.
You can get em online as long as it's from their own website or a safe third-party.
I personally use f-secure as it is a decent package at 50 euro a year for 3 machines.
Plus it's a finnish company that still develops here instead of some malware infested indian or chinese software factory.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 15, 2014 17:34:06 GMT
In that sense, what would everyone recommend as a good "free" anti-viral?
I've been hearing different things about whether or not Avast and AVG are good or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Dec 15, 2014 20:35:46 GMT
Avg rates slightly above avast currently, but you can just choose either.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 15, 2014 20:45:59 GMT
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 16, 2014 6:44:41 GMT
I had bad results from AVG. and by bad I mean a virus.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Dec 16, 2014 23:05:08 GMT
So Avast if I mean to use freeware?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Dec 19, 2014 13:12:53 GMT
Virgin Media is promoting f-secure as a good choice...
I aint sure on that one?.. anyone know?..
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Dec 19, 2014 15:02:16 GMT
I've been using f-secure for about 10 years now, they have a good package for multiple pc's that is reasonably priced.
Their software is solid, and made in Finland, so atleast the programmers all have real degrees, not fake indian ones ;D
I've met some of the guys working there when i still lived in Helsinki, and they knew what they were talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Dec 23, 2014 22:41:57 GMT
If you're going for freeware, I've used Avast for the past 6 years and haven't had any problems. I sometimes go to a lot of blogspots to download user made mods for games and those types of sites are notorious for piling all sorts of crap into your computer when you download something (mostly bloatware).
I've only just recently taken up using Malwarebytes. It's been over a year since I last formatted everything and Avast has been the only security software running on it for all that time. Even so, Malwarebytes didn't find a thing when I ran it for the first time, so Avast must be doing something right.
I used to use AVG and I've never had any problems with that either, but I found it more intrusive than Avast and it didn't seem to do a better job, so I've basically got the same (or possibly better) protection now, but I'm getting hassled less with popups. That's a win in my book.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Dec 23, 2014 23:13:52 GMT
on my main system i use f-secure for 24/7 protection and run malwarebytes and spybot scans once a week.
my old laptop has avast for 24/7 etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Feb 5, 2015 17:05:41 GMT
OK.
Last night, the news had a big thing about ransomware.
I tried to tell my parents that I was well aware of it, which is why I'd been wanting to do Firefox + Ad-Block Plus on the new system.
I had to explain to them all over again that
1. Third-party ads are now a major source of infection on computers (why hack multiple websites when you can just hack one third-party advertiser?)
2. Kaspersky doesn't block ads
3. Internet Explorer doesn't support Ad-Block.
Well, cue a massive blow-up because my mom wanted to talk to a family friend about the issue. She's now paranoid as to whether or not Firefox and Ad-Block Plus will work with Kaspersky, and as much as she does not want to admit it she is kinda putting other peoples' word above mine on these issues. (I've done Firefox + ABP on so many systems I can get it done in 10 minutes or so unless I hit a snag.)
So will there be any compatibility issues?
Thanks.
Also, where can I get Avast? Download.com good enough, or do I need to visit an official website?
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Feb 5, 2015 17:12:29 GMT
No compatibility issues with those, though i would add either privacy badger or noscript to shield the browser side more.
|
|
). Her panic was cemented when a family friend whose husband is a technophile echoed the sentiment.
