What antivirus do you use?

What antivirus do you use?

I'm currently using Symantec Antivirus but thinking of swithcing, maybe to Avast!
What antivirus are you using/recomending?
Are you using more than one? If so check them both on the poll.

Removal of extensions is one particular gripe of mine about anti-virus techniques. I don't want to be the victim of censorship, I want to be protected.

cheers,

catch

Originally posted by shogunu:

I'm currently using Symantec Antivirus but thinking of swithcing, maybe to Avast!
What antivirus are you using/recomending?
Are you using more than one? If so check them both on the poll.

The choice of AV is down to personal preference, however you should not be running two AV at the same time due to conflicts. The same goes for running a firewall.

As for censorship and protection, my above post will merely protect you from potential dangerous attachments. The list I gave for AVG is for attachments that are not required/desired/used by the majority of average Internet users, therefore the list would protect you from attachments that may be disguised as legitimate attachments (remember the I Love U virus was disguised as a .txt attachment when in fact it was a .vbs attachment).

Dava

Dava, the multiple option is actually for those who use more than one computer. Of course you should not use more than one resident antivirus program on your computer and most installers (afaik) warn you if they find another av already installed.

Also consider that there are people actually using two av's on the same os, and both resident. It probably clogs the system since the av's continuously scan each other but it does happen.

Originally posted by shogunu:

Dava, the multiple option is actually for those who use more than one computer. Of course you should not use more than one resident antivirus program on your computer and most installers (afaik) warn you if they find another av already installed.

True (and I still regrett it that I haven't tried the multi choice) - but also just quite right.... as the only PC mag I consider worthwile at the moment (C't - and worthwile while even if you find in every PC mag such Urban Myths for tweaks as the "Unload DLLs" Registry Setting" for win2k and above it is the only one thats mentioning the knowledgebase article by Microsoft ((wich by accidents?) is only mentioning it on the .com side, but not (even in later KB Articles) on the .de side) that this one is obsolete and ignored by win2k and above) is recommending for instance BitDef8 Free Edition (wich is only On-Demand) as a secondary Scanner.... On-Demand Engines can easily co-exist on one System together with Active Shielding ones and in regards to the "only average" performance of some free scanners, it isn't IMHO a bad idea to incorporate a secondary on-demand engine on the system (and for the on-demand for bit-def the version number 7,8 or 9 isn't any difference - AFAIK they all use the same engine build and signature files - only the beyond on-demand parts are different between those versions) - of course it cannot harm to have a prebuild emergency disk made by for instance BartPE as a surely virus/rootkit/etc. free in-depth scan resource at hand, but a second virus scanner on actuall system isn't that bad if its for direct scanning (see my first post about how NOD isn't able to recognize my archieved viri in Opera mbs files but BitDef is recognizing 'em)... And speaking of RescueCD - of Course BartPE is a free alternative, but that is one part where commercial software has an advantage over free ones and where corporations differ a lot - like Afee or Norton wich just offer some ancient engines on their RescueCD (AFAIK unable to even read NTFS partitions) and for instance BitDef and AVK who provide a bootable Linux CD with their scanners (and updateable via Net from that BootCD) - another Part why I prefer (if its not 64bit OS) Softwin over Eset wich isn't providing a rescue medium (alike to so many others)

Originally posted by Dava:

As a follow up to this topic, does anyone have statistics about the relative success of the different AV solutions against each other I.e. detection rates, cleaning rates, general details on which AV is statistically the best.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Originally posted by ThePast:

Originally posted by Dava:

As a follow up to this topic, does anyone have statistics about the relative success of the different AV solutions against each other I.e. detection rates, cleaning rates, general details on which AV is statistically the best.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Thanks. There are some interesting comparatives on that website. I notice that AVG does not stand up too well in the latest on-demand comparative.

Dava

FYI:
AVG & Avast Home Edition DO NOT have script blocking. That, is enough to disqualify them as a solution for me or the people I support. What good is a defense which allows a script to be installed then, hopefully, catches the intrusion(s) afterwards and forces a reboot in order to clean up the machine. Sure, you can turn of scripting in most browsers but then pay a price for website functionality.

Wow - thanks for the av.org link
Maybe I should keep an eye on GData (as they incorporate both BitDefs and Kasperskies Engine its no wonder they performed so well) - lets see what the situation is once my current licenses expire

Originally posted by OperaBuddy:

FYI:
AVG & Avast Home Edition DO NOT have script blocking. That, is enough to disqualify them as a solution for me or the people I support. What good is a defense which allows a script to be installed then, hopefully, catches the intrusion(s) afterwards and forces a reboot in order to clean up the machine. Sure, you can turn of scripting in most browsers but then pay a price for website functionality.

Really? I was always under the impression that Avast had script blocking functionality, I know AVG doesn't have this (at least not in the free version).

Dava

Nope, the Home edition of Avast doesn't have a script blocker.
http://www.avast.com/eng/av4_version_comp.html

Originally posted by shogunu:

Nope, the Home edition of Avast doesn't have a script blocker.
http://www.avast.com/eng/av4_version_comp.html

Out of the main differences in the Home and Professional version, I would say that the lack of script blocking is probably the key ommission. Mind you for us Opera users how significant is script blocking anyway?

Dava

bit defender 9 pro plus. and ewido for malware.

i like them alot and they dont hog my system.

I use GNU/Linux as my permanent anti-virus solution.

I recommend it to anyone who's tired of using anti-virus, anti-apyware, anti-* products that really just get in the way of using a computer. Use GNU/Linux and just get back to using your computer rather than worrying about it all the time. I did and I've never looked back.

But Linux viruses do exist.
And as Linux gains popularity more of them will emerge.

Originally posted by shogunu:

But Linux viruses do exist.
And as Linux gains popularity more of them will emerge.

You are correct, but the Linux architecture is different and with distros like Ubuntu shipping with NO world accessable services turned on, it's very difficult for something to get a foothold situation under Linux. Fedora is a nightmare in this regard, as it ships with EVERYTHING running. You're right, though. Once Linux hits critical mass in the number of users, the miscreants will devise ways to make Linux users lives hell as well. You could switch and enjoy the temporary respite, though.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

I use GNU/Linux as my permanent anti-virus solution.
I recommend it to anyone who's tired of using anti-virus, anti-apyware, anti-* products that really just get in the way of using a computer. Use GNU/Linux and just get back to using your computer rather than worrying about it all the time. I did and I've never looked back.

You know what !!! =)
If everyone starts use GNU/Linux Hakers will start write new viruses not for Win32, but for GNU/Linux!!!
It will be tragedy for all. Take your word back !!!

Originally posted by outthereandback:

You are correct, but the Linux architecture is different

True, the Linux architecture is different, oddly enough it is actually inferior to the NT architecture (sure we can muddy the waters by talking about LIDS, SELinux, Pitbull-LX, etc... but for all practical purposes these are irrelevant). This isn't a matter of starting an OS war or anything like that, personally I believe both systems have their uses, it is a matter mathematical fact. For example, the NT access control policy is more expressive than the Linux one... what does all of this have to do with anything? Simply that Linux's architecture is insufficient to protect it from viruses.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

distros like Ubuntu shipping with NO world accessable services turned on, it's very difficult for something to get a foothold situation under Linux. Fedora is a nightmare in this regard, as it ships with EVERYTHING running.

This makes a given system more or less likely to suffer an insecure daemon exploitation... though this may be the result of a worm, these daemons have nothing to do with the spread of viruses.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/virus.htm
Is a simple and straight-forward article that addresses how viruses are spread, the differences between viruses and worms, etc.

cheers,

catch

I find Avast very good.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

Originally posted by shogunu:

But Linux viruses do exist.
And as Linux gains popularity more of them will emerge.

You are correct, but the Linux architecture is different and with distros like Ubuntu shipping with NO world accessable services turned on, it's very difficult for something to get a foothold situation under Linux. Fedora is a nightmare in this regard, as it ships with EVERYTHING running. You're right, though. Once Linux hits critical mass in the number of users, the miscreants will devise ways to make Linux users lives hell as well. You could switch and enjoy the temporary respite, though.

And after Linux viruses spread we'll all switch to FreeBSD

quietly digs out his old copy of AT&T Unix

Originally posted by shogunu:

And after Linux viruses spread we'll all switch to FreeBSD

Uh, no. FreeBSD is not GPL. I don't like the BSD license one bit. It's worse than proprietary licences in my opinion since it allows lazy corporations to take the code and include it in their works and call it their own. It's too capitalist for my liking. It allows people to stand on the shoulders of others with no due credit and make a profit from it. No-no in my book. I'm all about the sharing, thanks. Opera would be better off GPLing everything it releases. They would go from the tiny user base they have to whopping numbers overnight. This has been discussed on Slashdot at length. I believe this to be true.

What do viruses have to do with the OS licence?
And the new BSD license has been modified in 99 to delete that particular clause because of the critique around it.
And why would Opera be a better browser beeing released under the GPL?

The BSD license still allows unfettered code re-use.

GPL'd software is more free than proprietary licenses, something we should all desire. If you don't agree, that's OK, too. But in the end, it's the freedom of the users that matters. If I cannot change the program to suit my needs, how am I really free? What about sharing with my friends? If I buy proprietary software, which I wouldn't, I could not share with my friends due to the license issues. It's best to remain on the free side of the fence if at all possible.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

This has been discussed on Slashdot at length.

And of course the people discussing on Slashdot (News for Nerds) are very representative of the majority of computer users.

Originally posted by ThePast:

And of course the people discussing on Slashdot (News for Nerds) are very representative of the majority of computer users.

They are representative of the geeks, who are the only users that really count. Slashdot users understand license issues and follow them closely since they affect us as users. Mom and pop could care less about computers as long as they work. Most teens are caught up in nothing but AIM conversations and could care less that their computer doesn't even have anti-virus. So, that leaves us--the geeks--to wrestle with issues such as licenses, features, etc. I'm greatly concerned about software licenses since I'm a technical user. I fear for my child's future and freedom on the 'net and using software. A lot of what happens on Slashdot is crap, but when it comes to license discussions, most people are deadly serious as they should be, and most people are heavily in favor of the GPL once they learn about its benefits.

Peace...

I don't like the BSD license one bit. It's worse than proprietary licences in my opinion since it allows lazy corporations to take the code and include it in their works and call it their own. It's too capitalist for my liking.

I don't know where you got your definition of capitalist from, but I'd ask for a refund.

If your concern is freedom, then shouldn't that include the freedom to use the source in any manner that you see fit? Personally I see no evidence that the type of license will effect use... if so we should expect that the free products would be the most widespread, and this is not always or even often the case.

cheers,

catch

I like the GPL because it's a viral license. It infects whatever it touches. If I release code under the GPL, that particular code can never be added to a company's products legally without that product being released under the GPL as well. All GPL'd code must be re-released under the GPL if it is altered in any way. It's the perfect license.

The BSD license is like saying, I could care less if my children are slaves as long as I'm free myself. I'm using the analogy of children and software. It's not the perfect analogy, but you get what I'm saying. Under the GPL, all derivitives must be kept under the GPL and kept free for all to use and re-use and change as people see fit.

Originally posted by ThePast:

Originally posted by outthereandback:

This has been discussed on Slashdot at length.

And of course the people discussing on Slashdot (News for Nerds) are very representative of the majority of computer users.

outthereandback, how does the freedom of the users translate in real world? Opera, albeit being non GPL, is better than Firefox, *BSD is better than Linux and Microsoft Office is still better than OpenOffice (LGPL).
And speaking of proprietary software, Gibson Research Corporation developed the best hard drive testing/recovery piece of software (SpinRite), which is also non GPL and costs around 90$. You won't buy their software even if it could recover 1000$ worth of data from your hard drive?

Originally posted by outthereandback:

If I release code under the GPL, that particular code can never be added to a company's products legally without that product being released under the GPL as well.

Good luck enforcing that.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

All GPL'd code must be re-released under the GPL if it is altered in any way.

Minimal changes will void the license, especially if done by any company with a decent legal staff.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

It's the perfect license.

If all software was free, then were would the software engineers work? Most free software is done by students or programmers in their offtime. But with no pay software, what day jobs would the programmers have? With no programming jobs, why would people spend $100,000 for four years of school with no chance of a paying job at the end?
With no software companies, who would support mature development processes? With no process maturity, would software ever get any better? Or would we just seem the same mistakes played out over and over again as we currently do in the open source community?

Originally posted by outthereandback:

The BSD license is like saying, I could care less if my children are slaves as long as I'm free myself. I'm using the analogy of children and software. It's not the perfect analogy, but you get what I'm saying. Under the GPL, all derivitives must be kept under the GPL and kept free for all to use and re-use and change as people see fit.

To me the BSD license makes more sense, either the code is free or it isn't, none of this grey area, "I want credit!", "I want to change the world!", "Free Kevin!", half-way garbage.

cheers,

catch

I have the AntiVir PE right now. I tried to download the eicar.com file, and it caught it right away. So I made a copy and put it in My Documents. I'm sure AVPE will find it next time I run it.

I also use Spyware Doctor. It seems to be really thorough!

I used to use Kasperskii. I really liked it. But I can't find a Free Version, if there is one.

Originally posted by zzycatch:

f all software was free, then were would the software engineers work? Most free software is done by students or programmers in their offtime. But with no pay software, what day jobs would the programmers have?

This is a typical misunderstanding of the GPL. GPL freedom means free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Red Hat makes money, as does SUSE, as do dozens of other companies. You can make money under the GPL. The GPL doesn't prevent selling of software or services, it just prevents taking away of freedoms.

Free software != free as in beer (although it can).
Free software = free as in freedom.

Go read on why software should be free...

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html

I like love beer

Originally posted by shogunu:

I like love beer

probably never had American beer

You got me there, i did never had American beer :|
But it can't be that bad, can it?

Originally posted by shogunu:

You got me there, i did never had American beer :|
But it can't be that bad, can it?

Think Perrier with some alcohol. Then you've got it.

There are some good American beers, actually. Samual Adams is one of the best. Some of the small breweries actually put out some good stuff.

Call me nuts, but in all honesty, there is nothing better than an ice-cold Corona with a huge steak and bean burrito with lots and lots of hot sauce.

Corona is indeed one of my favourites but it's not American (as in U.S.American ) it's Mexican.

Originally posted by hclincha:

Originally posted by shogunu:

You got me there, i did never had American beer :|
But it can't be that bad, can it?

Think Perrier with some alcohol. Then you've got it.

Most German men, after a few days visiting the USA for the first time will have two basic questions*:

1. Why is there so much water in the toilets?

2. Does the beer always taste so bad?

*These are not the only questions and many questions would arise regardless of where in the world these people would have been. These two are very common for the situation put forward.

Note about Corona. There are two reasons this cheap beer from Mexico became popular: It was cheap and the available beers tasted like crap so what's the difference. Corona is traditionally drank with a twist of lime, this is to kill some of the rank taste.

and what about the firewall??????

Originally posted by zmw:

and what about the firewall??????

That is a different subject, have you tried a forum search?

Originally posted by zmw:

firewall

Firewalls are useless against viruses, but somewhat effective against worms that target certain ports to exploit and then move on. A firewall is only as good as its ruleset, and the more rules a firewall has allowing certain things, the more useless it is. The most dangerous ports are 135, 137, 139, and 445. Full stop. Nothing else gets more crap aimed at it than these. The vast majority of miscreants target these ports. If you're curious about what listens on what ports, go to http://www.portsdb.org/PortsDB/services

The average user needs port 80 (http), 443 (https), 110 (pop), 25 (smtp), 22 (ssh if you use it), and whatever ports streaming media that you may listen to uses (this varies greatly). 110 and 25 are useless if you use nothing but webmail like I do, since I don't like software email clients. Everything belongs on the net as much as possible.

Things like AIM and most IM clients can be configured to operate on any port, hence they are hated by firewall administraters, but there is a way to kill this off, too. Just block login.oscar.aol.com and any IPs that point to that subdomain. Same goes for streaming media.

Windows firewall is pratically useless, but it's better than nothing. GNU/Linux has great firewall choices and GUIs for the people who hate editing text files.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

Firewalls are useless against viruses

Proxying firewalls can be very effective against viruses.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

The most dangerous ports are 135, 137, 139, and 445. Full stop. Nothing else gets more crap aimed at it than these.

Hmm this is debatable... the most dangerous ports would be any exposed, active services.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

The average user needs port 80 (http), 443 (https), 110 (pop), 25 (smtp), 22 (ssh if you use it), and whatever ports streaming media that you may listen to uses (this varies greatly). 110 and 25 are useless if you use nothing but webmail like I do, since I don't like software email clients.

There really is no point for the average home user to concern themselves with outbound ports... the average home user should allow no inbound ports to unestablished connections.

Things like AIM and most IM clients can be configured to operate on any port, hence they are hated by firewall administraters, but there is a way to kill this off, too. Just block login.oscar.aol.com and any IPs that point to that subdomain. Same goes for streaming media.

Most corporations with any real security concerns utilize proxying firewalls which will catch these communications regardless of the chosen port.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

Windows firewall is pratically useless, but it's better than nothing. GNU/Linux has great firewall choices and GUIs for the people who hate editing text files.

All personal firewall are practically useless... firewalls are intended to seperate network segments, not to protect systems, the only type that offer any viable protecting are fifth generation, the rest are very frequently misused.

Back to the point about the GPL, you miss the point, free software can't exist without commercial software. Who do you think did all the initial work on Linux? Students and software engineers for other companies. Without real companies to pay for software developer food and rent bills, you'd never see software of any quality or maturity (Linux is a great example).

cheers,

catch

Firewalls? Ha! How is it that about 2000 guys manage to break into the Pentagons's computers every day?

Anyway, regarding Virus Checkers, etc. I was surprised to see the Spyware Doctor also found the Eicar file!

Symantec Antivirus Corporate 8.1 and 10
and Avast 4.6 Home Edition.

Originally posted by zzycatch:

Originally posted by outthereandback:

Firewalls are useless against viruses

Proxying firewalls can be very effective against viruses.

catch, outthereandback was referring to personal software firewalls, which indeed are utterly useless.

Firewalls? Ha! How is it that about 2000 guys manage to break into the Pentagons's computers every day?

Oh lord... you know... I wrote a short article on this a few years ago, as an introduction to risk management. Yes, government computers are compromised all the time. Why? Because the government just doesn't care about those systems. The losses generated by their compromise are less then the costs to secure them (consequently securing them would increase loss, not decrease it).
When the US Government wants to secure something, they secure it. Systems like the XTS-400 are bottom of the barrel where critical security is concerned. In any event, this has nothing to do with the quality of firewalls available (*cough-sidewinder g2-cough*).

catch, outthereandback was referring to personal software firewalls, which indeed are utterly useless.

Personal "firewalls" are not typically firewalls, they do not meet the definition of any of the five generations of firewall. If anything most personal firewalls would be considered an access control extension since their aim is to restrict the resources available to given applications rather than to filter network traffic. (though some do provide genuine, rudimentary packet filtering functionality)

cheers,

catch

Originally posted by outthereandback:

There are some good American beers, actually. Samual Adams is one of the best. Some of the small breweries actually put out some good stuff.

Call me nuts, but in all honesty, there is nothing better than an ice-cold Corona with a huge steak and bean burrito with lots and lots of hot sauce.

I was referring to Bud myself, which is the stereotype of American beer. I haven't tried any other American beer. Probably because Bud is teh only one I find in the supermarkets here. The funniest part of it is that they charge almost a buck more for a can of Bud than what they charge for a can of say, Heineken.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

Originally posted by ThePast:

And of course the people discussing on Slashdot (News for Nerds) are very representative of the majority of computer users.

They are representative of the geeks, who are the only users that really count. Slashdot users understand license issues and follow them closely since they affect us as users. Mom and pop could care less about computers as long as they work. Most teens are caught up in nothing but AIM conversations and could care less that their computer doesn't even have anti-virus. So, that leaves us--the geeks--to wrestle with issues such as licenses, features, etc. I'm greatly concerned about software licenses since I'm a technical user. I fear for my child's future and freedom on the 'net and using software. A lot of what happens on Slashdot is crap, but when it comes to license discussions, most people are deadly serious as they should be, and most people are heavily in favor of the GPL once they learn about its benefits.

That have very little to do with your misconception that Opera would go from a tiny userbase to whopping numbers (see quote below) if it went GPL. Like it or not but geeks are still a tiny minority among the people that use a browser. It's not like your average Joe and Jane even now what GPL is, nor do they care they simply want software that works. And in case you haven't noticed, IE still have a vast majority of the market which is a darn good indication that license type is irrelevant to most people.

Originally posted by outthereandback:

They would go from the tiny user base they have to whopping numbers overnight. This has been discussed on Slashdot at length. I believe this to be true.

---

Originally posted by outthereandback:

They are representative of the geeks, who are the only users that really count.

Not from a business perspective.

I'll tell you a little secret. Opera is a company. Amazing huh?

I think the most important factor is how fast new definitions get onto my laptop.

I voted for Kaspersky because that's probably what I'd use if I had a choice. But none of my clients will let me connect to their networks without Norton Antivirus (a few will accept McAffee).

About hardly any votes here for the big companies or the programs that have price tags, it doesn't surprise me at all.

AVG Free is gr8.
Idea : Opera hooking up with AVG. How about tht?
What if AVG (or any other AV) was to provide free scanning for all the downloads/Tranfers by Opera and displaying the result in a nice popup within Opera! (Instead of loading the entire AVG scan prog and displaying the result)....like a quick scan......maybe downloading files to a temp directory, scanning it and then saving it to the user defined folder?

I think dat wud be gr8!!!!