Virus, Spyware, Malware Protection

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 10:53

what do people recommend to prevent these?
i know M$ Security Essentials is supposed to stop virus and malware, but not spyware? not sure on AVG whether it advances out of just basic virus protection.
i know there are lots of apps to remove it once you have it (combofix, spybot, malwarebytes, loaris......) but these dont actually stop you getting it in the first place do they?

blackn3r · 13 May 2011 at 11:34

Multi layered security For The Win!

My first line of defence is WOT, so I dont actually need to go to dodgy sites... then I have ESET NOD32, Comodo Firewall, Spybot, and Malwarebytes gets ran once a month.

Not had much malware or virus with this combo, it has detected plenty though.

edit: stupid rule, cant even put F T W without it being blanked out...

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 11:48

blackn3r said:
Multi layered security For The Win!

My first line of defence is WOT, so I dont actually need to go to dodgy sites... then I have ESET NOD32, Comodo Firewall, Spybot, and Malwarebytes gets ran once a month.

Not had much malware or virus with this combo, it has detected plenty though.

edit: stupid rule, cant even put F T W without it being blanked out...

cheers

Hairybudda · 13 May 2011 at 11:52

MSE, Malwarebytes Anti Malware, a decent firewall (most people have one built into their router that poops all over soft firewalls). Always plan for the eventuality that you will get infected, because if you run windows you eventually will get infected some way or another, keep regular backups.

Six6siX · 13 May 2011 at 11:54

paradisiac said:
what do people recommend to prevent these?
i know M$ Security Essentials is supposed to stop virus and malware, but not spyware? not sure on AVG whether it advances out of just basic virus protection.
i know there are lots of apps to remove it once you have it (combofix, spybot, malwarebytes, loaris......) but these dont actually stop you getting it in the first place do they?

First, using the hilarious abbreviation M$ because Microsoft makes money makes you come across as an immature Microsoft hater

With that out of the way, as for your question

MSE is designed to be used in conjunction with Windows Defender and Windows Firewall. I have used this combination for ages now and never had a problem. It is lightweight and does the job very well.

Avoid AVG imo as it is bloated and offers poor protection compared to other offerings.

You are right in saying that the standalone tools such as Malware Bytes (free edition) do not stop you getting infected in the first place but merely remove them once on your machine.

Scanners which have resident protection (such as MSE and the like) will run in the background to prevent you getting infected (as far as possible, not accounting for user error)

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 11:55

Hairybudda said:
MSE, Malwarebytes Anti Malware, a decent firewall (most people have one built into their router that poops all over soft firewalls). Always plan for the eventuality that you will get infected, because if you run windows you eventually will get infected some way or another, keep regular backups.

yeh. i have never really had any issues, but we get loads of pcs/laptops through my workplace that keep getting 'fake' antivirus programs popping up.

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 12:01

Six6siX said:
First, using the hilarious abbreviation M$ because Microsoft makes money makes you come across as an immature Microsoft hater

its not just microsoft i dislike, its all the comanys that insist on releasing buggy apps all the time just to get something out, rather than delaying it and doing the job properly. should i have to pay £100 for a new pc with windows on, to be a tester for MS and send them reports everytime i get a fault so they can release a SP to fix it, when they should have done their own testing as most software is in development for years before general release. and the BETA/RC are out for months before it gets released, surely if the problems are there, it should get delayed until its fixed, or it should be sold at a reduced price whilst its being technically trialed on users.
if thats immature then so beit.

Six6siX · 13 May 2011 at 12:32

paradisiac said:
its not just microsoft i dislike, its all the comanys that insist on releasing buggy apps all the time just to get something out, rather than delaying it and doing the job properly. should i have to pay £100 for a new pc with windows on, to be a tester for MS and send them reports everytime i get a fault so they can release a SP to fix it, when they should have done their own testing as most software is in development for years before general release. and the BETA/RC are out for months before it gets released, surely if the problems are there, it should get delayed until its fixed, or it should be sold at a reduced price whilst its being technically trialed on users.
if thats immature then so beit.

What buggy apps?

By your logic
a) you dislike all software companies; if you have a piece of software that you haven't had a problem with, its virtually guaranteed that someone else will have had an issue with it
b) if all software companies followed your rules there would be no software released. At all. Generally speaking, in this arena, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of software, let alone before release into the market. All software would be theoretically released at v1.0 and would never change.

The purpose of public beta testing an operating system is to iron out the major problems and to release a final product free from the issues that the majority of users will experience. Anything that surfaces thereafter is due to the infinite number of combinations of configurations, specifications, applications etc that could not possibly be accounted for in any stage of testing.

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 12:40

Six6siX said:
What buggy apps?

By your logic
a) you dislike all software companies; if you have a piece of software that you haven't had a problem with, its virtually guaranteed that someone else will have had an issue with it
b) if all software companies followed your rules there would be no software released. At all. Generally speaking, in this arena, there is no such thing as a perfect piece of software, let alone before release into the market. All software would be theoretically released at v1.0 and would never change.

The purpose of public beta testing an operating system is to iron out the major problems and to release a final product free from the issues that the majority of users will experience. Anything that surfaces thereafter is due to the infinite number of combinations of configurations, specifications, applications etc that could not possibly be accounted for in any stage of testing.

the only software that costs me in excess of £100 is windows. and if it was fully tested before release then how come on day one there are always windows updates? i understand that there are a lot of issues with other programs, but none of them cost as much as windows or are as important as windows. microsoft pretty much have their OS on all new computers, so you would expect them to make sure it atleast worked to a reasonable standard, but for the first few months bugs appear all over the place.
im not saying it should be 100% stable, but for the money they charge it should be a lot better.
Linux is FREE on the whole and i dont think it is anywhere near as buggy, Mac OS X starts from around £15-£20 and is nowhere near as buggy. so how come microsoft can charge £100+ for a buggy piece of software and you think its acceptable?

blackn3r · 13 May 2011 at 12:55

Hold on a minute, was not going to get dragged into this debate, but linux is NOT buggy?
You have to configure the whole damn thing before its even close to usable.

And how the hell can you say that Windows should be released with absolutely NO bugs?
That is just a ridiculous statement to make, you cannot refine any program without it being released into the public for more peoples to check for security holes/bugs.

And yes they is lots and lots of software out there that cost a helluva lot more than Windows...

Edit: (on-topic) if you have a BT router, then the security will be real bad...

Six6siX · 13 May 2011 at 12:57

paradisiac said:
the only software that costs me in excess of £100 is windows. and if it was fully tested before release then how come on day one there are always windows updates? i understand that there are a lot of issues with other programs, but none of them cost as much as windows or are as important as windows. microsoft pretty much have their OS on all new computers, so you would expect them to make sure it atleast worked to a reasonable standard, but for the first few months bugs appear all over the place.
im not saying it should be 100% stable, but for the money they charge it should be a lot better.

It works without any issues for me and many other people! Windows 7 in particular has been rock solid since I installed it years ago.

I would say that an OS of that standard, that can be used limitlessly, with all patches and updates provided free of charge (look at how many other companies charge for updates!) and transferable to future computers (Retail license implied) is worth the money.

Like I said, there will always be some people who 'discover' a problem due to a specific configuration or when a security hole is uncovered. But then, guess what - it's sorted out!

paradisiac said:
Linux is FREE on the whole and i dont think it is anywhere near as buggy

Really? I believe there are just as many updates released for various distros over time and far more frequent major releases. Linux however has it's downfalls such as compatibility, though that is another topic.

paradisiac said:
Mac OS X starts from around £15-£20 and is nowhere near as buggy.

OSX is a different entity altogether. It has its bugs, without a doubt! (updates come through just as frequently on my MAC as they do on my Windows PC)

However, the price of OSX is not comparable to Windows as you cannot install it (legally) on anything other than Apple hardware (for which you will have paid a premium for in the first place

)

Having a finite number of hardware configurations to code for also makes things simpler

paradisiac said:
so how come microsoft can charge £100+ for a buggy piece of software and you think its acceptable?

Flawed statement is flawed.

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 13:01

i never once said they did not have bugs, i said they were not as buggy. and the price difference is huge in comparison £100 vs FREE.

my opinion is microsoft rush things out, dont test properly on the basis it will be loaded on pretty much every new pc regardless of compatibility and people will buy it because they want the latest OS.
im not saying this is a bad thing as all companies do similar, i just think its wrong when microsoft still insist on charging a fortune for it with very little after sales support other than updates. has anyone actually phones microsoft about a windows issue and got an answer that resolves it?

Hairybudda · 13 May 2011 at 13:06

blackn3r said:
Hold on a minute, was not going to get dragged into this debate, but linux is NOT buggy?
You have to configure the whole damn thing before its even close to usable.

You are so wrong with this point on so many levels it's not even funny

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 13:16

blackn3r said:
Edit: (on-topic) if you have a BT router, then the security will be real bad...

hmm..........now you mention it, most of the virus pc/laptops i see have the bthub manager icon on the desktop.

is zonealarm any good. used it years ago but found it was a tad annoying with its popups every 2 seconds asking if i wanted to allow something. or is this the way with all firewall programs?

RavenXXX2 · 13 May 2011 at 13:20

For me I use Avast and firefox with no-script add-on installed, not had any issues in years with this combination.

Six6siX · 13 May 2011 at 13:22

paradisiac said:
my opinion is microsoft rush things out, dont test properly on the basis it will be loaded on pretty much every new pc regardless of compatibility and people will buy it because they want the latest OS.

I disagree!

The testing procedure is extensive (in house, public and private betas etc) and serves to remove the vast majority of problems that people might experience.

The general public do not buy a new PC just because it has a new OS!

If an enthusiast or OEM is building a new PC, what would be the point in NOT putting the latest OS on it? If they didn't we'd still be running Windows 98SE or something

paradisiac said:
im not saying this is a bad thing as all companies do similar, i just think its wrong when microsoft still insist on charging a fortune for it with very little after sales support other than updates. has anyone actually phones microsoft about a windows issue and got an answer that resolves it?

AFAIK Microsoft don't normally provide tech support in that capacity to the end user. The support agreement for the consumer lies with the OEM (or in the case of those who purchase OEM copies 'off the shelf', they are buying them with the understanding that they support themselves).

What more support do you need besides the internet though, really? That and ALL updates and service packs free of charge forever? It's really not that bad a deal!

Of course, Apple provide support for their OS...if you pay them...

paradisiac said:
my iphone gets the latest iOS FREE, so even though it has its bugs it cost me nothing. do microsoft offer FREE upgrades to people? i know some companies did when vista went to 7, but microsoft didnt offer it as a universal upgrade for all who want it. and the free upgrade was only to people that purchased new hardware in a timescale, whereas apple released their iOS upgrade to all.

Comparing phone OSs to computer OSs is a bit a long shot as the markets operate so differently so I'll compare like for like.

iPhones get updates for free? For the lifetime of the product? You mean just like Windows Phone..?

Again, the comparison is weak because Apple make all the devices and as such have much tighter control over hardware specifications etc thus allowing them to roll out universal updates for all handsets and devices. This is physically impossible for Microsoft as there are too many OEMs.

As far as the Vista->7 upgrade, yes it was hardware OEMs that offered the free upgrade when Vista based hardware was purchased within a certain time before/after the Windows 7 release.

edit: this has gone waaaaaaay off topic lol

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 13:22

RavenXXX2 said:
For me I use Avast and firefox with no-script add-on installed, not had any issues in years with this combination.

is avast very system hungry?

i know MSE has an option to not run any scans if the computer is busy, like gaming or something, so it doesnt slow it down. i know AVG have/had a gaming mode option, but think you had to manually tell it to go into that mode. does avast have similar?

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 13:27

Six6siX said:
The general public do not buy a new PC just because it has a new OS!

i meant people who buy a new pc get windows forced upon them, and people with older pcs will buy the new os because its new. sorry if i didnt explain too well.

yeh it has gone off topic. i was just giving my opinion as to what i thought about microsofts attitudes towards consumers. it was my opinion and i still stick to it. i cant see any justification on the prices they charge for what you get in return. and when there is no real competition to compare them to then they can pretty much charge what they like. and i feel they abuse that.

Six6siX · 13 May 2011 at 13:47

paradisiac said:
i meant people who buy a new pc get windows forced upon them, and people with older pcs will buy the new os because its new. sorry if i didnt explain too well.

Ah I see. Yes, then I would say it is forced upon them in some ways, but it really makes no sense for an OEM to install an outdated OS, when the cost (incorporated into that of the new machine) is no different to a shiny new one.

paradisiac said:
yeh it has gone off topic. i was just giving my opinion as to what i thought about microsofts attitudes towards consumers. it was my opinion and i still stick to it. i cant see any justification on the prices they charge for what you get in return. and when there is no real competition to compare them to then they can pretty much charge what they like. and i feel they abuse that.

Genuine question: why don't you use Linux if you think the price of a Windows OS doesn't justify then end product and experience?

Whilst it is a relatively significant price tag, I don't think MS are exploiting the market, considering you pay more than half the cost of a whole OS for some PC game titles which are FAR more buggy and unstable and have usage statistics numbering in hours because they get boring

paradisiac · 13 May 2011 at 14:01

Six6siX said:
Ah I see. Yes, then I would say it is forced upon them in some ways, but it really makes no sense for an OEM to install an outdated OS, when the cost (incorporated into that of the new machine) is no different to a shiny new one.

Genuine question: why don't you use Linux if you think the price of a Windows OS doesn't justify then end product and experience?

Whilst it is a relatively significant price tag, I don't think MS are exploiting the market, considering you pay more than half the cost of a whole OS for some PC game titles which are FAR more buggy and unstable and have usage statistics numbering in hours because they get boring

Im not saying they should install an older OS, i just feel that in this day in age, there should be something else, other than windows, for people to choose from.

i cannot go over to linux as i play games, and as with most things, microsoft own the rights to directx and pretty much all games require it. so again to my first comment, there should be an alternative.
people kick up fuss when Nvidia cards get better stuff than AMD cards or vice versa in games, and want it all to be fair. but microsoft get away with being the only operating system that will run the games.
i guess this is my thing, there just isnt enough competition to make microsoft develope to a level that justift the price.