AV Solutions

KIA said:
The question you should be asking yourself is, why was my computer able to be exploited in the first place?

Switching to a different AV product won't make any difference if you fail to address the basic issues such as software patching.
Click to expand...

You say that as though a fully patched system is immune to malware. The box was fully patched, as they always are in our house. I run secunia, Firefox plugin checker and Windows update regularly. It was infected by a drive-by on a legit site because, even when updated, Windows is a closed source system that has many holes. Even when made known vulnerabilities take up to a month to be patched and sometimes much longer. It doesn't help that even when malware is a year old, MS still haven't added signatures to MSE for it. :p

That's the reason only one box in our house runs Windows (and only then for Publisher), and is basically a throw-away install with an image ready to re-deploy in case of issues. Everything else runs Linux or OS X. Ironically I was running MSE at the recommendation of this forum, but since then (and with much testing of malware against suites in a VM), I run Webroot or Comodo with its integrated sandbox. :)
 
Rainmaker said:
You say that as though a fully patched system is immune to malware. The box was fully patched, as they always are in our house. I run secunia, Firefox plugin checker and Windows update regularly. It was infected by a drive-by on a legit site because, even when updated, Windows is a closed source system that has many holes. Even when made known vulnerabilities take up to a month to be patched and sometimes much longer. It doesn't help that even when malware is a year old, MS still haven't added signatures to MSE for it. :p
Click to expand...

For the average person, a fully patched system is immune to drive-by malware attacks. Ancient malware isn't going to be using a new vulnerability, let alone a 0day. You must have slipped up somewhere along the line.
 
OSX is a closed source system with many holes too. There is, unfortunately, a small element of dumb luck involved in avoiding malware on any system that's used to browse the web. Especially if you're running Flash and Java plugins etc. - even if they're patched and up to date. For a Windows user it's an attrition problem, for Mac users not nearly as much.

Speaking more generally, relying on antivirus to protect a computer isn't the way forward. It is *a* piece of the puzzle. The tendency after a breach however is to point the finger squarely at the AV product and question its detection rate.

It's completely understandable, but out of proportion and implies that people are looking at detection percentages and are roughly equating them to overall system security e.g. 85% detection rate = 85% secure computer. Which is a fatal mistake, of course.
 
MSE/Defender/windows firewall/router hardware firewall and spybot search n destroy.
also an online scan now and then just to check as a safe guard have done me just fine for at least the last 6+ years, so I see no reason to change that
 
MSE is ****, KIS is far better.

it's always better to go with a AV that has the highest detection rate.

it only takes one time to be attacked and then you find yourself waste time getting things back right
 
Last edited:
i been using bit defender internet security suite
for 3 years now?

20 pounds for 3 computers 1 year each. for extra security and features 5 pound is worth it i think
however i have also used defender on win8 with no problem. no reason not use it but having a better firewall & few extra feature that bit defender gives is handy.

i personally don't like the ui of Defender though.
 
metalmackey said:
No A/V can detect everything so why pay for one. IMO use a good frre 1 like Avast, Bitdefender ect, backed up with malwarebytes.
Click to expand...

that right No A/V can detect everything but has I said it's always better to go with a AV that has the highest detection rate. why go for a lower detection rate A/V just because it's free
 
Because of this thread I decided to give Avast another try. Works fine but on opening some files/progams the system feels slower - there does seem to be more lag when opening files than with Win 8 defender. Also on my Win8.1 laptop one program has struggled to open fully - but always opens the second time I invoke it. Again, wasn't a problem under MSE/Defender. Not knocking avast as I've used it in the past but does seen to have a greater impact on the system so not such a seemless integration.
 
Have you tried Bitdefender Free?

I've found it very good especially browsing local files as I have a folder with executables that mse would take time scanning when loaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom