Does Facepunch have malware on it? - General

[QUOTE=Panda X;21582724]No it's a random file (masked as .py) (though seems it's a PDF if that header told me anything) that's downloaded through an advertisement. It fucks up IE (again oh boy) to where it only goes to a page where you can buy their "AV" to fix the issue.[/QUOTE] So it works without the need to click anything ?

Gahhh thank god for NOD and Noscript. The ironic thing is my computer is infected from a virus from spankwire.

[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;21582754]So it works without the need to click anything ?[/QUOTE] Seems that way. But since the ads rotate you're not guaranteed to get infected. I'd do another unprotected scouting run but I don't have a VM to fuck around with like Panda does. Like most of these infections, you may need to be using IE for it to work.

I just re-enabled everything for FP again... fucking garry, that greedy fuck, why he even needs those ads for ?

yeah [editline]04:39PM[/editline] wait this is real? thank you adblock

Wait, if titles are coming true... CP will be okay 99% of the time That guy will get a title from dav0r There are comedy police Halo porn

[QUOTE=Zeke129;21583592]Wait, if titles are coming true... CP will be okay 99% of the time That guy will get a title from dav0r There are comedy police Halo porn[/QUOTE] Something is horribly amiss. I just can't point out what.

Yes.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;21583592]Wait, if titles are coming true... CP will be okay 99% of the time That guy will get a title from dav0r There are comedy police Halo porn[/QUOTE] And Always Fucking Longhorn Again.

Norton isn't actually that bad anymore. You guys should stop jumping on the bandwagon. They've made it one of the lightest AVs available, and Norton Insight is great for 0-day malware. I've tested the 2010 and 2011 versions and I was impressed. I don't use it, but it's not as bad as it used to be. Symantec have actually worked pretty hard to improve it, and honestly they've done a good job.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21584500]Norton isn't actually that bad anymore. You guys should stop jumping on the bandwagon. They've made it one of the lightest AVs available, and Norton Insight is great for 0-day malware. I've tested the 2010 and 2011 versions and I was impressed. I don't use it, but it's not as bad as it used to be. Symantec have actually worked pretty hard to improve it, and honestly they've done a good job.[/QUOTE] I'll say one thing and you can take it however you want: At least it's not McAfee.

[QUOTE=Panda X;21584507]I'll say one thing and you can take it however you want: At least it's not McAfee.[/QUOTE] McAfee is pretty terrible. Their detection rates aren't too bad, but as a suite it's definitely not worth your money. Its performance is pretty bad. I read somewhere that it has a HIPS though, but I haven't tried it so I can't comment on it. [editline]07:23PM[/editline] Norton 2011 Beta vs 0-day malware: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4fBsOBGs28[/media]

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;21584532]McAfee is pretty terrible. Their detection rates aren't too bad, but as a suite it's definitely not worth your money. Its performance is pretty bad. I read somewhere that it has a HIPS though, but I haven't tried it so I can't comment on it. [editline]07:23PM[/editline] Norton 2011 Beta vs 0-day malware: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4fBsOBGs28[/media][/QUOTE] Not only is it terrible, it just crippled anyone who runs WinXPSP3. A lot of business must have enjoyed that.

[QUOTE=Panda X;21584553]Not only is it terrible, it just crippled anyone who runs WinXPSP3. A lot of business must have enjoyed that.[/QUOTE] That too, but a similar thing happened to Avast as well, yet people seemed to ignore that. [editline]07:27PM[/editline] I don't think it was as bad though.

I get warnings that there's malware when I'm in certain threads. I imagine it's the links and whatnot. I use McAffee and it's been perfect so far. I hated norton so hard.

Norton is the problem. It picks up the most false positives in the world. Get something like NOD32. While this one wasn't a false positive, Norton still picks up heaps for me even when I'm on stuff like Linux forums.

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584777]Norton is the problem. It picks up the most false positives in the world. Get something like NOD32. While this one wasn't a false positive, Norton still picks up heaps for me even when I'm on stuff like Linux forums.[/QUOTE] 1. It was proven legit. So Norton wasn't the problem. Unless doing its job is now a problem. 2. Bullshit statement. 3. 4. Just because the forums are for linux doesn't mean you're instantly invulnerable to viruses.

[QUOTE=Panda X;21584812]1. It was proven legit. So Norton wasn't the problem. Unless doing its job is now a problem. 2. Bullshit statement. 3. 4. Just because the forums are for linux doesn't mean you're instantly invulnerable to viruses.[/QUOTE] I didn't say any of those, read again please. 1. I quote myself: " While this one wasn't a false positive". 2. Norton is the biggest heap of shit I've ever used. NOD32 is better in many respects, especially the price tag. 3. 4. I didn't say that a Linux forum would make my Windows PC invulnerable - it's just that Linux forums (read: Mailing Lists) are mainly text, and mainly text does not include viruses. Norton freaks out about the cookies, because they store my login data. Whoop de doo. Next time, read a post before making a reply.

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584777]Norton is the problem. It picks up the most false positives in the world. Get something like NOD32. While this one wasn't a false positive, Norton still picks up heaps for me even when I'm on stuff like Linux forums.[/QUOTE] What Panda X said. Also, about the false positives thing: The latest AV-Comparitives tests beg to differ. [IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/23200fp.png[/IMG]

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584844]I didn't say any of those, read again please. 1. I quote myself: " While this one wasn't a false positive". 2. Norton is the biggest heap of shit I've ever used. NOD32 is better in many respects, especially the price tag. 3. 4. I didn't say that a Linux forum would make my Windows PC invulnerable - it's just that Linux forums (read: Mailing Lists) are mainly text, and mainly text does not include viruses. Norton freaks out about the cookies, because they store my login data. Whoop de doo. Next time, read a post before making a reply.[/QUOTE] I did read. I made a reply to each of your statements. Next time, don't be a douche. 1. Yes, you did say that. However claiming Norton was the problem when all it did was do its job was moronic. 2. Ok cool. 3. 4. Your statement was vague.

Perhaps I should amend my statement. It picks up the most false positives in the world, in my experience of using it over a course of five years. [editline]11:40AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Panda X;21584850]I did read. I made a reply to each of your statements. Next time, don't be a douche.[/QUOTE] You incorrectly assumed in your first point that I had claimed this was false. I hadn't, as I have shown.

Damn, it's such a shame that Norton was ruined like that. In 2005 it was the best AV software money could buy.

Norton... that's your problem

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584857]Perhaps I should amend my statement. It picks up the most false positives in the world, in my experience of using it over a course of five years. [editline]11:40AM[/editline] You incorrectly assumed in your first point that I had claimed this was false. I hadn't, as I have shown.[/QUOTE] Just to make you look even more dumber: Latest AV-only tests: [IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/55f800detection.png[/IMG] Latest dynamic tests (testing AVs using their full suites - as they should be tested): [IMG]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/6400dynamic.png[/IMG] [editline]08:13PM[/editline] I find it hilarious that you think an AV-only suite can compete with a suite that contains a HIPS/behavior blocker.

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584857]Perhaps I should amend my statement. It picks up the most false positives in the world, in my experience of using it over a course of five years. [editline]11:40AM[/editline] You incorrectly assumed in your first point that I had claimed this was false. I hadn't, as I have shown.[/QUOTE] I didn't assume anything. You stated Norton was the problem, in context of this thread (as you didn't specify anything else other than "Norton is the problem" implying that it directly regarded this thread) which in this case, Norton was not in fact the problem which you contradicted later.

[QUOTE=Ldesu;21584866]Norton... that's your problem[/QUOTE] Jumping on the bandwagon - that's your problem.

We need to email Garry and demand a refund. Seriously, one of the major gold members like Panda should contact Garry about this. Nasty shit. In the meantime, NoScript should be alright, but be careful.

[QUOTE=robowurmz;21584857]It picks up the most false positives in the world, in my experience of using it over a course of five years.[/QUOTE] Five years ago, Norton was terrible. In the past couple of years, Norton has improved significantly. I do my own extensive AV testing on VMs. Out of all the AVs I've tried, only Comodo, Kaspersky and Norton 2010/2011 have blocked all the [mainly 0-day] threats I've thrown at it. [editline]08:39PM[/editline] [QUOTE=robowurmz;21584844]I didn't say any of those, read again please. 1. I quote myself: " While this one wasn't a false positive". 2. Norton is the biggest heap of shit I've ever used. NOD32 is better in many respects, especially the price tag. 3. 4. I didn't say that a Linux forum would make my Windows PC invulnerable - it's just that Linux forums (read: Mailing Lists) are mainly text, and mainly text does not include viruses. Norton freaks out about the cookies, because they store my login data. Whoop de doo. Next time, read a post before making a reply.[/QUOTE] Also, the fact that you actually pay for a suite that only has an AV for protection is laughable and gives you no right to criticize Norton. Free AVs do the exact same thing. A free AV has the same effectiveness as NOD32 since they don't have extra layers of protection (HIPS, behavior blocker, reputation system, etc.). Whether the detection rates are greater or worse is almost completely irrelevant since AV-only AVs can never give you 100% protection, whereas something like a HIPS can. If you're actually going to pay for an AV, pay for something that gives you these extra layers of protection; otherwise, stick to a free AV and continue use your common sense as that extra layer. Don't waste your money.

I got it through firefox. Be careful

[QUOTE=pedroion;21585394]avg fre ftw[/QUOTE] Fuck discussing AVs on Facepunch. You guys are idiots.