• Non-wallet raping anti-virus?
    109 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33121727]More like in this day and age most people only visit sites they have book marked, so many sites offer so many services and features (Google and Facebook for example) that you have to try to find yourself on an infected site.[/QUOTE] Actually it's frightening how many people get completely fucked because [url=http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/some-people-cant-read-urls/]they use their search engine as a URL bar[/url]. It can lead to some surprising attacks.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;33121727]it scans MUCH faster than most scanners, [/QUOTE] Just figured I'd test this out since I'm doing nothing right now: avast scans the same number of objects in half the time as MSE.
Comodo.
[QUOTE=gparent;33121483]Who cares if it's a third party plugin? My point is, you can't trust websites to be safe, because [URL="http://www.scmagazineus.com/mysqlcom-hacked-to-distribute-malware/article/212883/"]they can be hacked.[/URL] So your "common sense" anti-virus is completely unreliable. What are you using is called [B]luck[/B]. Your common sense reduces greatly your chance to click on a malicious link, but it can never eliminate it entirely. Every single time you visit a website, you're lucky it wasn't hacked that day to distribute malware and infect your machine. Being lucky isn't proper protection.[/QUOTE] There's no luck to it, only simple prevention cases which cover a majority of instances where someone can be compromised. How could you possibly protect against having a third-party plugin run from an application you started with no denial of execution at the browser level? [QUOTE=gparent;33121483]If you truly believe that, you are not fit for a discussion on IT security. A few months ago you could [URL="http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Sep/39"]BSoD a Windows machine by sending it a malformed SMB packet.[/URL] That requires no intervention by the user whatsoever. Similar exploits exist that allow remote code execution, which essentially amounts to "getting a virus by doing nothing".[/QUOTE] Yes, because a BSOD event [i](not a virus)[/i] triggered by an obscure exploit that was [i]totally widespread[/i] is relevant to this discussion. [QUOTE=gparent;33121483]Payloads can match signatures or trigger heuristics. Anything can be executable code if it's in the right area in memory.[/QUOTE] Executable files and executable code [i](redundant statement)[/i] are two different things, and not all senarios can be tracked, especially day-0 exploits, of which still aren't of critical importance, because I don't stumble on them every two seconds. [QUOTE=gparent;33121483]Assigning all blame to "downloading weird shit" just shows a lack of understanding of computer security. While it applies to a majority of attacks, claiming it's the only vector of infection is simply wrong.[/QUOTE] Assigning the guise of realistic exploitation through packet transmission just shows your head is up your ass. Of course applications aren't the only method for obtaining malicious software; my argument is you don't need anti-viral software because no one gives a shit about you and I'm not going to go out of my way to make you mad by making you have to restart your computer because you got a BSOD. It's that simple. Clearly I better suit up, since I haven't had any viruses in the last 10+ years. With all of these scary viruses about, I sure hope I don't catch computer AIDS [QUOTE=gparent;33121483]it's a trade-off that the majority of people have no reason to make.[/QUOTE] A majority of people aren't smart enough to help themselves. [editline]4th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=gparent;33122228]Actually it's frightening how many people get completely fucked because [url=http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/some-people-cant-read-urls/]they use their search engine as a URL bar[/url]. It can lead to some surprising attacks.[/QUOTE] This article is about stupid people; it's very fitting, and I'm glad you contributed to this excellent discussion
I don't think the OP wanted everyone to have a gigantic debate over what AV is best/etc... I don't see how any of you can just make a suggestion and go without trying to prove each other wrong. Oh wait. This is H&S, talking about AVs is like talking about OSX vs. Windows vs. Linux. It just doesn't end. Now I understand. Anyways my common standpoint is still MSE or Avast!, with Malwarebytes to bring out the big guns. Want a fucking fortress? Comodo. Daring and thinking you can go any-fucking-where on the internet without getting a virus? ~common sense~ If you're not picky, any protection is some protection, better then nothing. Besides Norton and McAfee, of course. But if you want the most out of what you can get, it seems the majority suggestion, MS or Avast! with Malwarebytes is the way to go, but it really is your choice in the end.
MSE
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]There's no luck to it, only simple prevention cases which cover a majority of instances where someone can be compromised. How could you possibly protect against having a third-party plugin run from an application you started with no denial of execution at the browser level? Yes, because a BSOD event [i](not a virus)[/i] triggered by an obscure exploit that was [i]totally widespread[/i] is relevant to this discussion. Executable files and executable code [i](redundant statement)[/i] are two different things, and not all senarios can be tracked, especially day-0 exploits, of which still aren't of critical importance, because I don't stumble on them every two seconds. Assigning the guise of realistic exploitation through packet transmission just shows your head is up your ass. Of course applications aren't the only method for obtaining malicious software; my argument is you don't need anti-viral software because no one gives a shit about you and I'm not going to go out of my way to make you mad by making you have to restart your computer because you got a BSOD. It's that simple. Clearly I better suit up, since I haven't had any viruses in the last 10+ years. With all of these scary viruses about, I sure hope I don't catch computer AIDS A majority of people aren't smart enough to help themselves. [editline]4th November 2011[/editline] This article is about stupid people; it's very fitting, and I'm glad you contributed to this excellent discussion[/QUOTE] One question. If you don't have any anti-viral software, how do you know you have an infection? Modern viruses have become much harder to see without actually catching them with a scanner. As you are a programmer, think about it from a developers point of view. Would you want people to actually notice your software doing the dirty to their system easily? No. You would make it hide itself well, make sure that what it does (opening backdoors, spending small amounts of data like keypresses, waiting for a remote trigger as part of a botnet) as hard to notice as possible. Most modern malware that isn't adware is very good at hiding. Not having AV in this day and age, especially on a Windows machine is a retarded move. User interaction is not required any more. As pointed out, websites can be attacked, and safe content replaced with malware. Around a year ago now, the ad system FPSBanana used was infected with malware. Drive-by-downloading onto the viewers computer without their knowledge. The only way it was picked up? Anti-virus software. Everything on the website looked normal, and you probably would not notice the malware it downloaded either.
I've always figured that it was "common sense" to get an antivirus software anyway.
[QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]There's no luck to it, only simple prevention cases which cover a majority of instances where someone can be compromised. How could you possibly protect against having a third-party plugin run from an application you started with no denial of execution at the browser level?[/QUOTE] It is luck. Refusing to use an effective measure of protection, hoping you won't browse any compromised websites, is luck. [QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]Yes, because a BSOD event [i](not a virus)[/i] triggered by an obscure exploit that was [i]totally widespread[/i] is relevant to this discussion.[/QUOTE] Did you purposely ignore the part where I said this could be a remote code execution instead of a kernel driver crash? The point was, you can be infected without doing anything, contrary to what you were saying earlier. Don't play stupid on purpose. Let me bold the part that you completely ignored because that was easier to do than to admit you are wrong: [quote][B]Similar exploits exist that allow remote code execution[/B], which essentially amounts to "getting a virus by doing nothing".[/quote] [QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]Executable files and executable code [i](redundant statement)[/i] are two different things, and not all senarios can be tracked, especially day-0 exploits, of which still aren't of critical importance, because I don't stumble on them every two seconds.[/quote] No, they can't all be tracked. Did anyone ever say that? I hope not... It seems you're still missing the point of layered security. [QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598] Assigning the guise of realistic exploitation through packet transmission just shows your head is up your ass. Of course applications aren't the only method for obtaining malicious software; my argument is you don't need anti-viral software because no one gives a shit about you and I'm not going to go out of my way to make you mad by making you have to restart your computer because you got a BSOD. It's that simple. [/quote] So your argument is that you are in fact less secure without an anti-virus, but that chance of infection is not very likely? Great, that's been my argument the whole time. I'm glad you think I'm right. Let me know how you managed to unwedge your head from down there, I never tried inserting mine in such proxy locations. [QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]Clearly I better suit up, since I haven't had any viruses in the last 10+ years. With all of these scary viruses about, I sure hope I don't catch computer AIDS[/quote] This is the argument that unlocking your car doors is fine because you've never been car jacked. Completely irrelevant. [QUOTE=amcfaggot;33123598]This article is about stupid people; it's very fitting, and I'm glad you contributed to this excellent discussion[/QUOTE] I can't find what exactly is "fitting", because user stupidity has absolutely nothing to do with the vectors of infection I'm talking about, where as it has everything to do with the ones you are talking about (executing malicious files). [QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;33126115]I've always figured that it was "common sense" to get an antivirus software anyway.[/QUOTE] It's much better to not use one so you can come up with bad arguments on the internet as to why you're so safe and awesome. When you're logically shown to be wrong, just go "But I haven't gotten a virus in fifty years!" to reinforce your social status. EDIT: Basically, it comes down to this. You're saying "Anti-virus isn't useful", and then I show you a bunch of reasons why anti-virus can be useful (and I even make you discover use cases you hadn't thought of or were denying to be true), and then you go "but no it's useless because I never got infected". Well good for you. A lot of people haven't gotten AIDS from having sex without wearing a condom, doesn't mean it's not a good idea to put one on, and it's an even worse idea to suggest that it's a good method of protection not to wear them. The only point where you are somewhat correct is that you can manage not to be infected without anti-virus, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. I showed you how they were useful, you make the call whether you want to use them or not.
Sorry to bump this, but my parents are finally getting rid of McAfee and they want me to get them a new antivirus (and firewall). I was just going to install MSE, or maybe avast, but they are rather paranoid and apparently don't care about system performance, so what would everyone suggest? It doesn't have to be free. Thank you in advance.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33273690]Sorry to bump this, but my parents are finally getting rid of McAfee and they want me to get them a new antivirus (and firewall). I was just going to install MSE, or maybe avast, but they are rather paranoid and apparently don't care about system performance, so what would everyone suggest? It doesn't have to be free. Thank you in advance.[/QUOTE] If they're really paranoid, then I'd recommend [URL="http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php"]COMODO[/URL]. You might need to tweak it a little bit or explain it to them (It may be confusing at first for them). Otherwise: Avast , MSE, Avira or Panda Cloud.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;33273690]Sorry to bump this, but my parents are finally getting rid of McAfee and they want me to get them a new antivirus (and firewall). I was just going to install MSE, or maybe avast, but they are rather paranoid and apparently don't care about system performance, so what would everyone suggest? It doesn't have to be free. Thank you in advance.[/QUOTE] MSE is fine even for the paranoid...
[QUOTE=BBgamer720;33274043]If they're really paranoid, then I'd recommend [URL="http://www.comodo.com/home/internet-security/free-internet-security.php"]COMODO[/URL]. You might need to tweak it a little bit or explain it to them (It may be confusing at first for them). Otherwise: Avast , MSE, Avira or Panda Cloud.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=gparent;33275053]MSE is fine even for the paranoid...[/QUOTE] Thank you both; they decided that MSE would be fine after all.
[QUOTE=waxrock;33035190][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qqchc.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/l4l26.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/uk20c.png[/IMG] Still not understanding why people recommend MSE.[/QUOTE] Woah, where did you get that picture
[url]http://www.av-test.org/en/home/[/url] [url]http://www.av-comparatives.org/[/url] It's in the reports.
lets keep it simple: kaspersky or nod32 if you want to pay yearly comodo or malwarebytes if you want a free option plus noscript and adblock plus in firefox is best and keep all of your important software updated with regular patches and update your OS etc
MSE With Spybot and Malwarebytes as back-up just in case you do get something that MSE isn't able to completely remove. Other than that just watch out where you browse, what you download and you'll be just fine.
[QUOTE=waxrock;33041722]Because they're bandwagoning idiots? I still see people recommending Comodo's AV even though that thing is a piece of shit compared to GOOD AVs like avast, AVG, Panda, etc. I've also used a ton of other AVs and have never been infected, including MSE. What are you getting at? "THE TESTS ARE BULLSHIT AND BIASED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT WITH MY VIEWS" Good one.[/QUOTE] AVG sucks. I had a virus on my external HDD and even doing a deep scan, AVG didn't detected. Installed MSE and MSE was like "Hey look, you have a virus on your this drive." My moms computer was a sesspool of virus and AVG just shat bricks. We installed MSE and it pretty god rid of all virus. Now just an old, slow and clean instead of being old, slow and infected. :v:
[QUOTE=Ownederd;33297635]lets keep it simple: kaspersky or nod32 if you want to pay yearly comodo or malwarebytes if you want a free option plus noscript and adblock plus in firefox is best and keep all of your important software updated with regular patches and update your OS etc[/QUOTE] Malwarebytes isn't an anti-virus in sense of the term that is commonly used to describe anti-virus. It is excellent anti-spyware, but it doesn't have active scanning, networking scanning, and a plethora of other features that other anti-virus have. (Unless you buy the paid version, then it's a tiny bit more than an anti-spyware)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.