Anti-virus Question

It always makes me laugh/sigh when I see various others (not mentioning particular names) banging on about 'Sandboxie/VMs' - just what on earth are they getting up to/what sites are they frequenting (that I'm not) - for the most part, it's just more, crazed paranoia!
I dunno about "banging on" but I have mentioned sandboxes here.
I was only 'exaggerating for effect' - I actually just had one particular person in mind (and not you).

It's not that anyone seriously 'bangs on' about Sandboxie - but rather, that I've long noticed one person, for quite some years (going at least as far back as 2008) still popping up from time to time with the same personal recommendation.

I'm surprised Jim hasn't taken it upon himself to give them the same 'friendly advice' that he recently offered 'Joe186'... - not that it ever stops him from repeatedly recommending 'Emisoft' via 'newegg.com', ad nausea (slight exaggeration again). ;-)

Anyhow - I'd like to hope that not everyone on this forum has had a sense of humour by-pass, although it sometimes appears that way.
 
XP is still, to this day, a very good OS - it is still the second most widely used OS with over 30% of user share.
I like XP but now that it is unsupported, it's pretty vulnerable to new buffer overrun exploits of which I am sure there are many yet to be discovered.
XP is still under 'extended support' until April 2014 (next year) - we are not quite there yet.

Even after that date, I don't believe it will suddenly be Armageddon.

Once the key 3rd party software vendors stop supporting it, esp' Flash, Java, Acrobat etc - and particularly the anti-malware/AV companies - well that is when holes really stop getting plugged.
Most people take sufficient/more than adequate precautions.
I don't think that assertion is supported by the facts.
Thousands of machines are newly infected every day. 30,000 a day just in Australia according to their government.
I can't believe that.

Microsoft's Security Intelligence Report give figures that suggest only 'ball-park figure' of 1% infection in a quarter year period.

The population of Australia is about 23 million (and they won't have one PC each). If 30,000 machines were 'newly infected each day' then that would equate to a possible 12% infection rate per quarter year period!

I really doubt that Microsoft would have missed a factor of 12x.
I'm not a fan of self-serving studies pushed out by the AV industry. But there's significant evidence that a very significant proportion of all the machines in use today contain at least one infection; maybe 30-50%.
Again - I find that extraordinarily difficult to believe.

In any event, even if there was some kind of remote truth there - clearly, 30-50% of users are not experiencing any obvious detriment.

Note - just having the odd fragment of malware orphaned on a machine doesn't actually pose much risk, if any, at all.

An 'exe' 'dll' registry entry (or whatever else) is absolutely harmless if it's not ever called up/executed.
In the US, someone is the victim of identity theft about once every 3 seconds (12.6 million in the US in 2012).
That's 1 in 30... 'folk'.

I guess that's quite likely - but I doubt that is all the result of PC OS exploits/malware.

ID theft can easily occur entirely without the need to hack into any PC.
Fortunately, I was not one of them but I do know some victims and I can assure you it can be a major life-changing and very unpleasant event.
User education is part of the problem and poor software design from major corporations is another.
Indeed - s*** happens... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3984845.stm
But, seriously, given the systems and software we have today, most people are failing to take anything like adequate precautions.
I know full well that some people can be pretty careless/naive, but even then, that's not the majority experience of people that I recognise.

I think we'll have to 'agree to disagree'.
 
Last edited:
I know full well that some people can be pretty careless/naive, but even then, that's not the majority experience of people that I recognise.
I find that very easy to believe. You're well educated and I suspect most of the people you have contact with on a daily basis are the same. It's true for most of the members of this forum.

But trust me, we're all very unrepresentative of the population as a whole. The fact you're even participating in a discussion of malware prevention places you in the exceptional and "weird" category :-)
 
I know full well that some people can be pretty careless/naive, but even then, that's not the majority experience of people that I recognise.
I find that very easy to believe. You're well educated and I suspect most of the people you have contact with on a daily basis are the same.
Well, as it happens, that's isn't actually the case...

In my previous job of nearly 25 years (research\design\development\production support), on a daily basis I'd be mixing with all different levels and backgrounds of people - from the very top Chairman & Chief Exec (on the odd occasion), right down to the the cleaning staff - and much the same goes for family and friends.

For all that though - I'll readily acknowledge that I've had to sort out my fair share of their messed up PCs (viruses and all).
It's true for most of the members of this forum.

But trust me, we're all very unrepresentative of the population as a whole. The fact you're even participating in a discussion of malware prevention places you in the exceptional and "weird" category :-)
Thanks? :-|
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they're immune to malware infection.
Where did I say I thought I was "immune"? I have not said that anywhere.

And when will you stop being so bl***y condescending?!
Excuse me?

You're the one calling using responses with post Titles like "Overly Alarmist/Paranois..."
XP, huh? Good luck with that.
Huh? - don't be so ridiculous (not to mention patronising).

XP is still, to this day, a very good OS - it is still the second most widely used OS with over 30% of user share.
It also has a dramatically higher malware infection rate compared to newer Operating Systems.
So, I take a lot of extra precautions.
Most people take sufficient/more than adequate precautions.

Unless you were hosting the site on your own machines, cross-infection would be highly unlikely.

If it was that easy to infect a forum site, then just about every popular forum would be infested with malware.
You don't seem to "get it".

If my Windows configuration is compromised, the passwords with Admin (root access) to the servers we host the forums on could be compromised, as I still access those servers when logged into Windows for testing other products.

That's one of the most common ways web sites are compromised (by compromising the machine of a user with admin level access so they can get the passwords needed in order to compromise the site).

Also, you may be surprised that more compromises than meet the eye do occur. Unless user information is confirmed to compromised, that kind of thing is usually not reported.

I've seen our web site compromised more than once in the past (and you'll find the same thing to be true for many web sites).

So, yes, I take a lot of precautions to reduce the possibility of that happening.
Thousand of companies, big and small, all over the world still run millions of Windows clients (and a great many still using XP), and they have a heck of a lot more at stake than some poxy Internet forum - yet they are not cowling in terror.

Shying away from ever using Windows and/or IE, just for fear of malware, is pure paranoia - and such paranoia is essentially born out of ignorance and/or a gross over-exaggeration of the actual level of any risk.
Again, you seem to resort to labeling (or should I say "name calling") when you disagree with what someone posts.

Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before using tactics like calling someone else condescending, patronizing, ridiculous, ignorant, paranoid, etc. etc. etc.;, and just stick to debating the facts instead.

--
JimC
------
 
Last edited:
It always makes me laugh/sigh when I see various others (not mentioning particular names) banging on about 'Sandboxie/VMs' - just what on earth are they getting up to/what sites are they frequenting (that I'm not) - for the most part, it's just more, crazed paranoia!
I dunno about "banging on" but I have mentioned sandboxes here.
I was only 'exaggerating for effect' - I actually just had one particular person in mind (and not you).
You seem to do a lot of that kind of thing "exaggerating for effect", including as much name calling as possible when someone else has an opposing viewpoint.

As pointed out in this response, perhaps you should look in the mirror

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52518997

"Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before using tactics like calling someone else condescending, patronizing, ridiculous, ignorant, paranoid, etc. etc. etc.;, and just stick to debating the facts instead.
It's not that anyone seriously 'bangs on' about Sandboxie - but rather, that I've long noticed one person, for quite some years (going at least as far back as 2008) still popping up from time to time with the same personal recommendation.

I'm surprised Jim hasn't taken it upon himself to give them the same 'friendly advice' that he recently offered 'Joe186'... - not that it ever stops him from repeatedly recommending 'Emisoft' via 'newegg.com', ad nausea (slight exaggeration again). ;-)
I also did not appreciate your "It's not your job Jim..." post in another recent thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52489573

I look at post patterns from members for a living (and have for 10 years), and the OP of that thread was "out of line", period. I look at a lot of forum posts every day, and take actions against those types of members looking to cause trouble in forums or use the forums for personal gain (as his posting pattern looked like).

Frankly, he's lucky he wasn't banned for more than one reason, including posts that broke the rules as far as Spam is concerned (making multiple posts linking to a site without any new content), and for "trolling", as IMO, the posts being made were designed to "rile up" members, just for fun.

Yep... it's not my job (at dpreview.com) to point out those types of things. But, I was only trying to point out to the member posting that if that kind of posting pattern continues, he's probably end up being banned (as I explained in later posts).

If I were a mod here, I'd have deleted some of the "cross posting" being done, and sent him a note about it. But, since I'm not in a position of authority here, I played it "nice" and made comments about in the latest thread he started (versus just clicking on the Complaint Button) to give the poster a chance to change behavior before someone else complained and he ended up being banned.

As for my posts about Emsisoft, as pointed out multiple times in other posts, newegg.com doesn't even offer Emsisoft products anymore (no listings for them period). I was pointing out that you could find very good deals on very good products if you're a good shopper (versus paying full retail for them), with excellent protection, and indicating what I'm using now (as Emsisoft uses both the BitDefender Engine, as well as it's own engine for malware detection, behavior blocking, etc.

If you look at some of the studies you linked to, it's a very good product for that purpose now (as they've made a lot of improvements to it in newer releases).

--
JimC
------
 
Last edited:
In my previous job of nearly 25 years (research\design\development\production support), on a daily basis I'd be mixing with all different levels and backgrounds of people - from the very top Chairman & Chief Exec (on the odd occasion),
Well, it seems the CEO was likely a big part of the problem:


:-)
 
Can anybody please tell me the best Anti-virus programme to use. I had the Windows Defender on but once I put AVG on this was automatically switched off. Is there some way I can use the two together?

Is there any programme better than these two.

Should I pay for the more advanced AVG.

I would appreciate any advice that you can offer. After a recent severe malicious virus attack I think am becoming a bit paranroid.

Best Regards & Thanks again.
I've read many articles by security experts and one of the most recommended ways to protect your system is to disable JAVA.

After a while, you will have enabled JAVA on your most visited sites, which are also probably your most trusted sites.

Where you will run into problems is when you do a search on something like "DVD rippers."

You then enter the unknown.

For me, I had a brand new computer and enter such sites and was blown away at the amount of infections I got hit with. Took a tremendous amount of time and different software packages to get rid of all the mess that had been done.

At the time I had Malwarebytes and Windows Security Essentials installed.

My protection now is Windows Firewall, Malwarebytes and BitDefender.

To me, Malwarebytes seems to be aimed and getting rid of the problem but not preventing the problem. I have used Malwarebytes for several years. I would not rely on it for your primary protection.

BitDefender actually blocked an e-mail the other day. The jury is still out as to how good BitDefender actually is. The other day it detected 12 malware issues. What it did not do it prevent those 12 malware issues.

Some of my IT savvy co-workers swear by ESET Smart Security.
 
I have used [ESET] on my own machine without any issues or regrets!
Yes, it offers one of the better compromises between fast scan speed and good production.

Will ESET support Windows XP after April 2014?

Did you ask them?

They always tell you immediately is a Windows update has not been downloaded, so I tend to doubt they will continue XP support very much past April.
 
Last edited:
I've read many articles by security experts and one of the most recommended ways to protect your system is to disable JAVA.
Browser Java, anyway.

Current Firefox versions do not allow browser Java even if the runtime (JRE) is installed on a machine.

IE uses a Microsoft Java, I believe, not Sun/Oracle Java. Does that make a browser-based application more secure to run with IE than with other browsers?
 
Yes, good question. It works on Linux running Firefox with an outdated (the final) version of Adobe Flash. However looking at source for the interactive graphic, it seems to be written entirely in Javascript. Maybe try a different browser?
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

I'm not sure why, but those interactive charts don't work on my PC (XP with IE8) - they used to work some time ago - any suggestion as to what I'm missing, settings/plugins?
 
I've read many articles by security experts and one of the most recommended ways to protect your system is to disable JAVA.
Browser Java, anyway.

Current Firefox versions do not allow browser Java even if the runtime (JRE) is installed on a machine.

IE uses a Microsoft Java, I believe, not Sun/Oracle Java. Does that make a browser-based application more secure to run with IE than with other browsers?
Not an expert. I use Google Chrome and disable JAVA.
 
I've read many articles by security experts and one of the most recommended ways to protect your system is to disable JAVA.
Yes, Java can be risky in some situations, more so if it's not kept updated. A lot of Mac users (who are usually less targeted by malware) got caught by this last year. I uninstalled Java from my computers long ago.

Another thing I'm not sure has been emphasized enough is the risk of false positives in AV software, especially if it results in system files being quarantined. In a few cases, faulty updates have resulted in computers failing to boot.

Even non-destructive false positives cause time to be wasted checking them out, plus the "crying wolf" risks. The false-positive rate of AV software is something to consider as well as protection.

I'm not comfortable suggesting any particular AV product; there are just too many factors involved, and individual needs vary.

I do think that a large part of the malware problem is user behavior, and I wish there was an easy way to fix that. One of my friends had a severe multiple-malware problem, which I repaired with considerable difficulty. I installed free AV software, and gave them some basic AV education. Within a month they were badly infected again. :-(
 
I've read many articles by security experts and one of the most recommended ways to protect your system is to disable JAVA.
Yes, Java can be risky in some situations, more so if it's not kept updated. A lot of Mac users (who are usually less targeted by malware) got caught by this last year. I uninstalled Java from my computers long ago.

Another thing I'm not sure has been emphasized enough is the risk of false positives in AV software, especially if it results in system files being quarantined. In a few cases, faulty updates have resulted in computers failing to boot.

Even non-destructive false positives cause time to be wasted checking them out, plus the "crying wolf" risks. The false-positive rate of AV software is something to consider as well as protection.

I'm not comfortable suggesting any particular AV product; there are just too many factors involved, and individual needs vary.

I do think that a large part of the malware problem is user behavior, and I wish there was an easy way to fix that. One of my friends had a severe multiple-malware problem, which I repaired with considerable difficulty. I installed free AV software, and gave them some basic AV education. Within a month they were badly infected again. :-(
I had a friend who called for AV help a couple of years back. His brother-in-law had stayed at his house while he was gone and spent quite a lot of time visiting porn sites. Luckily, his problem was fixed with just a couple of AV products.
 
I have Java on my computer as some of my programs use it, but have it disabled from my browsers. You can disable Java in your browsers by going in your control panel, clicking Java, then security, making sure the "enable Java in the browser" box is unchecked.

Also I use WOT (web of trust), where users rate internet sites for safety.

Often if I am not sure of a site, I'll scan it with VirusTotal . If I'm not sure of a program before installing I use VirusTotal to scan in before installing.

I also use Secunia which informs me of any of my programs that need to be updated.
 
1. don't run two anti-virus programs at the same time because it will do more harm than good.

2. don't spend money on anti-virus programs unless you surf through a lot of porn or other kind of "suspicious" website. the best defense against computer viruses is always you. if you are so stupid to run a mail attachment coming from someone you don't even know for example then no anti-virus can protect you.

3. if you use windows 8 then it's best to use the built-in antivirus a.k.a. windows defender.
 
Seriously...those of you still running XP can't afford a job to get a new computer with more than 3gig of RAM? That blazingly fast Pentium 4 too hard to give up? Try banging on the ceiling and asking the parents for an increase in your allowance.

OEM Support for XP might already be expired. Extended support only applies to people with Volume License support - not OEM. Support for Server 2008 is already long in the tooth. 2003 needs to die as well. Try doing basic active directory diagnostics on 2003 and you can't do anything without installing some absurd developer kit.

I support a lot of desktops running XP - all of which are running in VMware or Xendestop as virtual desktops that can be set for no-differential disks. Only way it's safe. The OS still works, but Microsoft is already refusing to patch zero day exploits for XP such as the latest TIFF exploit. Get real.....

If it wasn't for Chrome and Firefox XP wouldn't be able to browse the internet.

Best AV software there out there is not surfing with admin rights which isolates crapware at worst in your local profile. NTFS has been out there for over a decade now, and malware can't get around NTFS restrictions even with very rare rights elevation exploits.
 
It always makes me laugh/sigh when I see various others (not mentioning particular names) banging on about 'Sandboxie/VMs' - just what on earth are they getting up to/what sites are they frequenting (that I'm not) - for the most part, it's just more, crazed paranoia!
I dunno about "banging on" but I have mentioned sandboxes here.
I was only 'exaggerating for effect' - I actually just had one particular person in mind (and not you).
You seem to do a lot of that kind of thing "exaggerating for effect", including as much name calling as possible when someone else has an opposing viewpoint.
No - I do not 'do it a lot' .

Yet again, you repeatedly attempt to superimpose your selective interpretation/view.
As pointed out in this response, perhaps you should look in the mirror

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52518997

"Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror before using tactics like calling someone else condescending, patronizing, ridiculous, ignorant, paranoid, etc. etc. etc.;, and just stick to debating the facts instead.
I'm fully cognisant of, and calibrated in, what I post - and I will only use such descriptions where I see them to be justified.

It is not a 'tactic' - it is a genuine and valid reaction to your behaviour.

You are the one here, who should be 'looking in the mirror' .
It's not that anyone seriously 'bangs on' about Sandboxie - but rather, that I've long noticed one person, for quite some years (going at least as far back as 2008) still popping up from time to time with the same personal recommendation.

I'm surprised Jim hasn't taken it upon himself to give them the same 'friendly advice' that he recently offered 'Joe186'... - not that it ever stops him from repeatedly recommending 'Emisoft' via 'newegg.com', ad nausea (slight exaggeration again). ;-)
I also did not appreciate your "It's not your job Jim..." post in another recent thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52489573
I'm sure you didn't - perhaps, just the same as the OP of that thread didn't 'appreciate' your unwarranted intervention.
I look at post patterns from members for a living (and have for 10 years), and the OP of that thread was "out of line", period.
Utter nonsense - period.

You were "out of line" - far more than the OP of that thread ever was.
I look at a lot of forum posts every day, and take actions against those types of members looking to cause trouble in forums or use the forums for personal gain (as his posting pattern looked like).

Frankly, he's lucky he wasn't banned for more than one reason, including posts that broke the rules as far as Spam is concerned (making multiple posts linking to a site without any new content), and for "trolling", as IMO, the posts being made were designed to "rile up" members, just for fun.
Your repeated claim that "he's lucky he wasn't banned... [etc]" is absolutely laughable.

He did nothing even close to justifying anything of the sort. At the very worst he might have been sent a polite PM from a moderator (although I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have even felt the need for that).

Your 'opinion' on such matters does not/did not justify your to intervention - particularly with the high-handed/self-appointed manner in which you did (whether you see it that way or not).

Your unnecessary intervention, and that of one or two supporters, was the instigation of all the trouble in that thread, not the OP, nor his original message.
Yep... it's not my job (at dpreview.com) to point out those types of things.
Correct - so next time, don't do it.
.../..

As for my posts about Emsisoft, as pointed out multiple times in other posts, newegg.com doesn't even offer Emsisoft products anymore (no listings for them period).
Oh for goodness sake Jim - get a sense of humour!

I mad it abundantly clear that I was teasing - quote... " ...(slight exaggeration again). ;-) "
 
Last edited:
It never ceases to amaze me how many people think they're immune to malware infection.
Where did I say I thought I was "immune"? I have not said that anywhere.

And when will you stop being so bl***y condescending?!
Excuse me?

You're the one calling using responses with post Titles like "Overly Alarmist/Paranois..."
Those are 'observation/opinion' - not condescension/patronisation, that you indulge in - there is a clear difference.
XP, huh? Good luck with that.
Huh? - don't be so ridiculous (not to mention patronising).

XP is still, to this day, a very good OS - it is still the second most widely used OS with over 30% of user share.
It also has a dramatically higher malware infection rate compared to newer Operating Systems.
Not if it is properly AV/IS protected - as I clearly provided evidence to support (and which you conveniently edited out of your reply)....

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/marapr-2013/

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

...no difference in rate of protection/compromise, with AV/IS installed.

Where there is a difference, this is more likely to be due to the fact that the later OS are supplied with Windows Defender and UAC enabled by default, whereas a bare XP system is left for the user to install some anti-malware protection for themselves. And of course, the older the installation (whatever the OS) the greater the probability that all its software may not be fully patched/updated.

With the same AV/IS installed on either, and all software fully patched/updated - there is little or no difference.
So, I take a lot of extra precautions.
Most people take sufficient/more than adequate precautions.

Unless you were hosting the site on your own machines, cross-infection would be highly unlikely.

If it was that easy to infect a forum site, then just about every popular forum would be infested with malware.
You don't seem to "get it".
Again, condescending and patronising.

I do 'get it' - you do not.

I'm telling you, very simply, that such paranoid measures (i.e. your avoiding Windows wherever possible, etc), are out of all proportion to the risk.

Multi-million/billion dollar businesses routinely use Windows machines for just about every purpose imaginable, many having thousands of networked machines/servers/users - and they have far, far, more at stake than your Forum Admin passwords.
 
Last edited:
Can anybody please tell me the best Anti-virus programme to use. I had the Windows Defender on but once I put AVG on this was automatically switched off. Is there some way I can use the two together?

Is there any programme better than these two.

Should I pay for the more advanced AVG.
No, I'd use a better product, as even some of the free products offer much better protection.

AV protection is a hotly debated subject in the forums. Personally, I'm using Emsisoft Anti-Malware now. See my posts about it in this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52260969

But, you'll also find debates about the products offering the best protection in other threads. For example, see my posts in this thread:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52502202

For a free product, I'd probably look at Avast (as mark h pointed out, does nicely on many of the real world tests).

But, if you don't want to be nagged by upgrade offers, etc. (as you'll tend to see with free AV solutions); I'd suggest looking at products like Emsisoft (using it's own engine, as well as the Bitdefender engine), Bitdefender, or Kaspersky.

As for Microsoft Security Essentials (or Windows Defender), I'd strongly suggest using a different product, as Microsoft's protection tends to be about as bad as it gets (almost any other product will offer better protection against malware).

---JimC
------
I use Norton on three machines on a three machine license and it has worked well for several years. These machines are no longer front-line machines so in 11 month's time I will be cancelling Norton, if only because it is not free or even cheap.

I had one machine with AVG and it caught a bad virus that took some professional effort to clean. Since then I have run two newer machines and the older one that caught a cold on free Microsoft Security Essentials and have had no issues whatsoever over several year's use. So go figure, as the saying goes.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top