Windows Defender Vs Webroot Spysweeper
Leggatt - Gibberish IT Limited.@discussions.microsoft.com William Leggatt - Gibberish IT Limited.
48hrs.
I also have installed CA Anti-virus (the free 12 month trial, as suggested
when you install Windows).
both products have been reporting my system as clean.
Today I install Webroot spysweeper V5.XX, run an update, and a full scan.
And it finds 2x adware (command & maxifiles) and a trojan (trojan-busky).
So now I have no faith in Microsoft being able to Defend windows.
I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has also found Windows
Defender to be useless.
Ted Zieglar
you ought to learn the facts.
The facts are that there are many types and varieties of spyware, and
there is no single application that can detect and/or remove them all.
That's why the wise strategy is to have one anti-spyware program running
in the background - to hopefully catch as much spyware as possible - and
several others that are installed without running in the background but
for on-demand scans, to hopefully detect and remove what the full time
spyware scanner missed.
Even with all this, there will still be some variants that no
anti-spyware software can detect or remove. In that case you will have
to perform a painstaking analysis on your own to identify the problem or
you have to do a clean install.
That's why with spyware, prevention is much better than cure. And since
most spyware gets installed because users weren't being careful with the
way they use their computers, you may want to reconsider the wisdom of
your criticism.
In addition, the web has many reliable reviews of different anti-spyware
programs, which you could have consulted to determine which was best for
you.
To sum it up, bluntly: Don't blame Microsoft for your mistakes.
---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."
William Leggatt - Gibberish IT Limited.
The 3 spyware items found, were not new, not seen before in the wild. They
are all over 4 months old.
Whilst I am careful with the sites and attchaments I open, one will always
at some tim pick up a virus, or spyware. This is not a problem, it is the
lack of detection that is.
for your information, windows Defender Beta 2 was installed immendialty
after a clean CD install before the machine went online. Therefore the
product should have caught it.
You seem to agree with me, that most spyware gets installed by users who are
not careful with the way they use their machines. That is why we use
products like Webroot, Windows defender etc. And they should do what they
say on the tin, to coin an English phrase.
for your information, I have about 15 years experience as an IT
professional, working for both Large private corporations, and more recently
running a small IT service company (now with 4 branches) in th UK.
Windows Defender claims to protect your PC. My post was to bring peoples
attention that it does not provide complete protection.
PA Bear
2. Every anti-spyware application (most anti-virus applications are not) is
programmed to look for certain items and is dependent on the status of its
definitions/reference files. It's very unusual for two or more applications
to look for and/or find exactly the same things. This is why you need a
multipronged approach to hijackware.
Roll your own Free Security Suite - CastleCopsWiki
http://wiki.castlecops.com/Roll_your_own_Free_Security_Suite
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-Windows (IE, OE, Security, Shell/User)
William Leggatt - Gibberish IT Limited. wrote:
Ted Zieglar
complete protection."
Apparently, this is a revelation to you, your 15 years of experience
notwithstanding. People who learn about protecting themselves on the
internet know that no product -- including Spy Sweeper -- provides
complete protection, and that protection begins with the user adopting
the right attitude.
---
Ted Zieglar
"Backup is a computer user's best friend."
William Leggatt - Gibberish IT Limited. wrote:
TracyB
of novices who get a false sense of security when they use a security
app from a major player like MS. Norton Antivirus would be a perfect
instance of this happening.
This thread would have a lot more worth if people just post what
combination of anti-spyware they use. I've used Ad-Aware throughout and
leaped on the MS Antispyware/Defender bandwagon but I don't find
Defender to my liking. It takes way too long for a full scan to
complete and its service related exe [msmpeng.exe] constantly takes a
bite out of my RAM even though I have explicitly disabled real-time
protection. Typical of MS to try to play lord and master on my PC. Yes,
they make a lot of great apps including the OS I'm running but they do
make quite a few ill-mannered ones too. The only way out is to disable
the Defender service and start it when I need to run the app.
I'm curious about what others make of Webroot Spysweeper since I use
their Window Washer and really like it. Any opinions?
TIA
Tracy B.
deebs
computer is clean" or should it say "Nothing detected"?
There can be quite a difference between the above two options.
ThunderFire
out there. I did find Webroot SpySweeper excellent.
Windows Defender is also excellent.
Both of these Programs have thier strengths in different areas, and I found
the best defence against Spyware during tests to be a combination of Windows
Defender and Webroot SpySweeper. They will happily run side by side to keep
your system spyware free.
deinonychus73
TracyB Wrote:
> This thread would have a lot more worth if people just post what
> combination of anti-spyware they use.
that it is difficult to be too careful unless any installed
applications conflict with one another. I use the following: Ad-Aware
Personal SE 1.06, Spybot Search & Destroy 1.4, Windows Defender Beta 2,
Spyware Guard, Spyware Blaster and I've also installed IE-Spyad even
though I am more likely to use Firefox as a web browser than IE. I am
very vigilant with scans and I use every single program I have
installed. It is not unusual for me to check Spyware Blaster to make
sure I have the most recent updates, then run a scan with AdAware and
follow up with Spybot Search & Destroy. I have Windows Defender set up
to automatically check for updates and run full system scans daily
during times when I know the computer will be running but is least
likely to be being used by someone.
Out of curiosity, today I downloaded and installed the free trial of
Spy Sweeper and updated to the most recent set of definitions. This is
the same detection capability as the fully licensed paid version, the
only difference is that the trial version will not quarantine/remove
anything it detects. Webroot wants you to buy a license before they'll
do that. :) Can't say I blame them, either. However, I had no need
for that anyway, because with the arsenal of free programs that I
listed above, Spy Sweeper detected zero instances of spyware on my
system. I thought Spy Sweeper was comparable to Windows Defender, and
I've decided to leave the trial version of Spy Sweeper installed on my
system for a while. I will likely run a few more scans with it and see
if it is able to pick up anything the programs I already have installed
do not.
--
deinonychus73
------------------------------------------------------------------------
deinonychus73's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=18713
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=613528
ThunderFire
drawback is that, with the exception of Spyware Guard and to a lesser degree
SpywareBlaster, they will remove the spyware after it's already in the
system. I tend to think of this as akin to closing the door after the horse
has bolted. OK, in most instances you will get rid of the spyware and get
your horse back, but I have had to remove some nasty rogue code manualy from
systems as these programs have failed to remove it. Far better with real time
protection with Webroot SpySweeper you get an excellent level of intrusion
prevention and with the excellent protection offered by Windows Defender,
most noteably of the WinSock LSP Chain.Put these two programs together for an
excellent barrier around your system.
PepsiHog
My simple rule to solve all of this is....Don't keep personal
information on your computer. I don't trust the internet, period. I
use software to protect my computer (as best as possible) but I keep any
personal info locked in encryption or I don't keep it on my computer.
Many if not most companies on the web include some kind of "report back"
programming. No, I'm not saying their all dishonest. But how do you
really know? I was just searching to see if there were any reports
about Windows Defender being spy software for Microsoft. How do you
know it's not?
Ok. So don't keep personal information on your computer. Don't name
your computer with your real name. Invest in some program that encrypts
your data. Or you can believe we all live in an honest world, and who
would take advantage of us?
The very nature of the Web is to collect information. Don't want to be
party to that? Don't get on the web! It might sound mean, but it is
the HARD truth. Everything you do, everything you search for, download,
is all geared at collecting info about you. (the user) Sooner or later
the data collected forms a picture, and that picture is all about you!
Don't believe me? Good. You shouldn't. Do your own research. But what
I am saying here is TRUE! Bottom line is, you'll never be completely
safe no matter what software you use. So every so often re-install your
OS. Do a clean start. Yes, It's a pain, but it is a sure fire way of
getting rid of the UNKNOWN. And you know...."YOU CAN'T KNOW THE
UNKNOWABLE"
Good Luck!
--
PepsiHog
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiHog's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/214851.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/security-home-users/613528.htm
~BD~
Great post, PepsiHog!
I'm with you all of the way! :)
Cross-posted to other relevant groups (IMO) to spread the word and
hopefully elicit further comment along similar lines!
--
Dave - "I don't trust the internet, period" - me neither! ;)
Bullwinkle
"~BD~" <Boate...@hot.mail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:NoednUd2RPCt50fW...@bt.com...
Great post, PepsiHog!
I'm with you all of the way! :)
Cross-posted to other relevant groups (IMO) to spread the word and
hopefully elicit further comment along similar lines!
--
Dave - "I don't trust the one known as BD, period" - me neither! ;)
Ǝиçεl
Damn PepsiHog, why did you stop taking your meds? You know it makes you
more paranoid than usual.
-=-
"PepsiHog" wrote:
> .
>
almostbob
SING
O its all so nice in the nuthouse
all alone in my little padded cell
O its all so nice in the nuthous
coz the nurses and the doctors treat me swell
--
_ _
"PepsiHog" <PepsiHo...@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message
news:PepsiHo...@DoNotSpam.com...
PepsiHog
Paranoid? I don't think so, but it really doesn't matter one way or the
other. Like I said "Don't believe me". I'm not out to teach anything.
But regardless, the basic advice is still sound. That's the real point.
Everyone's so worried about what will work, test one against the other.
I'm not saying don't do that, because it does make sense. But how far
do we go with that? And if all that is needed, wouldn't it be easier to
just start with a clean slate every so often. It's true, there is NO
way to detect ALL threats. So we have a choice, keep using software
after software to try to be as safe as possible, or simply accept that
we will never get everything.
I guess it's just a matter of how paranoid you are. You call me
paranoid, but I have chosen my software defense, and I stand by that
choice. The only thing I do to offset things a little in my favor, is
to do a fresh install. Ofcourse I have all my installable software on
one drive, easy to get to, and re-install. May not be such a simple
matter for some, true.
The overall point I make is "Why worry about what you can't change?"
There is always going to be the undetectable. And if that is why you
call me paranoid, I have news for you. It's true. Viruses, spyware,
and such are being written by the thousands each day. A little tid bit
most don't know - a virus use to be called a Janitor. The original
intent was a program that would clean up after you, when the computer
was idle. Someone took that idea and twisted it to evil. What's my
source? I went to college. History of computers is some of what they
teach.
Don't intend to prove anything to anyone, just some advice. Take it, or
leave it. (yes, I know, you'll reply, "I'll leave it.")
And that's cool.
PepsiHog
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
news:PepsiHo...@DoNotSpam.com...
>
> the
> other. Like I said "Don't believe me". I'm not out to teach
> anything.
> But regardless, the basic advice is still sound. That's the real
> point.
I don't know if you have a history of nuttiness on usenet, but at the
risk of myself being fitted with a tinfoil hat by agreeing - I agree,
partly.
Quite a lot of thinking has gone into protecting information enroute,
but the whole thing will still be only as secure as the endpoints allow.
If you are the kind of person that knows enough about computers, you can
be relatively secure at your end.
> Everyone's so worried about what will work, test one against the
> other.
> I'm not saying don't do that, because it does make sense. But how far
> do we go with that? And if all that is needed, wouldn't it be easier
> to
> just start with a clean slate every so often.
Yes! In fact many will recommend making a good disk image of the cleanly
installed OS and follow that with periodic images to include service
packs installed since the last image. This is in addition to having
*other* program and data backup plans implemented.
> It's true, there is NO
> way to detect ALL threats. So we have a choice, keep using software
> after software to try to be as safe as possible, or simply accept that
> we will never get everything.
Don't worry about 'getting everything' - just get some of them and be
grateful you can at least do that.
> I guess it's just a matter of how paranoid you are. You call me
> paranoid, but I have chosen my software defense, and I stand by that
> choice. The only thing I do to offset things a little in my favor, is
> to do a fresh install. Ofcourse I have all my installable software on
> one drive, easy to get to, and re-install. May not be such a simple
> matter for some, true.
Reloading an image is both quicker and easier.
> The overall point I make is "Why worry about what you can't change?"
> There is always going to be the undetectable. And if that is why you
> call me paranoid, I have news for you. It's true. Viruses, spyware,
> and such are being written by the thousands each day.
Forget about malware for now, what about if a satellite fragment
(meteor) hits your machine - it is good to have multiple *different*
backups schemes. Back to malware - what about the malware "hosting" that
you do between one fresh install and the next?
> A little tid bit most don't know - a virus use to be called a
> Janitor.
Virus, doesn't mean the same thing as it used to. Fred Cohen has revised
his definition to include the infection property, so there is disparity
between worm and virus. If a self replicator can instantiate its
progeny, it replicates without the *need* to infect a host program to do
so.
I'm not familiar with that name, are you talking about this (actually, a
worm):
http://www.wormblog.com/2006/01/history_xerox_p.html
> The original
> intent was a program that would clean up after you, when the computer
> was idle. Someone took that idea and twisted it to evil.
The "Morris Worm"?
> What's my
> source? I went to college. History of computers is some of what they
> teach.
College students can be as misinformed from their professors as from any
other source.
PepsiHog
> I'm not familiar with that name, are you talking about this (actually,
> a
> worm):
>
>
> College students can be as misinformed from their professors as from
> any
> other source.
>
>
I wasn't refering to a worm. Or a virus. Before worms or viruses it
was just a program in memory. The concept of a program in memory is not
new. It's just someone back before worms or viruses existed, twisted an
idea for good(clean up) to bad(destruction).
It's history of computers. It's what they teach. Yes. They could be
wrong. We could all be wrong. But there has to be a trusted source. I
have a friend that would spell a word wrong. When shown how to spell
it, by looking it up in the Webster dictionary, he would claim the
dictionary was wrong. The claim that a KNOWN reliable source is wrong
is just the lack of having anything better to say.
In regards to making an image of your hdd for a back-up, I agree 100
percent. I use Acronis. I install what I want in my OS and then create
an image. Later, when needed, I just restore it. Great suggestion!
@nomail.afraid.org FromTheRafters
news:PepsiHo...@DoNotSpam.com...
>
>> (actually,
>> a
>> worm):
>>
>> The "Morris Worm"?
>>
>> College students can be as misinformed from their professors as from
>> any
>> other source.
>>
>>
>
> I wasn't refering to a worm. Or a virus.
You wrote:
"A little tid bit most don't know - a virus use to be called a Janitor.
The original intent was a program that would clean up after you, when
the computer was idle."
It's either a virus or it isn't. In that case it was also a distributed
computing application.
> Before worms or viruses it was just a program in memory.
Before worms or viruses, there were wormholes. ;-)
[...]
> In regards to making an image of your hdd for a back-up, I agree 100
> percent. I use Acronis. I install what I want in my OS and then
> create
> an image. Later, when needed, I just restore it. Great suggestion!
The access that you use (techarena) has apparently hacked-up the quoting
somewhat. The Xerox (PARC) worm was the one I was referring to. The
Morris Worm comment was referring to the introduction of the "bad"
aspect to a relatively neutral "just a program in memory" sweeping up
spare cycles from a network of computers.
Drop Techarena and use a newsreader.
