Re: best antivirus
David H. Lipman
| does anyone know the best antivirus program for integrating with windows?
| Norton just locks my computer down, wouldn't even let me use my ipod
| is windows going to produce an antivirus, I really like their antispyware
| and firewall? if not, what is the best antivirus that anyone's had success
| with
Kaspersky and NOD32 in that order.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
Panda_man
" Which is the best Antivirus software for my compurer? "
How ?
Read the information and then decide which one to test.
Download trial versions ,keep it at about 10 days and then decide which one
to keep permanently.
The best I always recommend to my clients are:
Panda Titanium 2006 Antivirus + Antispyware (the best I think)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/titanium2006_part.htm
Kaspersky AV Personal
http://www.kaspersky.com/personal
F-prot AV for Windows + Panda TruPrevent
http://www.f-prot.com/products/home_use/
http://www.pandasoftware.com/products/TruPrevent_Personal2006.htm
Free antispyware softwares:
@ Ad-Aware SE Personal
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware
@ Microsoft Antispyware (only for people with genuie-legal Windows )
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/default.mspx
Panda_man
--
Let's beat malware black and blue
Panda TruPrevent - the most intelligent technology to combat unknown malware
http://www.pandasoftware.com
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
Joseph Bittman MVP MCSD
Trend Micro has been excellent for me. It also has an extremely nice UI.
Hope this helps! :-)
--
Joseph Bittman
Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
Microsoft Most Valuable Professional -- DPM
Blog/Web Site: http://71.39.42.23/
"maynard" <may...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:007A6F0A-C0CB-4B1E...@microsoft.com...
Brian
> does anyone know the best antivirus program for integrating with windows?
> Norton just locks my computer down, wouldn't even let me use my ipod
> is windows going to produce an antivirus, I really like their antispyware
> and firewall? if not, what is the best antivirus that anyone's had
> success
> with
You are going to get as many answer as there are contributors to this group.
Best bet is take everyone's opinion with a grain of salt and research the
products they recommend.
Brian
DL
outgoing. The assumption seems to be anything installed and trying to reach
out is there by design.
"maynard" <may...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:007A6F0A-C0CB-4B1E...@microsoft.com...
Robert Moir
> does anyone know the best antivirus program for integrating with
> windows?
The best is a matter of opinion. I use F-Secure corporate edition myself
because it works for me. It might not work for you however.
Luckily, most if not all reputable antivirus companies let you install their
products and use them for a little while on a trial basis, so if you get a
shortlist of products that sound interesting from the replies to your post
here then you can try all of them and keep the one that has the best fit for
you.
> Norton just locks my computer down, wouldn't even let me use
> my ipod
As much as I personally loathe and detest symantec, i have to defend them
and say this was most likely either a problem with the install on your
system or - with all due respect - a poor choice of settings on your part.
> is windows going to produce an antivirus, I really like their
> antispyware and firewall?
Microsoft, not Windows, is the name of the manufacturer. Yes they are, and
don't assume it will be that good a virus scanner.
> if not, what is the best antivirus that
> anyone's had success with
we're back to personal opinion again. Besides F-Secure, I've also had good
experiences with NOD32 and F-Prot for Windows.
--
--
Rob Moir, Microsoft Security MVP.
Website - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk
Virtual PC 2004 FAQ - http://www.robertmoir.co.uk/win/VirtualPC2004FAQ.html
Kazaa - Software update services for your Viruses and Spyware.
Joseph Bittman MVP MCSD
Actually, if it is configured correctly in Win XP SP2, it will notify you
to grant access to outgoing internet/network requests by unknown/new
applications. Therefore, if I install my application which access the
internet, I will have to grant it access to the net before it can.
--
Joseph Bittman
Microsoft Certified Solution Developer
Microsoft Most Valuable Professional -- DPM
Blog/Web Site: http://71.39.42.23/
"DL" <d...@spoofmail.nothere> wrote in message
news:%234kpP1$BGHA...@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
Matt Thompson
detection engine.
The fastest scanner seems to be NOD32. It's got the best heuristics of all
the antiviruses.
McAfee and Symantec work great... if you have the corporate versions.
Norton/Symantec/McAfee's proactive detection isn't so great, but they will
detect a lot.
McAfee will probably be the best AV for detecting both Viruses and PUPs
(Adware/Spyware)
Kaspersky and its unpacking techniques is probably the best detector of any
type of malware.
Check out the comparatives every six months at the following site:
http://www.av-comparatives.org
However, to answer your question, the most integrated/secured AV is
Symantec's. NOD32 and Kaspersky also work pretty well to protect your
system.
Personally, I like McAfee VirusScan 8.0i because of the buffer overflow
protection, access control rules, and the large PUP database. It also is the
only AV that seems to remove most viruses without needing to restart. 8.5i
is in the works (beta) and should be awesome!
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
(referring to XP's built-in firewall and whether it watches outgoing
traffic on a per-application basis)
> Actually, if it is configured correctly in Win XP SP2, it will notify you
>to grant access to outgoing internet/network requests by unknown/new
>applications. Therefore, if I install my application which access the
>internet, I will have to grant it access to the net before it can.
I wondered about that, too. Yes, I do see a list of apps with
checkboxes to enable traffic, but I suspect this is on a per-port
basis, rather than per-application. If my hunch is right, a new app
trying to use an arbitrary and so far unused port will be blocked,
while a new app using an existing port will pass right through.
I've moved to using multiple av formally, from Bart CDR boot, when
doing intervention (detect-and-cleanup) scans. I generally burn a new
CDRW with fresh av updates before use. My experience suggests that it
is as necessary to use multiple av as it is to use multiple anti-cm
(i.e. "anti-spyware" such as AdAware, Spybot and MSAS).
Example:
- F-Prot Win32 CLI scanner, detect-only: 183 + 6 suspicious
- McAfee Win32 CLI scanner, detect-only: 113
- Trend SysClean, detect and clean: 100, all killed
- McAfee Stinger: 1 additional malware detected and killed
- AntiVir 6: 388 detected!
The take-home here is not to use AntiVir instead of all the others, as
who knows whether that 388 detected includes all of those detected by
the other scanners. For me, the take-home is to use multiple av.
But you can't run multiple av resident at the same time; they are
likely to get in each others' way, and slow and/or destabalize the PC.
The closest to using multiple resident av is to use an av like
F-Secure that integrates multiple engines - alas, while these co-exist
without stability issues, this still causes more system slowdown.
So what I do is use one resident av, and multiple on-demand av that I
run explicitrly to scan the subtree through which I route all incoming
material, before I "open" any of this material.
It takes some effort to apply this approach...
- use an email app that doesn't hide attachments in mailboxes
- all incoming to be re-pathed to that subtree, including:
- Eudora email attachments (auto-stored as loose files)
- MS Messenger attachments
- all user account desktops
- any p2p shared folders
- write .BAT files that serially apply each av engine to %1
- UI that .BAT to run against the "incoming" subtree, e.g.:
- QuickLaunch
- Start Menu
- Tasks
I like free sware, and prefer multiple free av to one "good" one, with
the possible exception of the resident av...
Bart-boot? Resident? On-demand? Product
No Yes Yes AVG 7 Free
No Yes Yes Avast
Yes Can Yes AntiVir 6
No * No Yes BitDefender 8
Yes No Yes F-Prot CLI
Yes No Yes McAfee CLI
Yes No Yes SysClean
Yes No Yes Stinger
* Oh please, someone prove me wrong by creating a Bart plugin!
The last 4 are not as easy to update; the CLI scanners need you to
explicitly pull down update data and drop these into place, whereas
the last two are "updated" simply by replacing the whole package.
So I'd use:
- AVG (or Avast, AntiVir 6 or feeware of your choice) as resident av
- BitDefender and AntiVir 6 as on-demand scanners in Windows
- AntiVir 6, SysClean and Stinger as Bart-based intervention av
If I used feeware, I'd tend to NOD32 for speed, Kaspersky for
uber-quality, with F-Secure, Panda and Trend as possibles. I'd avoid
McAfee, and would chase away Norton with a pointed stick.
In practice, I use AVG 7 as resident av because I can't use it any
other way, and hold back AntiVir 6 as on-demand and formal
(Bart-booted intervention) scanner. That way, I get a better "mesh"
than using the same product in all 3 roles.
Whatever you use, it must be up to date, and must actually scan stuff
(i.e. beware of smart-ass "only scan certain files for better speed")
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
First, the good news: Customer feedback has
been clear and unambiguous.
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Margaret Wilson
incident. But I recently built a 64-bit box and installed WinXP Pro SP2
(32-bit). I disabled Windows Firewall and its accompanying service and
installed BlackICE. But I get almost constant reboots, seemingly every
time there's network access. Consequently I've resorted to running the
Windows Firewall. However, tonight I finally got around to installing
WSFTP Pro 2006.1, and I find that the Windows Firewall blocks outgoing
FTP, with or without SSL. It even blocks FTP from the command line.
There were no prompts (from the firewall) to grant access, just a
connect denied message from within WSFTP. Once I disable the Windows
Firewall, however, FTP works just fine.
I created an exception of WSFTP hoping I wouldn't have to open multiple
ports just to run FTP occasionally. But this didn't work.
Any insights on why BlackICE won't run on my 64-bit hardware, or how to
configure the Windows Firewall for FTP would be greatly appreciated.
:-) I've used other firewalls, and as long as they're configured not to
block outgoing traffic (which I prefer), FTP has always worked just
fine. This is a new one for me.
Regards,
Margaret
Margaret Wilson
incident. But I recently built a 64-bit box and installed WinXP Pro SP2
(32-bit). I disabled Windows Firewall and its accompanying service and
installed BlackICE. But I get almost constant reboots, seemingly every
time there's network access. Consequently I've resorted to running the
Windows Firewall. However, tonight I finally got around to installing
WSFTP Pro 2006.1, and I find that the Windows Firewall blocks outgoing
FTP, with or without SSL. It even blocks FTP from the command line.
There were no prompts (from the firewall) to grant access, just a
connect denied message from within WSFTP. Once I disable the Windows
Firewall, however, FTP works just fine.
I created an exception of WSFTP hoping I wouldn't have to open multiple
ports just to run FTP occasionally. But this didn't work.
Any insights on why BlackICE won't run on my 64-bit hardware, or how to
configure the Windows Firewall for FTP would be greatly appreciated.
:-) I've used other firewalls, and as long as they're configured not to
block outgoing traffic (which I prefer), FTP has always worked just
fine. This is a new one for me.
Regards,
Margaret
Margaret Wilson
time it worked. Strange. I'd still be interested in hearing ideas on
why BlackICE is causing these reboots. I'm not running any software on
this system that I wasn't on my 32-bit hardware.
Also, sorry for the double post. My news server is having issues. :-)
Regards,
Margaret
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>I'd been running BlackICE on WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit) without incident.
You were lucky to miss Witty, then - the ultimate Black Ice "incident"
>Any insights on why BlackICE won't run on my 64-bit hardware
Frankly, after Witty, I wouldn't touch Black Ice with an orbital probe
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Margaret Wilson
message, you'd see I run BlackICE behind a router.
Margaret
Mister Kurtz
"Margaret Wilson" <twok...@nospam.gmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0bmdndsXM-_aOC_e...@comcast.com...
{top posting corrected}
> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:14:21 -0500, Margaret Wilson
> >
> >> I'd been running BlackICE on WinXP Pro SP2 (32-bit) without
incident.
> >
> > You were lucky to miss Witty, then - the ultimate Black Ice
"incident"
> >
> >> Any insights on why BlackICE won't run on my 64-bit hardware
> >
> > Frankly, after Witty, I wouldn't touch Black Ice with an orbital
probe
> >
> Thank you for your so very helpful post. If you'd actually read my
> message, you'd see I run BlackICE behind a router.
>
> Margaret
>
Where exactly in the following is the reference to being behind a
router?
"I'd been running BlackICE on WinXP Pro SP2 (on 32-bit hardware) without
incident. But I recently built a 64-bit box and installed WinXP Pro SP2
(32-bit). I disabled Windows Firewall and its accompanying service and
installed BlackICE. But I get almost constant reboots, seemingly every
time there's network access. Consequently I've resorted to running the
Windows Firewall. However, tonight I finally got around to installing
WSFTP Pro 2006.1, and I find that the Windows Firewall blocks outgoing
FTP, with or without SSL. It even blocks FTP from the command line.
There were no prompts (from the firewall) to grant access, just a
connect denied message from within WSFTP. Once I disable the Windows
Firewall, however, FTP works just fine.
I created an exception of WSFTP hoping I wouldn't have to open multiple
ports just to run FTP occasionally. But this didn't work.
Any insights on why BlackICE won't run on my 64-bit hardware, or how to
configure the Windows Firewall for FTP would be greatly appreciated.
:-) I've used other firewalls, and as long as they're configured not to
block outgoing traffic (which I prefer), FTP has always worked just
fine. This is a new one for me.
Regards,
Margaret"
--
MK
--
optikl
>
> Also, sorry for the double post. My news server is having issues. :-)
>
Mine, too (Comcast-incessant requests for user name and password).
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
>Thank you for your so very helpful post. If you'd actually read my
>message, you'd see I run BlackICE behind a router.
I'd look beyond the specifics to the general implications - that
defenseware can itself become an exploit surface, and that BlackIce
has a track record of failing ITW in this regard.
For example, Sasser vs. LSASS would be considerably less of a surprise
if one had gone through Lovesan vs. RPC; there are no direct links
between the two attacks, but the first should alert one to the
possibility of always-exposed network surfaces being attacked.
If part of one's response to Lovesan was to adopt a firewall as well
as apply the specific patch, then Sasser would have been blocked - all
the more so, if the general heads-up to patch early also took hold.
In terms of "best antivirus" topic, would BlackIce be considered a
better-than-average risk because they have been through the Witty
experience, or a worse-than-average risk because an exploitable
quality defect has already come to light? Will other possible defects
be successfully mitigated by NAT?
I do like the use of NAT to reduce reliance on the firewall software,
and hope similar thinking is applied to not relying overmuch on a
particular antivirus, even if it is the "best" one :-)
Margaret Wilson
Epox group (my mainboard is an EP-9NPA+Ultra), and it's in that message
that I mentioned running my LAN behind a router. Mea culpa. :-)
Regards,
Margaret
Margaret Wilson
the incoming and outgoing router logs and run reports.
BTW, I keep hearing that the Windows Firewall does not block outgoing
traffic. If that's the case, it wouldn't block outgoing FTP, which it
does. The second time around, I got an exception for WSFTP to allow
outgoing FTP, but the firewall still blocks outgoing FTP from the
command line. (Not surprising.) I'm not going to bother with an
exception for that, because I only use it for occasional troubleshooting.
I like a layered approach to security. Harden the OS, work using a
non-admin account, and install the following:
1. a hardware router, even if it is only NAT
2. a software firewall
3. a good antivirus (I like NOD32.)
3. antimalware software. (I've been using Spybot, Adaware PE, and
HostsMan. Recently I sprang for Spy Sweeper, which I quite like. For
more advanced users, Process Guard also works well.)
Regards,
Margaret
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:
>
Margaret Wilson
h*ll. :-)
Regards,
Margaret
david.her...@hotmail.com
I think you guys should check out http://www.opswat.com/ there are 2 or 3 products that may be a match. I think that OESIS Framework at http://www.opswat.com/products/oesis-framework provides a single interface to many antivirus packages. Another option is, I think, Metascan at http://www.opswat.com/products/metascan which is more for ISV.
I also found that many antivirus engines certified by OPSWAT at http://www.opswat.com/certified.
I hope this helps.
Regards,
David
ʎʇsnɹ pɹoɟǝlʞɔɐɥs
I suggest you install one of the many superior FREE Linux systems.
Linux does not need anti virus software because Linux does not get viruses.
Linux does not need a registry cleaner because nothing gets written to the registry when installing software.
Linux does not need a defragmenter because the Linux hard drive does not become fragmented.
Linux also does not need anti malware, anti spyware or firewalls or hard drive cleaners. Linux does not get that junk into its system.
Other than that Linux looks just about the same as Microsoft windows. Its really hard to see the difference. Except you dont have all that other garbage installed that is needed to keep microsoft running.
Unlike Microsoft that cost hundreds of dollars, Linux is free and available all over the internet.
Ignorance can be expensive.
ʎʇsnɹ pɹoɟǝlʞɔɐɥs
Linux does not need anti virus software because Linux does not get viruses.
Linux does not need a registry cleaner because nothing gets written to the registry when installing software.
Linux does not need a defragmenter because the Linux hard drive does not become fragmented.
Linux also does not need anti malware, anti spyware or firewalls or hard drive cleaners.