What are you guys using for Antivirus protection these days?

TheGamerZ said:
MSE is using 3.5mb of ram as I type this right now. Oh... what's this... it's FREE and ranks among the best. Thanks for playing, better luck next year.

Sure, maybe Norton products aren't the resource hogs they once were... but it's a case of too little too late. You just can't justify the yearly subscription cost.
Click to expand...

And for YOU, it's the option that works. For customers of mine who have no clue how to change the home page of their browser? They INSIST on a "name" product they see in Best Buy, and would not hesitate for a second to give them Norton.

Oh, and if the difference between 3.5MB and 8MB influences your decision on AVs, you need to ditch the P2 and 64MB of ram, man up and build a new computer.
 
TheGamerZ said:
MSE is using 3.5mb of ram as I type this right now. Thanks for playing, better luck next year..
Click to expand...



You have 3 (THREE) processes which MSE adds to your system.
Next year, if you graduate 3rd grade math (better luck with that on your 4th time around)...maybe you'll figure out 1+1+1 = 3.
MsMpEng.exe = 45 - 75 megs, adaptive based on system RAM and other processes
msseces.exe = 3 - 6 megs
MpCmdRun.exe = 5-10 megs, adaptive based on blah blah

So on most users systems MSE will total in varying amounts between 50 - 90 megs total.

Thanks for playing, better luck next year ROFL
 
http://www.srnmicro.com/

SOLO

Its super light. I can keep it on gaming no issues. It's not the best real time protector. I went to one of those virus places where you test clicked on viruses that are harmless but look real. It didn't go off but NOD did.

Anyhow that doesn't bother me because i use it as a scanner ones in awhile. I know the scanner is above average.
 
So I'm using MSE on Win7 now just because it's free, integrates easily, and I wanted to try it out based on word of mouth.

But... what makes MSE better than: Avira, NOD32, G-DATA, others?

- The scanning engine is a bit slow
- Detection rate seems lower than that of Avira? Any reviews or information I'm missing?
- It does consume as much or more RAM than other programs (doesn't matter much though)

Overall it seems like a good product, but I'm wondering why it's all of a sudden the best? Is it just because it's free?
 
Microsoft Security Essential since its release

MsMpEng.exe: 26.7m
Msseces.exe: 2.7m

I used to use NOD32. If I remember correctly, it uses 32m of ram.
 
Last edited:
Archmage said:
So I'm using MSE on Win7 now just because it's free, integrates easily, and I wanted to try it out based on word of mouth.

But... what makes MSE better than: Avira, NOD32, G-DATA, others?

- The scanning engine is a bit slow
- Detection rate seems lower than that of Avira? Any reviews or information I'm missing?
- It does consume as much or more RAM than other programs (doesn't matter much though)

Overall it seems like a good product, but I'm wondering why it's all of a sudden the best? Is it just because it's free?
Click to expand...

Scanning engine is slow, but it's quite cloud based, and that's to be expected for AVs that focus more on cloud based than relying on definitions only.

PCWorld recently tested a bunch of free AV programs, AntiVir won top spot...MSE was only 1.1% behind AntiVir in detection. That's pretty small. AND...MSE was 100% in rootkit detection and 100% in rootkit removal in their tests.

It was still beta at the time of the testing, thus could not officially be in the player field, was just really a sidebar article on it.
 
Flyboat said:
I used to use NOD32. If I remember correctly, it uses 32m of ram.
Click to expand...

NOD v4 averages around 44 megs.

I don't believe RAM usage for an AV is the end all for seeing how light or heavy it is. I illustrated how Norton slashed their RAM consumption to 8 megs simply to illustrate how much they lightened it.

But with todays systems that are averaging at least 1 gig of RAM and multi core CPUs.....if an AV uses 10 or 20 or 40 or 60 or 80 megs...I'm not really worried about it.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Scanning engine is slow, but it's quite cloud based, and that's to be expected for AVs that focus more on cloud based than relying on definitions only.

PCWorld recently tested a bunch of free AV programs, AntiVir won top spot...MSE was only 1.1% behind AntiVir in detection. That's pretty small. AND...MSE was 100% in rootkit detection and 100% in rootkit removal in their tests.

It was still beta at the time of the testing, thus could not officially be in the player field, was just really a sidebar article on it.
Click to expand...

Just to add to that, Avira generally also has a high number of false positives. I haven't seen any statistics from AV-comparatives.org yet, but given that MSE has almost the same detection rate, better on rootkits, and can't get much worse on false positives, it's already far ahead of Avira.

Oh yeah... and no nag screen. Yes, I know there are ways to disable the nag screen, but really... should I have to do that?
 
I've been using AVG for 4-5 years now...

.. but now that I've been seeing more and more AVG hate, I think I shall try out MSE. (also, AVG has been giving me a bunch [4-5] false positives recently..

downloading MSE now :)

On my laptop, which is Linux, I have no antivirus ^_^. Don't need it.
 
I'm using avast on my box and I usually put avg on my family's computers.
 
nod32 on my main install and AntiVir on the other

I'll probably check out MSE when I get my real copy of 7 :) NOD32 license runs out in a few months
 
Somehow, I don't think there is a more ignorant/idiotic statement one could make then the one above.
 
criccio said:
Somehow, I don't think there is a more ignorant/idiotic statement one could make then the one above.
Click to expand...
I've gone 6+ months without anti-virus, and guess how many virii/spyware/malware counts I have?

None.

Used Spybot Search & Destroy, CCleaner, SpywareBlaster, Housecall (housecall.trendmicro.com), and NOD32 (eset.com/onlinescan).
 
Cerulean said:
I've gone 6+ months without anti-virus, and guess how many virii/spyware/malware counts I have?

None.
Click to expand...

how do you know if you don't have an AV? :D An Antivirus is like health insurance... a waste of money/resources when you're healthy, but nice to have when something bad happens. With malware invading facebook and other "mainstream" websites, it's good to have some sort of realtime protection.
 
how do you know if you don't have an AV?
Click to expand...
Please read the other half of my post. As a FYI and fail-safe, I do a quarterly/semi-annual scan; this is where I base my testimony. I do not find it cost effective (performance loss to actual benefit from AV software) for me to have an anti-virus program. If someone really wants to target you, AV software is absolutely useless (anyone with a background in hacking and trojan-making will know this). The majority of malware, spyware, and other crud out there are very easy to avoid. Don't believe me? Don't care.

From my experience, every anti-virus software I have tried I have found to be at fault for horrendous slowdowns and long 2-minute+ boot times. The cost effectiveness/trade offs of cons outweighing the pros is as such that having an AV installed altogether isn't worth the performance loss. This is from my experience, and I do not believe I have done my "experimentation" incorrectly. The question was "What are you guys using for Antivirus protection these days," and I for one do not use any. If this question is from the point of view and context that someone is seeking a better anti-virus program to use than the one they already have (or do not have), then let me be the first to say I would not recommend my way to anyone. For all newbies, amateurs, people who can't take care of themselves, and those that don't feel comfortable not having an AV, they should use an anti-virus program to protect them from at least the weakest of attacks.

EDIT :: One thing I realized, with SSDs out and about, once they become cheaper and I transition over, for the sake of it I might install NOD32 -- since the major performance hits/boot-time that I speak of applies mainly to traditional mechanical harddrive users (that are not in any form of performance increasing RAID).
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
Please read the other half of my post. As a FYI and fail-safe, I do a quarterly/semi-annual scan; this is where I base my testimony. I do not find it cost effective (performance loss to actual benefit from AV software) for me to have an anti-virus program. If someone really wants to target you, AV software is absolutely useless (anyone with a background in hacking and trojan-making will know this). The majority of malware, spyware, and other crud out there are very easy to avoid. Don't believe me? Don't care.

From my experience, every anti-virus software I have tried I have found to be at fault for horrendous slowdowns and long 2-minute+ boot times. The cost effectiveness/trade offs of cons outweighing the pros is as such that having an AV installed altogether isn't worth the performance loss. This is from my experience, and I do not believe I have done my "experimentation" incorrectly. The question was "What are you guys using for Antivirus protection these days," and I for one do not use any. If this question is from the point of view and context that someone is seeking a better anti-virus program to use than the one they already have (or do not have), then let me be the first to say I would not recommend my way to anyone. For all newbies, amateurs, people who can't take care of themselves, and those that don't feel comfortable not having an AV, they should use an anti-virus program to protect them from at least the weakest of attacks.
Click to expand...

Thats all fine and dandy, in fact I have never really had a virus either on my machines except when I knowingly go on a shady site. I still run an AV to be on the safe side though, a virus can do a lot of damage within minutes let alone weeks or months. You also do NOT always know if you have one either.

I have seen some crazy viruses on others machines, yes lots from them doing stupid things to get them in the first place...but you never know when one might slip through. Just imagine if you get a data mining spyware or virus on your machine from hardforum that had a banner ad that was unknowingly hacked, all your personal info is stolen that you use when shopping online and logging into sites. You then find it on your weekly/monthly/biannual check. Then what... :eek:

Think it sounds stupid? I have seen similar things happen, especially well known sites being hacked and compromised unknowingly.
 
^^ I don't think it sounds stupid, I think it's smart. Especially if you don't trust yourself enough to take on the responsibility of not having an anti-virus program installed and take care of yourself and accept whatever consequences that would occur if anything that sneaky and specific did manage to get past you. Just for my specific scenario/life situation, I don't think it's necessary for me. I'm a security nut too (kind of sounds contradictory), but I say this only in a DIY/hobby-style way.

Other thing to do, when wanting to look at a shady/suspicious/unmentioned sites, is use a VM. Point is, if you already have high security (or security higher than average standard), the thing that will really get you is an attack that was more specific and targeted toward a personal you/me.




In my home network (I am the oldest son of four brothers) of five computers, within the past few years with my special setup and configuration/modding of Windows XP and OpenDNS alongside the router, the only time when virii got onto computer's is when my mom, dad, or brothers went to a website of some sort or downloaded a problem. Next to my first younger brother, nobody in my family can really tell the difference between a SPAM e-mail and one that isn't simply by looking at the subject/sender; concept is the same when it comes to website, but with different factors and conditions involved. Other than that, without the "stupidity" of the users in the picture, my network has been perfect and clean for the last 3+ years. (I do have NOD32 installed on all computers except for mine.)



Then, another scenario, a laptop that I sold to one of my high school teachers. It's an old IBM ThinkPad with like 256MB of RAM. This laptop also has my "special" setup and configuration of XP. A month ago I visited my teacher and she wanted me to clean her laptop and another one of her machines. After running my standard cleaning procedure (see Post #104 or http://www.joyunbound.com/?p=601) and eliminating a bunch of stuff, I returned the laptop to her. She told me that all her machines except for the IBM laptop I sold her over 6 months ago were messed up/had symptoms of stuff/the same thing. This laptop also had NOD32 installed. I do not exactly know why this laptop simply didn't get infected like her other machines did with the same kind of usage (although I get the hunch it might have had something to do with the way Windows was setup or something).



As I mentioned before about my recommendations to users not like me, I always install an anti-virus program on any computer that I maintain/setup that will be used by anyone that isn't me. There's no way I can trust anyone in my environments to go without an anti-virus program. On the Internet, out of the several forums and communities I read daily, there is probably only one person that I know could handle themselves without an anti-virus scanner...oh, and Linux users.



Sometime I need to get off my lazy bum and add MalwareBytes and ComboFix to my blog post there.

EDIT :: Virii are my favorite. =) Especially the ones that exhibit a mystery and challenge to remove. Several years ago when I had anti-virus and MSBlast hit the news everywhere, my computer contracted MSBlast, so I unplugged my machine from the Internet and managed to remove it correctly by myself (without any help from the Internet or anyone except for my own brain). It only took me a few minutes to figure out how to get rid of it...I remember having so much pride and happiness for removing something so widespread on my own just within minutes of getting it. :D

EDIT2 :: And what, I was like 13 years old or something?

EDIT3 :: I'm sorry guys, I really hope I didn't kill this thread. =(
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
Nothing. I don't need anti-virus, thank you.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Although it is good to have an anti-virus program just in case you mess up, if you find yourself *needing* one, you ought to take a look at what the hell you're doing all the time.

In general, anti-virus is not a solution. It just covers up an underlying problem. You need to quit doing whatever the hell you want while hoping your anti-virus will catch things and learn to be careful.
 
Shadow2531 said:
Exactly.

Although it is good to have an anti-virus program just in case you mess up, if you find yourself *needing* one, you ought to take a look at what the hell you're doing all the time.

In general, anti-virus is not a solution. It just covers up an underlying problem. You need to quit doing whatever the hell you want while hoping your anti-virus will catch things and learn to be careful.
Click to expand...

Faulty logic. Once again, as some of us experienced in IT will testify, it no longer has to be some user that surfs porn or hacking site, or exchanges p2p/torrent crap, or installs lots of cracked software or installs any codec that pops up on their screen.

For quite a while now, the fastest growing method of trojans being spread is hacking LEGIT websites and forums.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
Faulty logic. Once again, as some of us experienced in IT will testify, it no longer has to be some user that surfs porn or hacking site, or exchanges p2p/torrent crap, or installs lots of cracked software or installs any codec that pops up on their screen.

For quite a while now, the fastest growing method of trojans being spread is hacking LEGIT websites and forums.
Click to expand...
Are you saying this for everyone or just individual-personal-self? If you are saying for everyone, I agree. If you are saying for individual-personal-self, I can't fully agree -- it depends on the person:

Torrentware and common P2P is a great way to get yourself infected.

Do I use torrents? No. Torrents have always sucked compared to HTTP downloading.
Do I P2P? No. I do my things through HTTP via RapidShare and forums. If a program has a virus, users on forums are very quick to make note about it in the thread of a program (and crack-only releases are rare).
Do I ever visit or even think about going to porn sites? No -- I also have ANYTHING related to porn, nudity, lingerie, etc blocked via OpenDNS (if I come across a blocked site, then I forget about it and close the tab and continue my browsing as normal).
Hacking sites? Depends how and where you define "hacking." I know some great places for hacking (including one of my own) that do not infect the person viewing the webpage. Advertisements? Adblock for all.

Unless HardForum's server was physically breached or a malicious user managed to get root access to the server and would be able to crack my salted MD5 password in the forum database, I do not see how I could contract anything here at HardForum.

For quite a while now, the fastest growing method of trojans being spread is hacking LEGIT websites and forums.
Click to expand...
Name some legit websites. If your list does not include slashdot.org, xkcd.com, hardforum.com, svencoop.com/forums, ssforum.net, forums.minegoboom.com, meebo.com, my workplace webmail, the webmail to my website, my blog, my college's website, overclocking.net, various Christian sites in my bookmarks, youtube.com ... then what you say does not apply to me, thus "I can take care of myself." This covers the "general basics." When researching, I am exposed to more unique sites than normally, but the sites I select from search listings, only on the most extreme chance would have content that would attempt to infect/hijack/breach. Normally, these kind of malicious websites are blocked via OpenDNS and entries in HOSTS by CCleaner, SpywareBlaster, and Spybot S&D. If I wanted to try and get infected, one thing I would search for in Google is "crackz" -- most of those results (not all) will probably try to infect you or something. I typically stay clear of websites with a *.ws TLD, like crackz.ws. Notice in Google "www.crackz.ws/u1.htm." That is not normal or human naming convention of files. Also, anything with what appears to be randomly generated in the URL is also something I stay clear of; ie. S5evuhe28vedR.blogspot.com. It isn't human. Unless it is a joke, prank, or malicious website, no person will put that kind of effort required to remember and maintain a website with that "strange" and "suspicious" of an URL, and thus "not human." If you're serious about running a blog or website and getting traffic, the worst URL you could pick is one that is hard or impossible to remember, confusing, not-simple, suspicious or strange, etc.

EDIT :: Another example "www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/library/exploit-crackz.ws-2/index.phtml". There are three things about this one that are suspicious. Domain name "kephyr.com" looks realistic, but the rest of the URL does not. "spywarescanner/library" does not have any logic to its directory structure and naming. Some of you might wonder -- what's so suspicious about 'library' inside 'spywarescanner'. Since when did 'spywarescanner's use such an obvious database structure that just sticks out in your face like that? Then "exploit-crackz.ws-2" is probably self-explanatory. The "p" in "phtml" is irregular and to my knowledge, not actually a valid mime type or real extension. In my past 15 years, I've never seen any application or use of a "phtml" on any website that ISN'T malicious.

If I had a Firebox, which I don't but could easily get one, I would have all ports blocked. So if I did get infected, that infection wouldn't be able to do anything, but I could still perform my cleanup procedure and find the defunct infection.

But again, if what you say you are directing at most people, then yes, you are totally right. Most people can't be trusted to use a computer without some additional security/safety software to go along with them. The reason I emphasis this is because most users are not like me. I have been with computers since I was 5, grew up with the Internet since I was 6, hung out with the wrong IT-related crowd through several years and was myself a primary, specific and singled-out target in a community I was part of (between ages 8 and 12) and was several times tricked to executing trojans and other stuff worse than that (my Internet got canceled, for example, by "unknown" cause) ... I myself also have some experience making trojans and other things that might be deemed as 'malicious,' although I never practiced anything with malicious intent (except maybe in one scenario where I would purposefully go to PHP-Nuke sites and use cross-site script methods to totally screw up the ratings of files and reviews).

I am not perfect though, so I can't claim, even with my 6+ month streak, that I would never ever get infected no matter what. But I can lower the chances of me getting infection/breached by applying high security standards of my own.
 
Last edited:
YeOldeStonecat said:
For quite a while now, the fastest growing method of trojans being spread is hacking LEGIT websites and forums.
Click to expand...

Then, the website/server gets infected if it doesn't have anti-virus running that can catch it. But, if the server's been hacked, that could be the least of your worries.

Users visiting the infected site should still be careful even if they trust the site.

What I said about users would be like a server admin not locking things down, not keeping up on security updates, not worrying about secure configs and just relying on anti-virus to solve everything.

It's just that many users think that anti-virus programs make it ok to not worry and not be careful and just run infected files all they want. Well, for these users, anti-virus doesn't catch all infections anyway.
 
Cerulean said:
Are you saying this for everyone or just individual-personal-self? If you are saying for everyone, I agree. If you are saying for individual-personal-self, I can't fully agree -- it depends on the person:

Torrentware and common P2P is a great way to get yourself infected.

Do I use torrents? No. Torrents have always sucked compared to HTTP downloading.
Do I P2P? No. I do my things through HTTP via RapidShare and forums. If a program has a virus, users on forums are very quick to make note about it in the thread of a program (and crack-only releases are rare).
Do I ever visit or even think about going to porn sites? No -- I also have ANYTHING related to porn, nudity, lingerie, etc blocked via OpenDNS (if I come across a blocked site, then I forget about it and close the tab and continue my browsing as normal).
Hacking sites? Depends how and where you define "hacking." I know some great places for hacking (including one of my own) that do not infect the person viewing the webpage. Advertisements? Adblock for all.

Unless HardForum's server was physically breached or a malicious user managed to get root access to the server and would be able to crack my salted MD5 password in the forum database, I do not see how I could contract anything here at HardForum.

Name some legit websites. If your list does not include slashdot.org, xkcd.com, hardforum.com, svencoop.com/forums, ssforum.net, forums.minegoboom.com, meebo.com, my workplace webmail, the webmail to my website, my blog, my college's website, overclocking.net, various Christian sites in my bookmarks, youtube.com ... then what you say does not apply to me, thus "I can take care of myself."

If I had a Firebox, which I don't but could easily get one, I would have all ports blocked. So if I did get infected, that infection wouldn't be able to do anything, but I could still perform my cleanup procedure and find the defunct infection.

But again, if what you say you are directing at most people, then yes, you are totally right. Most people can't be trusted to use a computer without some additional security/safety software to go along with them. The reason I emphasis this is because most users are not like me. I have been with computers since I was 5, grew up with the Internet since I was 6, hung out with the wrong IT-related crowd through several years and was myself a primary, specific and singled-out target in a community I was part of (between ages 8 and 12) and was several times tricked to executing trojans and other stuff worse than that (my Internet got canceled, for example, by "unknown" cause) ... I myself also have some experience making trojans and other things that might be deemed as 'malicious,' although I never practiced anything with malicious intent (except maybe in one scenario where I would purposefully go to PHP-Nuke sites and use cross-site script methods to totally screw up the ratings of files and reviews).

I am not perfect though, so I can't claim, even with my 6+ month streak, that I would never ever get infected no matter what. But I can lower the chances of me getting infection/breached by applying high security standards of my own.
Click to expand...

That mentality is why things like Conficker can take hold of 10 million PCs.

The Wall Street Journal website was hacked and had compromised ads within the last 60 days or so. That's a pretty damn "legit" site.

I love your excuse about "slow boot times" and other stuff is such FUD it's quite apparent you have zero clue what you are talking about. Go look up a few of the old threads here at the [H] started by the immortal "Klob" about the same stuff you're currently spewing and he lost every one of those arguments.

I don't run AV because I'm worried about catching malware or a virus. I run AV (MSE to be exact) to protect my computer from people like you.
 
Cerulean said:
I do not find it cost effective (performance loss to actual benefit from AV software) for me to have an anti-virus program.
Click to expand...

This is where you lost all credibility and where proven ignorant. Clearly the last time you ran AV software full time was years ago on slow systems and was probably something shitty like Norton or McAfee.

Modern AV software causes ZERO performance loss. Period.

Install it and forget its even there. There is ZERO reason NOT to use it.

Just last week I plugged a flash drive into my PC that I had been using at school (like I always do) and MSE caught the Conficker virus the second I plugged the flash drive in. Nothing I did was "shady" or out of the ordinary and I would have the condicker virus right now if not for MSE.

No matter how much you justify it, its absolutely idiotic not to run AV in todays day and age. Especially how light and unobtrusive they are.
 
That mentality is why things like Conficker can take hold of 10 million PCs.
Click to expand...
Strange, my network was never infected -- maybe because I was using OpenDNS instead of my ISP's DNS. When Conficker came around, if you were using OpenDNS, I can practically guarantee you wouldn't have been infected. Conficker was the result of a DNS exploit.

Also, I think you need to get your demographics straightened and cleared up. If you do not know enough information about those specific 10 million users/PCs/their networks, you need to quit using logical fallacies. Last I saw, there was never enough information about those 10 million for you to be able to use this statistic in the argument/statement you just made.

The Wall Street Journal website was hacked and had compromised ads within the last 60 days or so. That's a pretty damn "legit" site.
Click to expand...
Look, if anyone is that desperate to hack a specific target, they can and will succeed. When there's a will, there's a way. Wall Street Journal, common and well known, yes, but if you want to take down a place like that, or even Google or Slashdot, you're going to have to be that much more desperate to succeed. And if you do succeed, then it is my hopes that with Adblock for Firefox, my special configuration and setup of Windows XP, my router, and OpenDNS on my network will protect me from ever contracting or being infected by your thing. It's not like I haven't been infected by virii worse than your average/weaker attack.

I love your excuse about "slow boot times" and other stuff is such FUD it's quite apparent you have zero clue what you are talking about. Go look up a few of the old threads here at the [H] started by the immortal "Klob" about the same stuff you're currently spewing and he lost every one of those arguments.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with you because I believe I set my experimentation and observation correctly using the scientific method. I made a hypothesis and I tested my theory enough that I am led to believe that it is more the anti-virus software causing the massive 2-minute+ slowdown.

With AV installed, at first, it runs great and very well with the exception of the following: with a totally fresh and optimized install of Windows XP, first thing I did was install an anti-virus, like NOD32, and restart as the installer asks. Nothing wrong in boot times. Restart once more to get the AV fully imbedded in the boot process, and wallah -- takes a whole 2+ minutes just to boot when I have absolutely nothing installed in a fresh, clean, and streamlined install of XP. If you disagree, I don't care. I'm basing what I say off of my experience and experimentation. NOD32 isn't the only one that does this. As I also mentioned, SSDs will change everything because of their performance. Without AV on my IBM Lenovo G530, it takes less than 15 seconds to fully boot into Windows XP. With AV, it takes at least 1 minute and 30 seconds (even with an optimized and defragmented boot order). By full boot, I am including that once you are Windows with the desktop and taskbar, nothing is lagging or still loading or utilizing the CPU for initial startups or starting up at all -- purely idle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is where you lost all credibility and where proven ignorant. Clearly the last time you ran AV software full time was years ago on slow systems and was probably something shitty like Norton or McAfee.
Click to expand...
I never assumed credibility because I hold what I say for myself, not for everyone -- which probably includes you based on the way your reply content is written. I never conducted my experimentation for public display or publish, and thus, if it matter to anyone here, I do not have any actual presentable data like benchmarks and the whole round-about. You'll just either have to believe my testimony or leave it -- but remember, it does not mean (or 'I am not recommending') for everyone to go without AV.

Modern AV software causes ZERO performance loss. Period.
Click to expand...
If that's your opinion, so be it. With SSDs, I agree more with your statement because of how SSDs simply work when it comes to performance compared to mechanical drives.

Here are the steps for the scientific method (any of the links below will work):
* http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
* http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_steps_in_the_scientific_method
* http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method6.htm

Having more than 3 machines (used ordinarily by family members who have little to no IT knowledge), over the past 5+ years I have experimented using the process of the scientific method to conduct my experiments. Nothing ventured is nothing gained; I've broken a lot of stuff, but I've learned from them. I am not replying here to "win" an argument, but moreso I am simply defending my own position. Never did I say or recommend anyone that isn't me to not have an anti-virus. I base my opinion and testimony off of my experience, my careful experimentation over the years, and my knowledge and frame of reference. If you don't agree or dislike it, I don't care. I'm done here.
 
Last edited:
I use MSE now, thanks to advice from this site. I had Symantec but it gave no protection. I use malware antibytes to do a scan,and MS defender, so those are my three.

I can see it possible to have no AV, but that's if you surf under linux, or use a virtual machine to surf the web.
 
Cerulean said:
Nothing. I don't need anti-virus, thank you.
Click to expand...

Have fun with that!

For those of us who actually consider having a security policy, Avira's a great choice, probably the best free AV out there. I have it on my desktops and laptop at home.
 
Cerulean said:
Strange, my network was never infected -- maybe because I was using OpenDNS instead of my ISP's DNS. When Conficker came around, if you were using OpenDNS, I can practically guarantee you wouldn't have been infected. Conficker was the result of a DNS exploit.

Also, I think you need to get your demographics straightened and cleared up. If you do not know enough information about those specific 10 million users, you need to quit using logical fallacies. Last I saw, there was never enough information about those 10 million users for you to be able to use this statistic in the argument/statement you just made.

Look, if anyone is that desperate to hack a specific target, they can and will succeed. When there's a will, there's a way. Wall Street Journal, common and well known, yes, but if you want to take down a place like that, or even Google or Slashdot, you're going to have to be that much more desperate to succeed. And if you do succeed, then it is my hopes that with Adblock for Firefox, my special configuration and setup of Windows XP, my router, and OpenDNS on my network will protect me from ever contracting or being infected by your thing. It's not like I haven't been infected by virii worse than your average/weaker attack.

I don't agree with you because I believe I set my experimentation and observation correctly using the scientific method. I made a hypothesis and I tested my theory enough that I am led to believe that it is more the anti-virus software causing the massive 2-minute+ slowdown.

With AV installed, at first, it runs great and very well with the exception of the following: with a totally fresh and optimized install of Windows XP, first thing I did was install an anti-virus, like NOD32, and restart as the installer asks. Nothing wrong in boot times. Restart once more to get the AV fully imbedded in the boot process, and wallah -- takes a whole 2+ minutes just to boot when I have absolutely nothing installed in a fresh, clean, and streamlined install of XP. If you disagree, I don't care. I'm basing what I say off of my experience and experimentation. NOD32 isn't the only one that does this. As I also mentioned, SSDs will change everything because of their performance.
Click to expand...

Love how you focused on "Conficker" but I said "things like Conficker" which means any virus that can propagate out quickly and infect many. If you'd prefer I could have said MSblast or any other recent nasty virus. Funny how leaving out a word changes the context.

2+ minutes to boot? The system in my sig right now with Windows 7 x64 and MSE is under 20 seconds to boot. That includes my keyboard software, mouse software, audio software, UPS software, WHS software and MSE. My old Vista Ultimate x64 with Avira was under 35 seconds with the same software. My laptop with a C2D 2.2GHz with Windows 7 x64 and MSE is under 30 seconds. So the better question to ask yourself is what did you do wrong?

And you saying "I believe I set my experimentation and observation correctly using the scientific method" doesn't mean your right. Frankly I think you're full of crap anyways because you're not showing any proof of your claims but I pointed you to Klob's threads which have proof otherwise.

Oh and relying on OpenDNS and AdBlock Plus (which is only as good as the subscription file you're using) isn't a sound security policy either.
 
Adding 2 minutes to bootup time....and making a system sluggish....that system in your signature? Quad core, 4 gigs, blah blah epenis signature thing? ROFL..wow, something wrong with that setup then.

Even on some of my data systems an AV product doesn't bog things down much, depends which product you're using...as yes some AV products cause more of a slowdown than others. But even on some of my oldest rigs...an AV certainly doesn't add 2 minutes. 15-30 seconds MAYBE if it's pulling down a definition update soon as I log in.

But then again, my PCs run 24x7x365. And my laptops are waking up from hiber all the time. Though...even if I was booting them up...15-20 seconds extra wouldn't make me call my shrink.
 
I find it funny that people don't think that antivirus software is necessary. I thought this kind of thinking went out the window years ago. My antivirus software (avast) goes off all the time, on what i used to consider "safe" sites to visit. Malware is ever evolving, and it's not just porn or warez sites that have problems.

Ad based attacks are just one example, and LOTS of sites have ads. Pretty much any modern system has so much excess processing power you're not going to notice antivirus running unless you tell it to do a full scan on every boot.
 
I use Kaspersky IS 2010 currently. Depending on how well it handles my testing, I may stay with it, or I will move to testing MSE. MSE looks very good from what I have seen so far, but I like full suites on my primary system, since I typically have it connected directly to the internet, with no hardware firewall or UTM between it and other systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top