Which AV & Firewall for win 10?

No AV software, and scan suspicious files/downloaded files with metascan-online. If the file passes the 40+ AV engines of MetaScan, its GTG. Unchecky to keep toolbars/PUPs from being installed.
 
Tiberian said:
Testing things in a lab is one thing and not indicative of actual real world performance I'd respond.
Click to expand...

When Microsoft comes out and says PLEASE DON'T USE MSE, I think it's a hint not to use MSE.

If you want something free, Panda Cloud is excellent. Fortinet is quite good as well.
 
rive22 said:
I do this. And also have Malwarebytes, SuperAntiSpyware, & Peerblock running in the background. And Noscript in the browser with a custom whitelist.

I find them each catching/blocking different things at times.
Click to expand...

SaS is pretty much worthless now, and is just for cookie cleanup, but leaves hooks into everything in your OS. I'd ditch it and stick to just MBAM.
 
dave3533 said:
No AV software, and scan suspicious files/downloaded files with metascan-online. If the file passes the 40+ AV engines of MetaScan, its GTG. Unchecky to keep toolbars/PUPs from being installed.
Click to expand...

What do you do to protect yourself against zero-day exploits and malvertising attacks? Being smart on what you download isn't enough any more. Not in several years. Especially not with modern quiet botnet-type malware.

I use Norton 360 at home as I've been able to get freebie 1-year subscriptions from my boss (I work in security and we do business with Symantec). There were years it was terrible in the early 2000s but they got much better long ago. If I was paying I'd probably go with Norton, Kaspersky, or maybe NOD32 if I could get a good deal on 'em. In particular, I like Kaspersky's malware whitepapers and they've got a good rep overall.
 
GreenMonkey said:
What do you do to protect yourself against zero-day exploits and malvertising attacks?
Click to expand...

Every so often I'll download an anti-spyware program and run some scans, but I've never had a problem thus far. Maybe I'm lucky, or maybe I'm infected, but seems to work for me. Know that approach isn't for everyone.

I did forget to mention I also use OpenDNS for some high level protection as well.
 
entropism said:
When Microsoft comes out and says PLEASE DON'T USE MSE, I think it's a hint not to use MSE.

If you want something free, Panda Cloud is excellent. Fortinet is quite good as well.
Click to expand...

And yet all I use is MSE and every other product can't find a damned thing when used to scan the same machine MSE is and has been used on for years now, go figure. Either I'm the luckiest user alive or MSE is actually working as designed.

With respect to Microsoft telling people not to use it, they never actually said such things, they simply recommended that if people wanted more options to consider third party solutions.

If they didn't trust their own product they wouldn't still be making it, updating it, and allowing users to download it for new installations. I know that MSE was rolled into Windows Defender on 8, 8.1, and now 10 so if it's working for those OSes it still works just fine on 7 too.

YMMV as expected.
 
I think they meant MSE is the most basic, least, minimal thing to use...as in its better than nothing. But its best to get something more developed.

If outdoors, wearing some boxers & a vest is better than being naked, but its better to wear some pants & a shirt. (ie covered vs partial)

If that makes some sort of sense. If not, just ignore lol

Anyways, is the MS firewall sufficient? I want to use Comodo, but alas not yet.
 
..it's a bit of a trade off .. do you want to be the heavily armored character that can take a lot of damage but is slow .. or do you want the light armored character that can't take many direct hits but is pretty speedy ...

..and I forget who mention Ublock over Adblock plus earlier in this thread .. Thanks a bunch for the heads up! .. giving Ublock a go over Adblock plus in Chrome.. reading up on the 2, Ublock is supposed to be faster with a bit better blocking.. I don't know if it works in IE/Edge though
 
Tiberian said:
And yet all I use is MSE and every other product can't find a damned thing when used to scan the same machine MSE is and has been used on for years now, go figure. Either I'm the luckiest user alive or MSE is actually working as designed.
Click to expand...

It's a LOT more reliable to prevent infection than detect it once it's on. MSE lets it go, and then it's in. Simple.

As for what microsoft said, they said it was baseline, bare minimum protection, and encouraged users to get something better. It's pretty cut & dried there.
 
Bitdefender 2015 is working well on win 10, the problem is turning off windows defender for good.
 
Hurin said:
I hope this doesn't sound crappy, but: How so?
Click to expand...

Use the tool I posted then compare to how Windows does it and you will see why I said that. What I posted uses the Windows firewall and is not a standalone firewall. It just makes setting rules much easier.
 
rezerekted said:
Use the tool I posted then compare to how Windows does it and you will see why I said that. What I posted uses the Windows firewall and is not a standalone firewall. It just makes setting rules much easier.
Click to expand...

Easier for who, exactly?
 
Everyone. Have you ever used it? Nope, didn't think so.

Windows firewall by default doesn't even block outbound connections and when I tried to set one in its confusing interface it didn't even work.
 
No offense, but I don't think configuring outbound rules is difficult with the built-in firewall. So, well, I have no interest in downloading a third party tool in order to make something I don't consider difficult somehow easier.

To each their own I guess.

--H

P.S. Blocking outbound ports by default would be a really bad idea. Can you imagine the support calls from novice users who installed an application, didn't understand the prompt (if any) asking to open ports, and then found their application couldn't communicate at all?
 
I don't have any issues on my computers, and I am quite fluent with the Windows 7 firewall from both the inbound and outbound perspectives so, your particular point of view doesn't mean much at all. Outbound connections, as Hurin just pointed out, being blocked by default would be a nightmare of relatively epic proportions and not exactly what a firewall is supposed to do even though it does offer the capability - for most users the primary purpose of such a tool is to keep unwanted connections or data requests from getting in.

Seriously, some of you folks want so much control over the operating system that you really should be using Linux - you don't own Windows, it's not your OS so if it's not to your liking you're not being forced to use it. Go grab Linux From Scratch and build a perfect one suited just for you and you alone.

I mean really.
 
Quit drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid, a firewall is supposed to block both unwanted outbound and inbound connections. But of course you wouldn't want outbound connections stopped because that would stop Microsoft spyware in Win10.
 
FYI, friend, you also need driverCleaner, systemSweeper, recycleEmptier and freeRAM; why buy all that RAM if its never free for your applications to use?
 
That video is not the firewall app I have, it looks like it might be the rogueware version of it though. Look at the download url, it is not the one I posted. All 3rd party firewalls have inbound and outbound control. A lot of progs/games phone home when you might not want them to. Condescending FRIEND!
 
rezerekted said:
That video is not the firewall app I have, it looks like it might be the rogueware version of it though. Look at the download url, it is not the one I posted. All 3rd party firewalls have inbound and outbound control. A lot of progs/games phone home when you might not want them to. FRIEND!
Click to expand...
So it's very similar. See the comment on the video. That one at the URL you're hawking seems to be offered by more than one vendor.

Anyways, you said the built-in windows firewall was horrible because outbound settings were difficult to setup. I disagree. It's not difficult. And your proposed solution just seems like unnecessary bloatware.

You also alleged that not blocking outbound ports by default was a ridiculous shortcoming of the built-in Windows firewall. Yet, this is standard on just about every software firewall I've ever encountered. Inbound is blocked. Outbound is not. See Redhat's default config. See Mac's (firewall is actually off by default). See several 3rd party firewalls.

Anyways, thanks for contributing. But you just seem to have a pet program there and while I'm sure you like it, your arguments aren't exactly compelling. They seem based in fanboyisms and half-truths.
 
It is not the same app, does not even look like it at all. What I have is called Windows 8 Firewall Control and not just Windows Firewall Control. There is only one vendor, the other vendors is a rogue version that I got tricked into installing once and it did mess up my network connections as in that video.

It is not bloatware, it sits in your system tray so you can control it easy and quickly, with the Windows firewall you have to go to control panel then to advanced settings to set outbound rules. I was just offering an easier way to do it. It is still using the Windows firewall and breaks nothing at all. The free version doesn't even allow blocking windows components in or out.

Maybe you don't care to know about what is connecting out and why but a lot of people do and a lot of people like to block unnecessary outbound connections. According to you and the other "friends" here we should just allow all of the software companies to connect out and spy on us. Nope, not me.

You haven't even used it so your opinion doesn't hold much weight.
 
Last edited:
Back on the subject of Avs and Firewalls, I installed Norton Internet Security on W10 a couple days back and it is working OK--as well as Norton works on anything. No blips or bugs so far. Didn't even cost me an additional key since it is a dual boot on the same MB--that was news to me. Now you can all aim your venom my direction and tell me what an idiot I am to use Norton. I know, I know. The best thing to come of it was it disabled the even more disgusting Windows Defender so I no longer get hounded by that piece of work 10 times/day to install updates and run it myriad times.
 
Anyone tried out GlassWire. I think its just a nice interface that uses the native windows firewall.
 
I use Macafee Viruscan Enterprise for my system, have for years. Never any issues.
 
Hurin said:
Yeah, I'm not going to use it. Because what you're alleging to be difficult and confusing is neither.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/windows-7-firewall-compares-firewalls/

"Windows 7 contains an unobtrusive, easy-to-use firewall that protects your computer from inbound traffic. If you’re looking for more advanced options, such as the ability to control outbound traffic or view the applications using your Internet connection, you’ll want a third-party firewall instead.

The Windows 7 firewall has many of the powerful options you’ll find in other firewalls, but its advanced settings interface is much more complicated to use than other firewalls. The Windows firewall’s advanced interface is designed for system administrators, while other firewalls are designed for users.

The Verdict

If you’re looking for a firewall that keeps your computer safe from inbound traffic and lets you control which applications function as servers with little fuss, the Windows 7 firewall is an easy-to-use option that’s already on your computer.

If you want to control which applications can access the Internet and use other advanced options, you’ll be better off with a third-party firewall. Third-party firewalls present advanced options in easy-to-understand interfaces."

What I posted is the Windows firewall with a much better interface. What's not to like about that?

Just sit.
 
Last edited:
Stopped reading your post the moment you quoted the article when it said "such as the ability to control outbound traffic" because the rest of it is basically the opinion of whoever wrote that silly tripe to begin with (not to mention the statement that I stopped with is false as well).

Oh, and, see this:



Saying something as stupid as:

ThatStupidArticle said:
The Windows firewall’s advanced interface is designed for system administrators, while other firewalls are designed for users.
Click to expand...

is basically saying "Non-System Admin users of Windows are complete dumbasses that can't figure out how to click a button a few times and type something to be able to set a firewall rule that takes no more than 30 seconds at best to put into effect so we recommend they use some really dumbed down interface designed for such dumbasses to do almost everything for them." Or words to that effect, of course.

I can actually set an outbound rule faster but that's because I'm not a complete dumbass, and I'm not even a System Administrator, go figure.
 
Avira Free + BgPKiller (Prevents Avira Free from promoting the paid version).
 
B00nie said:
Hate to break it to you but he's correct. A firewall that doesn't block inbound and outbound connections by default is totally useless.
Click to expand...

Now I understand totally why this functionality is not enabled by default. I tried running a personal firewall at my mothers and wifes computers when they were still on windows. Let's just say they couldn't cope with it :)
Click to expand...
Does not compute.

Again, the firewall on Windows not blocking outbound by default is no different than the one on Mac (which is actually disabled altogether by default) nor Redhat or (I would wager) just about every other linux distro firewall.

As for the utility of blocking outbound. . . nobody here (despite assertions to the contrary) has said that blocking outbound does not have its place. However, let's keep in mind that nobody ever became initially compromised by an unblocked outbound port. If you're concerned about Windows being spyware, are paranoid, or are concerned about malware on your system, blocking outbound connections has its place. Especially on servers where such measures can severely stymie attempt at remote C&C. But to say that a firewall is "useless" (totally, even) to the average consumer without outbound port blocking is. . . well. . . silly.
 
Last edited:
"But to say that a firewall is "useless" (totally, even) to the average consumer without outbound port blocking is. . . well. . . silly. "

But no one said that. You are just making shit up.

I see up above someone suggested Glasswire which is also the Windows firewall with a better interface. Why aren't you attacking him too for suggesting such a "silly" idea?

"Does not compute."

What computes is that you are a waste of my time so this is my final post to this thread.
 
Whoa whoa whoa. Everybody calm down. There seem to be two different philosophies. One firewall (windows) seems to require the user to set blocking outbound traffic rules and leaves initial setup open, and the other (Comodo etc) does the opposite ie outbound rules ports are blocked and unlocked by user prompts as programs are used. I prefer the latter, but its user preference. As always, its subjective, but I like the blocked & learn method (although it does require more time to setup).

I, myself like Comodo, but will use windows firewall + Glasswire until Comodo is ready for win10.

No need to get weird and belligerent towards each-other.
 
Mboner1 said:
Going with eset nod32 and malwarebytes pro on win 10 although i have lost a bit of faith in malwarebytes as well given the above situation.
Click to expand...

Has anyone else had a bad experience with malwarebytes? So far I have only seen this one comment.
 
People waiting for Comodo, the Comodo Internet Security works in Windows 10. Catch is that you have to install the whole package if I understood correctly. Installing Firewall alone does not work. Not a big problem as you get everything in one package even though the Antivirus is kinda average and quite false positive happy. But it should get you through until Comodo officially updates the standalone Firewall to Windows 10 compatible and you can get back to using the AV of your own choice.
 
the_servicer said:
Has anyone else had a bad experience with malwarebytes? So far I have only seen this one comment.
Click to expand...

I've found it not very good for cleaning up Cryptolocker malware which IMO are the only real threat currently. Ironically MSE is very good at cleaning them up.

I don't rate MBAM very highly. The first hint of fail was when I scanned a infected HDD with it and it found say 12 items of malware.

Then out of curiosity I scanned it again with MBAM...it found 8 more. Now I would expect that if I had used a different AV tool but not the same one.
 
So anyway is there a pure no frills serious AV software out there?

Don't need no firewall/email scanner/password protection/cloud storage/weblink security/network protection/child safety etc. etc.

Just pure active AV scanning/protection.
 
MaZa said:
For free antivirus Panda and Bitdefender are the best currently. Though the former comes with toolbar so be mindful what you click when installing and latter requires you to register a profile.

I used to use Comodo Firewall but it does not work for W10 yet. Currently I use Private Firewall as alternative, but jury is still out how good it is.
Click to expand...

Have you gotten Bitdefender free edition to work with Win10?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top