dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4272
share rss forum feed


MagnusM
Premium
join:2001-07-07
reply to dtgoodtonid

Re: Norton disabled me, I disabled Norton

I never understood the logic behind completely disabling a program if the subscription fee hasn't been paid. You've paid for the program, surely you should be able to continue using it. All this does is give Symantec a bad rep.
--
Mischel Internet Security - Developer of TrojanHunter


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to dtgoodtonid
said by dtgoodtonid:

Why would you say I don't want to spend money on an AV when the 1st thing I said was that I've been using NAV since 2005? I fired Norton.

I'm not sure which direction I'm going at this point. MSE is, for the time being, the alternative to nothing. Whatever my decision is, it will be informed because of this forum. Even if the decision is to stay with MSE!

Because out all the free and paid AV out there, you chose to replace Norton with MSE. Who replaces Norton with MSE? That's like trading in a Nissan GTR for a Ford Focus. Anyway you could of chosen Kasperky, BitDefender, F-secure, G-Data but you went MSE. So that's why I assumed you were looking for free solution.

Also there's nothing wrong with the free version of Avast. I used it on a couple of PC's. thr free version just has less features. The over-all protection is about the same. But it's 0 day protection is vastly superior to MSE.
--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v6.6, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v6.6 & Online Armor Premium v5.5, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.
Expand your moderator at work

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to gugarci

Re: Norton disabled me, I disabled Norton

You have any DECENT proof that MSE has "horrible" 0 day protection? No one who knows anything antivirus testing would believe a single word from MRG much less actually have the gall to give them as link!

We've had these discussions here before many times over a long period about MRG. Doesn't anyone read threads here?
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


In case you think I am fan of MSE....no, I have never used it because there is no way to make it a palatable AV for power users like there is with Avira (Norton is only for ignorant of computers users also for the same reason). While I will not use MSE unless Microsoft decides that some of us are not ignorant of computers users, I think it is reasonably good AV for the masses.


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to dtgoodtonid
Believe who want Mele20 See Profile and I have the balls to give them as a link.
Maybe this site is involved in a conspiracy since almost every thing you post about involves some kind of conspiracy.

Here are 2 more recent tests. Take a Look at the horrible protection scores. If an an AV can't protect you from getting infested it's worthless even if it's free. And if you feel it's a good AV install it yourself.
Have a nice day.

»www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/test···]=122614
»www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/test···]=121851
--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v6.6, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v6.6 & Online Armor Premium v5.5, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.

SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:4
said by gugarci:

Here are 2 more recent tests. Take a Look at the horrible protection scores. If an an AV can't protect you from getting infested it's worthless even if it's free.

Tell that to Kaspersky, Computer Associates and Farenics Anti-Executable. Those are some of the software packets I'm in the process of removing, and installing MSE in their place, due to an un-ashamed raping of the entier LAN, with all that crap running and claiming all "Green" status ( Execpt Faronics).

If you hang out here enough you will see that your latest "Fanboi" flavor of the week is actually longer than one week. It runs from 2 - 3 years, and then must be given an overhaul for a year, meaning that you have already; MOVED ON !


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to dtgoodtonid
I visit this forum and Wilders multiples times every day. OK.
And no one solution is perfect, except maybe DefenseWall. This is why a layered approach is the best defense. But as of today I would start off with another AV instead of MSE.
OK,

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
I looked at your AV-Test links. I see that on those tests that MSE did poorly in zero day detection. But it did the best of all of those tested in full removal of an infection. Plus, it has zero false positives and very importantly it doesn't slow the computer as most do (Avast was awful for slowing the computer...of course, if you install the bare minimum of modules then it would be better but the ignorant of computers user should use all modules). I still think MSE should be recommended to average users for ease of use, no FP's, excellent cleaning, very light on resources.

Users should have layered protection so that would make zero day deficiencies less important. Besides, it's free.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to dtgoodtonid
But shouldn't preventing the infection be more important than cleaning it, especially after you let in in? I would rather have an AV with better protection than cleaning. For the cleaning part if your AV cannot remove it, there's are lot's of tools you can use. Such as MalwareBytes, Hitman Pro, Emsisoft, and so on.

I'll take better protection over cleaning any day of the week. But your AV solution should still perform well in all the three categories, protection, repair, and usability. In this case MSE score very low in protection.

Also I have Avast installed in my kids Netbooks and it doesn't slow down the performance. And these Netbooks are using an Atom chip.

--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v7, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v7 & Online Armor Premium v6, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
Well, if Avast isn't slowing down your kids Netbooks (assuming all modules are in use) then maybe that test was wrong about Avast usability. If so, maybe it is wrong about MSE's 0 day protection. I don't know...just saying....

If users stay away from IE I don't think 0 day protection is that critical assuming they are not visiting crack and porn sites constantly or clicking on every link they see. IE is a huge factor in getting infections. It really depends on the user. If ignorant of computers, and irresponsible regarding the safe use of computers, then the user may need heavy duty AV especially if they insist on using IE.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to dtgoodtonid
Avast is definitely not slowing down my kids Netbooks. I used them from time to time myself every time I update other pain in the neck items like Java, Flash, Reader and the MS Updates.

But that doesn't mean that test result were wrong. Since PC's like humans are all different. Maybe on their test PC Avast did slow them down. Best thing you can do with all these softwares is to try them on your system first and then decide you self.

What works well in one or many PC's, might not work well in yours. And I've definitely experience this in the past.
--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v7, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v7 & Online Armor Premium v6, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.


Woody79_00
I run Linux am I still a PC?
Premium
join:2004-07-08
united state
reply to gugarci
Allthis bickering about Norton/MSE is really pointless. Norton/Symantec is not a good product....this is proven by the sheer number of users who use it, yet they get infected all the time.

I can't tell you how many times in the last few years i get a call because a computer is messed up and sure enough Norton is installed. Sure enough definitions and updates are updated to latest versions yet they are still infected...this happens pretty much daily.

I use GFI Vipre for one reason, Price...i can get a 3 year sub for the price of 1 year from Norton. McAfee, etc....i use this with Software Restriction Policies + Limited Account + EMET(Enhanced Migitiation Expereince Toolkit) = profit...

that being said...i would choose MSE over Norton just due to the simple fact it has pretty much ZERO false positives...an AV that flags known good files as bad (see Norton and McAfee over the years) is useless....i don't care how much it detects if it has high number of false positives its useless.

Now i will say this, "if the economy wasnt garbage and saving as much money as possible for a rainy day was not my top priory" then if i had to choose a paid Security software it would be Trend Micro.

Why Trend Micro? i'll tel you why...sure its on-demand scanner is middle of the pack, sure its interface is simple....but guess what? Trend Micro has BAR NONE thats right you heard me BAR NONE the best web filter out there period...no other product is even in the same zipcode...no not even in the same state as Trend Micro when it comes to its web filter.

most infects come from the web and web sites...im telling you Trend Micro's web filter has no equal on the market....You can watch the reviews on Youtube, you can do as i did spending weeks throwing zeroday URLS at it only to be blocked by Smart Protection Network....Trend has focused on this web filter the last 3 years and it has no equal...it will be very hard to sneak malware past that web filter.

as i said..the on-demand scanner is middle of the road, the options are simplisitc, buts is web filter is nothing short of phenomenal....you want to keep your friends and family from clicking links on Facebook or email or other sites that get them infected? then Trend Micro is your product....

dtgoodtonid

join:2005-01-16
Lexington, KY
That's pretty strong, I appreciate your interest. I will take a look at Trend Micro's AV. I am mixed about McAfee. I would like to believe a product owned by Intel would/should have some credibility and I used to like the user friendly features of the McAfee Firewall. But I also see the test results.

Just for the record, I use IE9/Windows7 and I will probably upgrade to W8/IE10. Yes, I've tried FF, Opera, and Chrome. I always come back to IE, using the most current version. I'm more than sure that makes Mele20 happy!


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast

1 edit
reply to Woody79_00
said by Woody79_00:

Allthis bickering about Norton/MSE is really pointless. Norton/Symantec is not a good product....this is proven by the sheer number of users who use it, yet they get infected all the time.

Right, because no one has ever been infected using Trend Micro. No one solution is perfect. Experience users use a layered security approach. But you should still start out with a solid AV for the first layer of protection. I'm not saying you can't use Trend Micro. But I would still use something else.

Anyway here's a recent You Tube review you might have missed. It was done yesterday. Final grade B. Not bad but you can still do better for the same price.

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA95gMzQiKI

--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v7, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v7 & Online Armor Premium v6, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.

clocks11

join:2002-05-06
00000
reply to dtgoodtonid
As a few others have said, MSE is complete garbage. Even if you want to stay with a free solution, there are so many better products available.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
said by clocks11:

As a few others have said, MSE is complete garbage. Even if you want to stay with a free solution, there are so many better products available.

There are "so many"? Really? I can think of Avira, Avast and AVG as the free products along with MSE. Avira is out because they went to the dark side last year and are shunned. Avast is a fine product but has two problems that MSE doesn't have. It has a history of totally trashing one's computer because of FP's and this has happened more than one time in the past three years. It also radically slows any computer unless most modules are not installed. MSE never got in bed with sleazeware and scareware vendors nor do they have FP's, and their product does not slow the computer. As for AVG, it used to be horrible but I don't know how it is these days. According to AV-Test, it does not slow the computer but has other useability issues but not severe ones. In other respects, it did well so, perhaps, it would be a viable free alternative to MSE.

I don't consider 3 free AV as "many better products available". There may be ONE.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


gugarci
Premium
join:2004-02-25
Lyndhurst, NJ
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to clocks11
said by clocks11:

As a few others have said, MSE is complete garbage. Even if you want to stay with a free solution, there are so many better products available.

Hopefully you are not referring to me because I never said it was garbage. I think MSE is an average AV solution.
--
Desktop Win 7 x64 Emsisoft Anti Malware v7, Laptop Win 7 x64 & Desktop XP Pro Emsisoft Anti Malware v7 & Online Armor Premium v6, Netbook Win 7 Starter and Netbook XP Home Avast 7, MBAM and Hitman Pro used on-demand only.

clocks11

join:2002-05-06
00000
reply to Mele20
I'll name a few more solutions, besides those you mentioned, that are better than MSE:

Roboscan IS
Kingsoft 5.2
Comodo IS v6 beta


mmainprize

join:2001-12-06
Houghton Lake, MI
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to clocks11
said by clocks11:

As a few others have said, MSE is complete garbage. Even if you want to stay with a free solution, there are so many better products available.

To all those that say MSE is junk, i will tell you why most people that use it like it, and most likely why they are not using one of the other top rated AV programs IMHO.

MSE has run on my PC's for years and i have not been infected in that time, i do run some other software also but MSE is my AV software. In the past i have tried the others and have not liked them for one or more reasons including get infected.

The biggest problem with the top rated AV is that it flags everything, even things you do not want it to flag. In some of these programs you can not even stop it from flagging things like the file-name keygen. You may not even stop it from removing a file that you know is not a virus and you may not even be able to restore the file once it has removed it. The higher the rating the AV has the slower the PC runs in most cases. I remember i tried Norton AV and it had all the problems i stated above, so i removed it and it left many parts behind i had to manually uninstall, thanks Norton. i heard the 2011 version was faster again but i never tried it again because it flagged everything, had bundled many other products with it i did not like or want. Avast and Arvia and ESET were all just as bad, you need a good backup before you install and run or you may never get your files back.

So MSE is not over aggressive, can be setup to ignore stuff that you know is not a problem, and gives you a choice of what to do if it thinks it finds a file that might be a bad file. In the end i fell i am in control of what it does where the other AV programs i did not fell that way most of the time.


Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
Grand Rapids, MI
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to clocks11
said by clocks11:

I'll name a few more solutions, besides those you mentioned, that are better than MSE:

Roboscan IS
Kingsoft 5.2
Comodo IS v6 beta

Have they put the avira engine in Kingsoft yet ?

»www.avira.com/en/press-details/n···es-avira

Nevermind..found the answer..
Kingsoft SP5.2 = Cloud-based ( Only kingsoft signatures )

Kingsoft SP3.5 = Local virus lib ( kingsoft signatures + Avira signatures )

But in kingsoft 2013 Avira's Engine will be completely integrated into Kingsoft.

--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to clocks11
I wouldn't trust any of those especially since you put Comodo in that list. Comodo is utter garbage and since you don't seem to know this, and it is extremely common knowledge, that makes me think the other two are also garbage and you either don't realize that or don't care. Google says Kingsoft is infected and offered me a keygen with a trojan ...I won't go beyond a Google search since I searched while on my host machine...I might investigate further on a virtual machine. Roboscan I have never heard of it and I see it is poorly rated by reviewers and it is not tested by independent labs nor is Kingsoft or Comodo. Why would you recommend crap that is so bad it isn't tested and the user just has to believe it works? Yeah, really. These three certainly can't be as good as MSE even if it is not very good.

I see Name Game says Kingsoft is a cloud antivirus. I don't do cloud anything and certainly not AV. Avira's engine has been in other AV in the past with less than desirable results. Avira is not what it used to be and I would take MSE over Avira. Avira cannot be trusted since they went to the dark side last year.

That Roboscan includes a non functional firewall. How does this make it better than MSE? Even an AV like AVG that PCMagazine has chosen as its top pick is full of junk. They all are now and with a lot of them you cannot turn off the junk. I already have local proxy ....I cannot use a web shield also or the internet would grind to a halt.

There may not be a decent AV out there currently. Almost all of them have a huge bunch of gimmicky garbage which will cripple your computer and is unnecessary in the first place. At least, with Avast you can choose to not download and install any of gimmicky modules that are worthless junk anyway. MSE doesn't have any gimmicky garbage. That is quite refreshing. I wish I could try it but I run XP Pro SP2 on both my Host and a virtual machine. I have another virtual machine with XP Pro SP1. I have none with SP 3.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

clocks11

join:2002-05-06
00000
Reviews:
·Comcast
said by Mele20:


That Roboscan includes a non functional firewall. How does this make it better than MSE?

So don't use the firewall! In fact, I think it is disabled by default. Roboscan uses the Bitdefender engine, and offers way better protection than MSE.

Obviously your mind is made up, and you love MSE. I'm not going to try to change your mind. All I know, it is test these programs fairly regularly. MSE has gotten infected EVERYTIME I test it. The other programs provide much better protection.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
Why would a company that is responsible include a non functional firewall? That is my point. This would bother most thoughtful persons but evidently you feel that including a non functional firewall is irrelevant to whether or not this non tested (by reputable testing labs) AV is good or not. Okaaaaayyyy......

You can use Bit Defender's free AV. It is on demand only. I've used it in the past as my sole Av for several years and it is fine, but Bit Defender paid version causes BSOD on my machine (caused by its driver). BD has terrible support and like so many AV today requires you to uninstall Spyware Blaster and Spybot (even if you don't use Teatimer). But their free AV has none of these problems so if you want that engine then use the free on demand one. Or why not use Avast? It uses Bit Defender engine.

I never said I love MSE....far from it. I've never tried it so how could I "love" it or hate it? I can't try it either. I simply said that I think it is an acceptable AV and I don't think some of those you mentioned come anywhere near acceptability.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

dtgoodtonid

join:2005-01-16
Lexington, KY

1 edit
reply to Mele20
Avast is a fine product but has two problems that MSE doesn't have. It has a history of totally trashing one's computer because of FP's and this has happened more than one time in the past three years.

Sorry

dtgoodtonid

join:2005-01-16
Lexington, KY
reply to Mele20
[ Avast is a fine product but has two problems that MSE doesn't have. It has a history of totally trashing one's computer because of FP's and this has happened more than one time in the past three years. ]

To go along with that, it has been my experience that a severly infected computer can be trashed cleaning out the infections. What I've seen is that if you clean with Windows Defender, which is, of course, included in MSE, before using a product like SpywareBlaster(not limited to) you drastically reduce the chance of trashing the OS.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
I agree with you. My sole hesitation in using Avast is the complete havoc that FP's can cause...in Avast's case three times, in the past three years, they have released a tainted definitions set and if your Avast updated to that set then all hell broke loose. I got all three of those nightmares. I'll never forget either how Igor so eloquently wrote the first time that this nightmare would never happen again and how profusely Avast CEO (poached from Symantec which also has a nasty history of critical FP's) apologized....only to have it happen two more times in about a three year period. (What really opened my eyes was that after I struggled so hard to contain Avast from trashing my computer, and then I went to Avast forum to report the problem, I learned that Avast had NO WAY for moderators to contact them during the night! Obviously, the forum would be the sentential for a disaster like what happened yet no Avast official thought it important to give forum moderators emergency contact numbers! Avast happily slept through a rapidly spreading disaster and it was only about six hours after the first forum reports regarding a tainted definitions release that Avast woke up and finally learned about it and pulled the tainted set).

Luckily, I had Avast on a virtual machine so I could have restored to an earlier snapshot (but I think the latests snapshot was about a month before so I would have lost some stuff), or used the clone I had, but that would have meant only saving the OS. Luckily, each time, I happened to be on the machine and with great effort was able to contain the problem but if I had not been there....I would have had a non bootable machine.

Norton is also known for disastrous FP's. All the AV have them once in awhile ....but Avast and Norton are among the worst. I don't recall ever hearing about MSE having disastrous FP's and that is a big point in its favor (and certainly, it should have less chance of trashing the OS when cleaning since it is made by the makers of the OS). So, I think it is a reasonably good AV. Hopefully, Microsoft can do better as far as 0 day detections. Microsoft is participating in the better independent labs testing and why would they do that unless they really want to know its weaknesses so they can work on those?
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


gwalk
Premium
join:2005-07-27
West Mich.
Not to defend Avast (anything above 7.0.1426 trashes my laptop) but FP's are always a possibility regardless of brand.

Perhaps we should not be so quick to take drastic action and hit the "google button" first. News of a FP travels fast.

As a rule an infected machine shows some symptoms.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
Yes, FP's can and do happen with any AV. However, most of the FP's are isolated signature ones where one of your trusted programs is suddenly identified as having a trojan. You can not use it and submit the FP to your AV vendor (and to services like Virus Total and Jotti to see if other AV are also alerting on it), and wait for a definitive decision from your AV vendor, or you can exclude it immediately if you are certain the alert is an FP. No big deal...even if the alert is on several of your programs.

What IS a big deal is when an AV suddenly alerts on thousands of Windows files...many of them critical to the operation of Windows. This sort of alert is what Symantec and Avast have a history of doing. Other vendors have, on usually rare occasions, alerted on a critical Windows file but nothing like what Symantec and Avast have done. Even if you have your AV configured to alert/block access and "ask me what to do" as your setting, an AV alerting on potentially a thousand or more files (as Avast did)... one right after another....how do you contain it (the files could not be allowed to go to quarantine as quarantine is too small to hold all of them) long enough to be able to shut down Avast before it does critical damage (and what if you weren't at the computer when Avast started quarantining over 1000 files and filled up quarantine and then deleted all the rest of the files it alerted on)? With Symantec it might just be one Windows file, but a critical one, and with some AV today you cannot configure them to allow you to decide on each alert what to do ....they just automatically quarantine the file (or automatically quarantine if you are not there to decide what to do) and that can cause the OS to become instantly unusable so you cannot retrieve the file and you have an unbootable OS.

This is the scary thing about using any AV but especially one with a history like that of Avast and Norton.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


DownTheShore
RIP tmpchaos
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:14
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL

2 recommendations

reply to dtgoodtonid
Just to put things in a bit of perspective, I've used Norton on two computers since 2009 and in all this time I've never had thousands, hundreds, tens or even ones of false positive on Windows files.

That may have happened prior to 2009 before Norton rewrote their code, but that really doesn't have much relevance to its current product.

King Grub

join:2011-01-26
reply to Mele20
said by Mele20:

Or why not use Avast? It uses Bit Defender engine.

No it doesn't. Avast uses the Avast engine.