dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4236
share rss forum feed

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to clocks11

Re: Norton disabled me, I disabled Norton

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
Honoring The Captain
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
kudos:13
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.

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

Yeah...I seem to have GData on the brain...it uses both Bit Defender and Avast engines...sorry and thanks for the correction.
--
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

1 recommendation

reply to dtgoodtonid

I don't worry about FP's. My main AV on my PC's can be set to ask what action to take when it finds anything. And to be honest I'm not sure if Avast can be set up to ask first since it's being used on my kids netbooks. And if it hosed anything I would image back to before hosing.

This is how I proceed when any of my AV solutions finds anything during a scan. I've been doing this for eons. And it has never bitten me in the butt, yet.

If during a scan my AV finds anything suspicious, and the PC is working well and not showing any signs of infestation. I assume it's a false positive for the time, and tell it to take no actions. I then recheck my PC with Malwarebytes, and submit the file to sites like Jotti or Virus Total. If it passes all those test I assume it's a false positive. The only time I will delete something right away is if the suspected malware was found in a temp folder.

I have never ever have any issues following these steps.
Knocking on wood.
--
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

You way is how I have always done it (except I have never had success is restoring an image other than using System Restore which has generally worked fine and I exclude system volume information from scanning by my AV (in particular the real time scanner).

But what happened with Avast was overwhelming. I had Avast set to block access and then ask me what further to do (if anything) when the realtime scanner found malware. One evening, I noticed Avast updating. Fine. But about a minute after it finished, I got a popup that some system file was infected with a trojan. It was a system file, there had just been a update, and my computer had no strange symptoms, so I figured it was an FP. I told Avast to ignore (I didn't want to tell it to block because it was a system file...how critical I wasn't sure but I have Process Guard if there really was a trojan and it tried to start then PG would block it cold). I started to submit the file to Virus Total but before I could do that, I got THREE MORE popups one right after the other all indicating infected system files and asking what to do. As I tried to deal with the popups for those three, to my horror, I saw at least 20 more popups behind the first three! They were all supposedly infected system files! I frantically tried to clear all of them only to have another 20 or so popup and one of them was for explorer.exe and some other rather critical system files.

I knew, at that point, that something terrible had gone wrong with that latest Avast update that had just taken place. My goal was to clear the popups and not allow Avast to send any of the files to quarantine and then to disable Avast for the time being. But the popups would not stop .... they kept coming very, very rapidly. My hand on the mouse started to cramp and Avast was getting insistent about wanting to send them all to quarantine...I clicked faster and faster on the popups and lost count when had I clicked on more than 100 popups. Finally, they stopped long enough for me to be able to disable Avast.

I went immediately to the Avast forum but it wouldn't load at first which told me I was not the only one experiencing this mess. Later, I was so glad that I had been able to stop Avast from quarantining the files which, had I not EXPLICITLY clicked on EACH popup to tell it to not quarantine, it would have done that. Over 1000 files were alerted on and Avast's quarantine could not begin to hold all those files. Hence, an unbootable machine for many because Avast just automatically deleted all files it thought were "infected" once quarantine reached capacity limits. The scariest thing to me was that I had Avast set up to NEVER quarantine or delete files without my express approval each time. Avast tried to ignore those settings!

Most Avast users who got that tainted set of definitions, had Avast set up to automatically quarantine, and it did that, and then deleted all "infected" files that were still left once quarantine was full. Depending on the version of Windows (I think I recall that was the reason for the differences but am not certain without going and checking at Avast forum), some users did not have thousands of files alerted on but just a few hundred and quarantine was able to hold all of them. Even then, some of those users couldn't get quarantine to properly restore all the files. I was especially scared of allowing files into quarantine because Avira's real time scanner had decided the contents of MyPrivate Folder were trojans and it moved all the files to quarantine. I had excluded that folder from the on demand scanner but didn't for the real time scanner. I had Avira set to never quarantine but it did anyway because I wasn't there to tell it what to do and it got tired of waiting and took action on its own just like Avast would have done if I had not been able to act on each popup. I could not restore them...they "restored" but were scrambled and worthless.

If all you have experienced are a few files alerted on during an routine on demand scan (I had Avira alert on 40 files when I first got it and did the first full on demand scan...they were all FP's) you cannot compare that to what happened on THREE occasions in past few years with Avast.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson



Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..
reply to dtgoodtonid

As I'm sure it has probably all ready been either pointed out or alluded to I apologize if this redundant.

Norton in the beginning of the real beginning of growth and consumer use in the mid and late nineties was one of the best line of products for Windows.

Then they sold out to Symantec. Initially that was fine but over time Symantec in all areas ran the quality of products and customer support into the ground. Terrible.

Specifically their AV or Security Suites became bloatware, with no support, questionable reliability, often in conflict with other programs, and took Merlin to remove it from your system.

On or about 2009 Symantec/Norton changed their spots and put out a streamline top of the line AV and security product(s) that also were light on system resources. Top notch.

However, in 2012 the smell of a rat emerged. AV Comparatives is one of if not the leading AV testers in the world. Most of the major vendors PAY THEM MONEY to run their myriad of comprehensive tests to thoroughly evaluate all aspects of the program. Well it seems like Symantec/Norton wanted to change the rules. They were welling to have all of the tests run on the various aspects of their product except one. That one area that they wanted excluded is one of if not the most important areas to be evaluated in testing an AV or security product. They offered no reasonable explanation why they wanted the exclusion.

AV Comparatives did the reasonable and responsible thing and said we either test everything or nothing at all. No compromise. So if you want the test it is all or none. My understanding was at the time this happen Norton chose to pass. However, whether they reversed themselves or not gives any reasonable person plenty of reason to be suspicious of the whole operation of Symantec/Norton. Not a condemnation or judgement, but certainly a reason to be cautious--especially in the world of so many fine products to choose from and who all were fully tested or vetted by AV Comparatives.


computerman2
Premium
join:2002-04-20
Rockwood, MI
Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·AT&T Midwest

Well as a Long time user of Microsoft Security Essentials, from version 1.0 to now 4.1.522, I feel MSE offers adequate protection, and MSE isn't meant to be used alone like other antivirus programs, think of it as a part of a whole army, and for maximum protection and security i make sure the following items are enabled on each PC

Windows Firewall Enabled
Windows update/Microsoft update and all patches applied
Internet Explorer latest verson + Protected Mode and Smart Screen Filter on, (Which Smart Screen has been extended to the OS as well in Windows 8)
User Account Enabled--Please pay attention to warnings, and don't always click yes
Junk filter updated in MS Email programs
Parental Control--which is very effective in latest versions of MS products
Updated 3rd party programs, (Adobe, java, Shockwave,etc)
Think of what your clicking on or doing, and Will be very hard to get infected with Microsoft Security Essentials installed

I've also used Avast in the past, and dealt with the False Positives, taken time out of a busy day to help family members deal with if it's false or not false, fixing there problems numerous times in the last few years

Tried Norton 2012--Still felt a little bloated, so came back to Microsoft Security Essentials on most of the household PC's, have we have any infections up to this point--Nope, 0, (checked with MSE, Malwarebytes, and online scan bi weekly, so far all clean on every single PC)

This Desktop PC upgrading to Windows 8 in 2 days, so definitely gonna use built in Windows Defender/MSE in Windows 8.


SipSizzurp
Fo' Shizzle
Premium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:4
reply to Blogger

said by Blogger:

... Well it seems like Symantec/Norton wanted to change the rules. They were willing to have all of the tests run on the various aspects of their product except one. That one area that they wanted excluded is one of if not the most important areas to be evaluated in testing an AV or security product. They offered no reasonable explanation why they wanted the exclusion.

And would you please tell us specifically which test it is that YOU excluded from YOUR description ? Firewall ? Detections rates ? What was it ?


martg

join:2005-11-19

Some information here:

»www.av-comparatives.org/forum/in···tID=3807


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

said by martg:

Some information here:

»www.av-comparatives.org/forum/in···tID=3807

Thanks. Here is what it said ;
quote:
As Symantec Norton declined to participate in the File Detection Test...


Blogger
Jedi Poster
Premium
join:2012-10-18
Reviews:
·Champion Broadba..

2 edits

1 recommendation

said by SipSizzurp:

said by martg:

Some information here:

»www.av-comparatives.org/forum/in···tID=3807

Thanks. Here is what it said ;
quote:
As Symantec Norton declined to participate in the File Detection Test...

Yes that is correct. At least once a year AV Comparatives run a a spread of standardized various tests on all the vendors that for a fee submit their products for testing. The detailed results and product ratings from those test results are published by AVC.

However, in 2012 Norton said to AV all though we want to submit our product to you for testing we want opt of one of the tests. (As clearly explained in a a post previously provided by another poster.) The test that Norton wanted a special pass on is one that AV comparatives rates as one of the most important!

AVC said, sorry, neither you nor any other vendor gets to pick what tests are run and which are not. If you want to sign up as usual to be tested and rated it is all or nothing---same for all vendors you are compared against. Equal playing field--otherwise it wouldn't be a valid or very good test and rating of the many vendors' security products.

Norton wasn't willing to face the music of the results of the one test that for some reason it desperately wanted to avoid. Consequently, Norton/Symantec chose not to be tested by AVC in 2012.

Pretty telling I would say. At the very least a very large bright yellow caution flag. And in today's world of many proved highly effective products it would be a red flag for me if I was considering buying an AV or Security Suite for my PC Windows 7.