What's the Best Anti-virus?

[ThrashZone]

Hello,
MalwareBytes (the paid version) ?

Or,... ?

B.

Mbam pro lifetime license sure would help but nothing is 100%
These lifetime licenses are going fast get to Amazon quick and pick 1 or 2 up before they're gone and all that's left is yearly subscriptions

 

[DavidE]

Create system backup images periodically, and backup all data.

 

[rybosix]

I'm usng Nortons security, that came with the PC windows 7 professional that my relative gave to me, and he has been working in IT industry of 6 years now. I forget if any of the companys he worked for required a specific sercurty progam.

The one time at bought a good security app was nortons and that was in 90's.

rybo

 

[ThrashZone]

It really doesn't matter which a-v is being used as long as it's not Mcafee
None specialize in malware protection.

 

[jonnyhillow]

None specialize in malware protection , well that makes me feel a little bit more secure , thanks my friend. Dammit man , i just can't win.

 

[ThrashZone]

Actually you can,
Get a mbam lifetime license while they last
Save money on paying for a antivirus when there are more than a few good free ones around.
You'd save money every year

I've had MSE and mbam pro for several years and never had any infections and I'm no choirboy

 

[jonnyhillow]

I bought the Mbam lifetime license about a year or so ago , i use it . I also used to use Avast free , MSE, etc... you definitely do not need to buy AV , lots of excellent free ones.

The reason i have Kaspersky is because i get it for virtually nothing , you see those deals on certain sites, i would never pay $50.00 a year for AV but when it's very heavily discounted i think it's worth it.

I think people tend to stick with programs that they have had a lot of success and no problems with , i'm kind of loyal like that.

I was curious as to your comment "none specialize in malware protection" , why is this ?

 

[MoxieMomma]

I was curious as to your comment "none specialize in malware protection" , why is this ?

I think there may be some confusion?

Anti-malware applications, such as MBAM, specifically target non-viral malware that is often missed by standard AVs.

OTOH, AVs target different types of malware (including viruses) that are not targeted by anti-malware tools.
For example:
MBAM does not target script files. That means MBAM will not target; JS, PY, .HTML, VBS, VBE, .CLASS, SWF, SQL, BAT, CMD, PDF, PHP, etc.
It also does not target documents such as; PDF, DOC, DOCx, XLS, XLSx, PPT, PPS, ODF, etc.
It also does not target media files; MP3, WMV, JPG, GIF, etc.
Those are better suited for one's AV.

Additionally, other special tools, such as MBAE, target not the "what", but the "how" of malware infection, by protecting vulnerable, internet-facing applications. This is explained >>HERE<<

The basic principle is to use a layered approach, with complementary products: 1 robust real-time AV, 1 robust real-time AM, plus other selected applications and strategies.
More is not always better -- running more than one real-time AV will often create problems and reduce security, not improve it.

No one software product or combination can substitute for "safe hex" or protect the user determined to get infected.

Cheers,

 

[ThrashZone]

Antivirus programs attempt to address Malware but are mostly for other threats
Trojans..........
It's difficult for a single program = a-v to do it all and people that only rely on an a-v to protect them all too often get infected,
Been there and done that mistake in my early days

Now days anyone would need dedicated other tools for malware protection because a-v's get bloated and often overprotective of content not to mention built in windows programs and oddly changes the windows update system makes,

You can usually judge a third party antivirus program by how well Internet explorer functions,
Especially 9-10-11 although 11 is pretty green in the gills and 10 is the last stable I use primarily
No other browser is installed on either of my systems so it better work well

Kaspersky is hit and miss I don't have a real opinion of it other than it wouldn't be a choice I'd make personally
But yes too each his/ her own on that can of worms

 

[jonnyhillow]

Thanks a lot TZ , very interesting and i agree (me agreeing doesn't mean anything though since i don't know much to begin with) but a layered anti malware approach is the way to go , at least i think , i wouldn't take my word on any of this stuff though.

I think Kaspersky screws with other programs more than other AV's which i don't like , it's protected my parents though so it's got to be good , if there's malware out there my parents will find a way to get it on their computer but surprisingly since installing Kav no issues in close to two years .

I heard Emsisoft is very good but i just use that for an on demand scanner.

Thanks my friend.

 

[jonnyhillow]

I was curious as to your comment "none specialize in malware protection" , why is this ?

I think there may be some confusion?

Anti-malware applications, such as MBAM, specifically target non-viral malware that is often missed by standard AVs.

OTOH, AVs target different types of malware (including viruses) that are not targeted by anti-malware tools.
For example:
MBAM does not target script files. That means MBAM will not target; JS, PY, .HTML, VBS, VBE, .CLASS, SWF, SQL, BAT, CMD, PDF, PHP, etc.
It also does not target documents such as; PDF, DOC, DOCx, XLS, XLSx, PPT, PPS, ODF, etc.
It also does not target media files; MP3, WMV, JPG, GIF, etc.
Those are better suited for one's AV.

Additionally, other special tools, such as MBAE, target not the "what", but the "how" of malware infection, by protecting vulnerable, internet-facing applications. This is explained >>HERE<<

The basic principle is to use a layered approach, with complementary products: 1 robust real-time AV, 1 robust real-time AM, plus other selected applications and strategies.
More is not always better -- running more than one real-time AV will often create problems and reduce security, not improve it.

No one software product or combination can substitute for "safe hex" or protect the user determined to get infected.

Cheers,

Thanks MM , yeah i agree with you as well , again , that may or may not be a good thing.

 

[Tookeri]

I know this thread is about AV products, but don't get too fixated on them, they're not that great for example slow detections for new signatures. There are more important protections than AV's if you ask me:

• Anti-executables, restriction policies: http://www.sevenforums.com/system-security/359832-best-protection-against-malware.html
  - Can block scripts and DLL's too
  - AppLocker was applied to 500 Windows 7 computers over 3 years as in this case. The result: Not a single malware infection compared to several a week prior to using AppLocker!
  
  
• Simple, light but very effective virtual environments like Sandboxie. Programs running in Sandboxie live in a virtual environment and can't modify anything permanent. The free version is fine. It's also possible to define what programs are allowed to run in a sandbox, what programs are allowed to access the Internet. Set block or read-only access to drives/folders etc. It's perfect for browsers for example, possibly with the exception of Chrome that has the best sandbox. Firefox doesn't have anything!
  
  
• Regarding anti-exploit tools like MBAE, don't forget the probably best one if you don't mind a paid product: HitmanPro.Alert 3
  Example: "HitmanPro.Alert 3 is the first and only commercially available exploit mitigation software capable of leveraging MSR hardware registers in your existing Intel® microprocessor to assist Alert's Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) analysis"

 

[jonnyhillow]

I wouldn't give the impression that people can forgo a good AV for other methods at this point , not when every malware forum is packed to the gills with people needing help.

Of course it's the people not being educated on malware avoidance much more so than an AV failure , i use Sandboxie and have been for years .

It certainly is an added tool but i would never go without a good AV these days as malware is as bad and more complicated than it's ever been .

For the advanced knowledgeable user they can easily avoid malware with minimal programs but for the average PC user, no way .

 

[Tookeri]

Sure, but what I meant was that the endless discussion of which AV is the best doesn't really matter much. It's not enough with even the best AV. You need other protection layers too.

That's sadly what the average user don't understand. So they think if they choose a good AV they will be safe.

In AV forums the majority of users that get infected can't understand how it happened. They seem to think that their AV is like a police officer able to prevent any crime
Why is that I wonder... Do any AV vendor claim they can detect all malware? I don't think so.

 

[ThrashZone]

All of them do some sort of boasting to be the next best thing since sliced bread and block everything better than another a-v does
Can't think of their motivation :/

 

[Callender]

Need a good AV?

Sure, but what I meant was that the endless discussion of which AV is the best doesn't really matter much. It's not enough with even the best AV. You need other protection layers too.

That's sadly what the average user don't understand. So they think if they choose a good AV they will be safe.

In AV forums the majority of users that get infected can't understand how it happened. They seem to think that their AV is like a police officer able to prevent any crime
Why is that I wonder... Do any AV vendor claim they can detect all malware? I don't think so.

Well I couldn't agree more. Doesn't matter to me if I'm using "the best" AV. I just pick one that works and that I can understand how to configure. It needs on access file scanning. Of course it doesn't offer full protection so where possible the gaps are plugged using other software.

 

[jonnyhillow]

I agree guys , my problem is i have virtually zero confidence in the vast majority of computer users out there. I think most just click on whatever they feel like without much thought at all , i also think they download stuff without any research into what their downloading .

As far as the youngsters out there today , most are complete animals and i would guess spend most of their day watching porn and clicking on dangerous links lol.

They then get badly infected and come to the forums like this one of course . When asked how did you get infected they have no idea , you ask do you visit porn sites , me? of course not .

It's as predictable as a guy giving a police officer the "i only had one beer" answer after getting pulled over lol

 

[RoasterMen]

avast! does a great job of blocking suspicious files that I download. Having an adblocker with A/Vs is a great idea unless you want your browser getting bombarded opening windows.

 

[jonnyhillow]

I used the free Avast for awhile , it was OK and i didn't have issues if i remember correctly . I have tried most at one point of another , i just use Adblock , seems to work well.

 

[The Howling Wolves]

The BEST AV is the 6" gap between ones ears.
Use it or lose it!
JMHO as usual.