New
#71
Perhaps considering scheduling tasks for these applications at startup per the advice of this guide.
Guide: Bypass UAC for startup programs
What security setup do you have?
-
-
New #72
LMFAO...eset says the comodo leak test is a trojan... how the hell did you even able to download it? (unless you're not using eset =D) oh god you're in big trouble with your current protection LMFAO.
basically comodo leak test is a virus simulator that test if the OS can be infected with the different methods a virus uses...
but eset doesnt even allow it to land on my hard drive =D so I guess I get 340/340? LOL
so yea eset FTW...Last edited by Mercurial; 19 Aug 2009 at 08:49.
-
New #73
well we all know that it isn't a trojan now don't we,and just cuz eset has a signature for that perticular test(maybe a cheap way to avoid failing
) doesn't mean that eset would protect you from a similar attack method.
no it doesn't mean that you got 340/340
and if you're using the 32 bit version of eset or whatever you're using,don't even bother comparing it with a 64 bit security product(yet) its a fact that almost all the 64 bit security solutions we currently have are weaker
-
New #74
Been using MSE now about a month and a half. Nothing to complain, it was working well. Today I got this dialog telling a new version is out, do you want to upgrade. Yes, clicked I and that's when problems started.
Installation runs until almost to the end. Then comes this:
Contacting M$ tech forums and telling about error code, I got a nice and typical answer: "Uninstall any other virus or malware software. If you do not have any other virus or malware software and this error occurs, please file a bug report. Have a nice day."
I decided to wait the final product. A little nepotism on my mind, I thought I'll try a Quality Product from Finland. Went to F-Secure's website and found "F-Secure Technology Preview 2009". Downloaded this F-Secure internet Security 2009 Beta, and I have to say I think I found my security suite.
Stunningly easy and clear user interface:
Easy to use and configure, works well with Win7. The beta program allows me to use this until February 2010, so there's enough time to test and build an opinion before I have to decide if I want to buy the final product.
For those interested, here's the download link.
Kari
-
New #75
My security setup
I have a Thinkpad T41, 2GB RAM, two HD (Seagate 100GB & 80GB). Win7 is on second, 80GB, HD; XP (plus Puppy Linux) is on the 100GB HD.
For Win7 I use Windows Defender, Windows firewall, and AVG 8.5 free, which I installed yesterday. AVG replaces Kaspersky's anti-virus beta for Win7, which was posting more than 50% CPU usage (as reported by Resource Monitor).
pw2buz
-
New #76
Using Antivir free edition, Spybot, UAC on, windows firewall.
-
New #77
I have a very strong protection:
NOD32 4 AV.
Windows Firewall.
Yes, i mean it. That's a solid protecion.
Last edited by Dinesh; 22 Aug 2009 at 00:49.
-
New #78
lol why so serious? the fact that it caught a program that contained malicious code alone means its a really good protection, it also means that if any program that has the same code init will be caught too so meh =D... and cheap? i don't think that app is in esets virus database yet LMFAO...well we all know that it isn't a trojan now don't we,and just cuz eset has a signature for that perticular test(maybe a cheap way to avoid failing) doesn't mean that eset would protect you from a similar attack method.
no it doesn't mean that you got 340/340
and if you're using the 32 bit version of eset or whatever you're using,don't even bother comparing it with a 64 bit security product(yet) its a fact that almost all the 64 bit security solutions we currently have are weaker
and what? weaker? LOL? 64bit doesn't mean the program to be entirely different... 64bit apps just takes advantage of the CPU powahhrrr... scans faster and whatnot so meh...
wrong info my friend =)Last edited by Mercurial; 20 Aug 2009 at 19:46.
-
New #79
-
Posts : 2,899 Windows 7 Ult x64(x2), HomePrem x32(x4), Server 08 (+VM), 08 R2 (VM) , SuSe 11.2 (VM), XP 32 (VM)New #80
well acording to what i know there are api's which make it able to secure the kernel without such patching (and as you with every bug there is a possibility of exploit)...
it might be weaker protection but it is better than nothing...
to me kernel patching is bad thing (coming at this from the a security and stability standpoint) because your are messing with the core of windows itself and any bug in their kernel drivers can cause massive consequences...
sophos was even quoted saying
Symantec and McAfee 'should have prepared better' for Vista - V3.co.uk - formerly vnunet.comHowever, Sophos argues that its approach to HIPS technology has met with no problems on both the low-spec and high-spec versions of Windows Vista. In addition, Sophos claims that Microsoft has so far provided all the interfaces that Sophos needs for providing this form of protection.
"Symantec and McAfee may be struggling with HIPS because they haven't coded their solutions with high-spec Vista in mind," said Richard Jacobs, CTO of Sophos.
"We've taken a different approach, by focusing on catching bad behaviour before it has a chance to occur. Additionally, we are building our technology by making use of supported Microsoft interfaces rather than by trying to subvert them. That's why we're ready for 64-bit Vista, and others aren't."
and the corporate edition of symantec's antivirus has not been using KPP for some time now (which i used to use for some time now, when i was in HS and for a while in college)...
Last edited by darkassain; 20 Aug 2009 at 22:45. Reason: typo not out of univ....;)
Quote
Related Discussions