What's the Best Anti-virus?

3Colors · 20 Aug 2015

MoxieMomma said:

Hi:

3Colors said:

I have not used the MBAM because I fear that eliminates any sensitive file system.

I know it sounds weird.

I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand what that means.

If you wish, could you please explain?
Perhaps we can try to set your mind at ease about that concern.

More info about v2.1.8 HERE
Version 2.1.8 Release History HERE
User Guide ONLINE
User Guide PDF
FAQ: Common Questions, Issues, and their Solutions

Cheers,

This could be an example :

- https://forums.malwarebytes.org/inde...file-ntdlldll/
- https://forums.malwarebytes.org/inde...msed/?p=978300

As CCleaner(are different programs I know) you have to know how to use them. With caution.
These programs are more advanced in my opinion that an antivirus.

MoxieMomma · 20 Aug 2015

3Colors said:

This could be an example :

- https://forums.malwarebytes.org/inde...file-ntdlldll/
- https://forums.malwarebytes.org/inde...msed/?p=978300

As CCleaner(are different programs I know) you have to know how to use them. With caution.
These programs are more advanced in my opinion that an antivirus.

Ah, it seems you refer to a "False Positive" detection.
There is no security program -- anti-virus or anti-malware -- that is 100% free of those.
They are an unfortunate part of life with security software.
I have never used an anti-virus or anti-malware program that did not have one of these, rarely.
The Malwarebytes team works very hard to prevent these and to fix them, when they happen.
And there are ways to configure one's settings to minimize the chance that such a rare occurrence could damage one's system.

As for CCleaner, that is an entirely different type of software application.
It is "cleaning" and "optimization" utility, not a security application.
So I don't know that comparing it with MBAM or any other security program makes too much sense.
OTOH, while it is a good program overall, CCleaner's "Registry Cleaner" -- like others -- can certainly cause its own system damage.
I guess that could be considered analogous to an anti-virus/anti-malware "false positive"?

The bottom line is that there is no known security application that has NOT had a false-positive from time to time.
And ANY software, when used incorrectly, can cause system damage.

It's certainly the user's choice what software to install and run on the computer.

And having a robust, redundant method of data backup and system imaging is always a good plan to help recover from the occasional mishap.

Thank you,

Layback Bear · 20 Aug 2015

As MoxieMomma has posted no program what ever kind it is will not be perfect all the time.

Malwarebytes Anti Malware is no exception.
I have been using Malwarebytes Free/Pro/Premium or years and I can only remember 3 problems.
Malwarebytes took care of those problems is a short time.

I would not go online with a computer without Malwarebytes Premium, anti virus and a firewall.

ICIT2LOL · 20 Aug 2015

I use MBAM as Layback Bear does and only found two things that have got past my almost free Kaspersky ($0.035 a day) and well I know I am a pain but this is where to find just about anything now (they have renamed it) Free Windows Desktop Software Security List | Gizmo's Freeware

It contains all forms from real time to whatever.

Plus on pain of repeating myself yet again on seeing a documentary program out here the other night any electronic device form phones to computers to pads can be hacked - there is no answer to what can be done by these people. The program showed an Australian politicians text and phone messages being intercepted by hackers in the US word for word as it happened so I think this thread is really a sort of proxy peace of mind discussion in light of what I saw and heard.

Keep out the spam and rubbish ads etc and just concentrate on what one uses their machine /device for because no one is safe.

3Colors · 20 Aug 2015

But I always had this question. If all viruses that appear are added to the database of each AV. Why there is no global database so that no Antivirus left behind avoiding that one if it detects it and another does not.

ICIT2LOL · 20 Aug 2015

3Colors said:

But I always had this question. If all viruses that appear are added to the database of each AV. Why there is no global database so that no Antivirus left behind avoiding that one if it detects it and another does not.

Hmm because at last count 3colours I saw there were at least 50,000 new malwares of differing types put each and every day and there is in my mind no way that any security company can keep up with that, even given that they may have the resources to find them so in actual fact the virus es etc are out and about before they can be detected . It is simply impossible to foresee a piece of malware before it is distributed and by that time the damage is probably done

.

Plus it also brings me back to my point of there being no way that anyone can be hacked etc etc whenever those who do that want to. I am not criticizing you or saying you are wrong but if you stop to think about it that is about the long and short of it.

UsernameIssues · 20 Aug 2015

3Colors said:

But I always had this question. If all viruses that appear are added to the database of each AV. Why there is no global database so that no Antivirus left behind avoiding that one if it detects it and another does not.

Here is the problem with what you suggest:
I could start an antivirus company and let other companies do all of the hard/expensive work of detecting each piece of malware. I'll just take the info that those companies put in the global database and use it for my antivirus product. I would need very few employees (if any) to run my antivirus company and I could sell my product for less than those that are paying people to do the hard work. My profit margin would still be more than those with overhead/employees.

Also - you cannot get all of the companies to agree on what malware is. Two companies can have the exact same file and only one of them will classify that file as bad.

3Colors · 20 Aug 2015

ICIT2LOL said:

Hmm because at last count 3colours I saw there were at least 50,000 new malwares of differing types put each and every day and there is in my mind no way that any security company can keep up with that, even given that they may have the resources to find them so in actual fact the virus es etc are out and about before they can be detected . It is simply impossible to foresee a piece of malware before it is distributed and by that time the damage is probably done

.

Plus it also brings me back to my point of there being no way that anyone can be hacked etc etc whenever those who do that want to. I am not criticizing you or saying you are wrong but if you stop to think about it that is about the long and short of it.

You're right every minute there out different viruses. I had read that it was possible to steal digital footprint through a photo. There is everything. It is that sometimes I keep wondering why why...

UsernameIssues said:

I could start an antivirus company and let other companies do all of the hard/expensive work of detecting each piece of malware. I'll just take the info that those companies put in the global database and use it for my antivirus product. I would need very few employees (if any) to run my antivirus company and I could sell my product for less than those that are paying people to do the hard work. My profit margin would still be more than those with overhead/employees.

Also - you cannot get all of the companies to agree on what malware is. Two companies can have the exact same file and only one of them will classify that file as bad.

Yes, that problem I had it in mind. But that could be solved perhaps a monthly publication in a website that displays the work done by everyone. There one could see who are not helping the project.

Example: antivirus "A" found 20, the "B" 14 and the "C" 3. There you can see that "C" is not contributing to the database and only this copying. Therefore it implied that AV is not taken seriously the job.
It could also solve that with each company appointing one of its employees to work together with others. But first they would be put to a test to see if they are ready.

Two views are good, but will always be justifying his reason. A third or fifth could balance the scales. That's what I think.

UsernameIssues · 21 Aug 2015

Maybe I've just been in the workforce for too many decades - but I don't see a monthly publication working. If my AV company "C" was really working hard, those 3 samples could represent 30 man-hours of labor. Those 14 samples from company "B" only took 2 man-hours to research. Good/fair/useful metrics are not easy to gather. Just ask any manager.

You might want to read this. I'm not saying that it is true, but it is hard to get companies that are competeing against each other for money to trust each other and play nice together. Google's VirusTotal might be the closest thing to a global database that you will find.

MoxieMomma · 21 Aug 2015

Monthly newsletters or databases would not be helpful in efforts to stay ahead of zero-day and zero-hour threats. As such, AV vendors who push only one database per day are actually behind the curve in this regard.

As far as the recent sensationalized article by 2 disgruntled ex-employees at KL, in the interest of fairness one ought to mention the company's response to it AND the fact that the experimentation/testing described in the article was undertaken precisely to investigate the problem mentioned here in this thread: it is a longstanding problem in the AV sector that Company B adds a given sample to its database (without testing) merely because Company A (which has done the testing) has done so.

While there is significant cooperation among experts & individuals in the computer security world, it remains the case that the many security software vendors do compete for business. So there will never be ONE perfect technology or ONE perfect virus/malware database or ONE perfect software product to suit all computers and all users.

JMHO,

MM