Antivirus

[Luke367]

Does anyone know any good free antivirus?

+rep if you can help :)

[David]

inb4 someone says common sense and/or microsoft essentials

avast has a free version i think

[MKR&*42]

Aw beaten to it, i use avast and used to use MS Security Essentials.

AVG has a free one maybe??

Just don't ever go with norton dear GOD. It's not free but still it's just so bad you have to mention it's crapness.

[AgnesIO]

Torrent a paid one, at least that is what I did.

If not, would use AVG myself.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Mark]

I use trend micro although I've used avast in the past, it was great!

[DPS]

AVG is the best one around at the moment.

I'd also download COMODO as a firewall.

[=Sam]

AVG has a decent trial version, which last 30 days.

The best anti-viruses are the ones that nobody has heard of.

[mrwoooooooo]

AVG has a decent trial version, which last 30 days.

The best anti-viruses are the ones that nobody has heard of.

No they aren't

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[=Sam]

Coders and programmers that want to get into your computer, use their code to surpass the major Anti-Virus programs. By percentage most people use AV's such as and include, AVG, Avast, Norton etc.

Most anti-virus's used are well known anti-viruses on the market. Making it very easy but still trivial to overpass.

Little known AV's do not fit this criteria so therefore they are more protective tenfold.

[AgnesIO]

Coders and programmers that want to get into your computer, use their code to surpass the major Anti-Virus programs. By percentage most people use AV's such as and include, AVG, Avast, Norton etc.

Most anti-virus's used are well known anti-viruses on the market. Making it very easy but still trivial to overpass.

Little known AV's do not fit this criteria so therefore they are more protective tenfold.

But you are more likely to get a rogue av if you download unheard of ones, and how on earth do you know their effectivess?

No "coder/programmer" as you put it gives two ***** about the average persons computer, they just don't.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[mrwoooooooo]

Most anti-virus's used are well known anti-viruses on the market.



http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m57xd65swZ1qjvxfho1_500.jpg

Edited by runeaddict99 (Forum Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly.

[=Sam]

But you are more likely to get a rogue av if you download unheard of ones, and how on earth do you know their effectivess?

No "coder/programmer" as you put it gives two ***** about the average persons computer, they just don't.

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

In fact hackers do very much, if they're trying to infect your computer with what an AV protects.

I'm not suggesting anybody downloads a rogue AV, I recommend people make an educated and informed decision about whatever it is they download in the first place. Also you get what you pay for, and if you pay for nothing you're likely to get exactly that.

Have a look around, ask some people as this chap has done on the forums, but also ask the right people through the correct channels. Such as a white hat hacker, who will tell you the exact same thing I'm writing now.

Lastly, If you're going to make a statement - at least have some sort of reference to back your opinion up.

Cheers bud.

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 04:54 PM ----------


http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m57xd65swZ1qjvxfho1_500.jpg

*REMOVED*

Edited by Bolt660 (Acting Forum Super Moderator): Please do not be rude towards other forum members!

[mrwoooooooo]

In fact hackers do very much, if they're trying to infect your computer with what an AV protects.

I'm not suggesting anybody downloads a rogue AV, I recommend people make an educated and informed decision about whatever it is they download in the first place. Also you get what you pay for, and if you pay for nothing you're likely to get exactly that.

Have a look around, ask some people as this chap has done on the forums, but also ask the right people through the correct channels. Such as a white hat hacker, who will tell you the exact same thing I'm writing now.

Lastly, If you're going to make a statement - at least have some sort of reference to back your opinion up.

Cheers bud.

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 04:54 PM ----------


*REMOVED*

Why are you so insistent with telling people to ask on other specialist forums, they're hardly questions for white hats to be answering.

[peteyt]

In fact hackers do very much, if they're trying to infect your computer with what an AV protects.

I'm not suggesting anybody downloads a rogue AV, I recommend people make an educated and informed decision about whatever it is they download in the first place. Also you get what you pay for, and if you pay for nothing you're likely to get exactly that.

Have a look around, ask some people as this chap has done on the forums, but also ask the right people through the correct channels. Such as a white hat hacker, who will tell you the exact same thing I'm writing now.

Lastly, If you're going to make a statement - at least have some sort of reference to back your opinion up.

I would just like to point out that you have given nothing yourself to back the fact that unknown antivirus programs are actually safer.

The real safer ones are usually the expensive ones, maybe they are unknown because they are only used by tech companies, but this might actually give people more reason to hack them because there'd be stuff worth a lot more to steal. What it really comes down to is how powerful the engines and other technologies used are and how often they are updated. Add onto that simple common sense.

The best one's are the one's that use multiple types of protection and most today thankfully do. Today definitions are not enough to protect you so lots of AV's use multiple technologies. Often this is simply being able to identify dangerous behaviour even if there is no definition available with some AVs actually running stuff through a sandboxed mode first to test what they do in a virtual environment.

I use Eset myself and it's often recommended by many in the computer tech industry but it isn't sadly free (although their might be a free version). I also use sandboxie a free sandbox application that allows you to run anything in it in a virtual mode. For example you can open your browser in it and then download and even install applications in it with your security suite still picking up if its a virus (if it's a good one). This is good for testing possible dangerous programs as they are in a virtual mode and once you close it it's gone.

[Chippiewill]

Microsoft Security Essentials for Windows 7 or below. Microsoft Defender comes with Windows 8. Just an FYI, barring zero-day exploits MSSE has essentially a 100% success rate, and the chance of running into a zero day exploit is something like 0.05%, with common sense its 0%.

If you want to go paid then ESET's NOD32 is the way to go for an Antivirus, you may wish to get the whole of ESET's Smart Security suite but it's not really needed.

[Adam]

just don't go on dodgy sites.

[peteyt]

Microsoft Security Essentials for Windows 7 or below. Microsoft Defender comes with Windows 8. Just an FYI, barring zero-day exploits MSSE has essentially a 100% success rate, and the chance of running into a zero day exploit is something like 0.05%, with common sense its 0%.

If you want to go paid then ESET's NOD32 is the way to go for an Antivirus, you may wish to get the whole of ESET's Smart Security suite but it's not really needed.

Didn't MSSE fail on some tests or got really poor results?

[Chippiewill]

It did poorly on zero day exploits because it doesn't employ heuristics. Positives; Never gets a false positive. Negatives; Won't protect you against undiscovered viruses. In reality the chance of you encountering a zero day exploit is so slim that you're better of with MSSE because it's so reliable for everything else.

[AgnesIO]

In fact hackers do very much, if they're trying to infect your computer with what an AV protects.

I'm not suggesting anybody downloads a rogue AV, I recommend people make an educated and informed decision about whatever it is they download in the first place. Also you get what you pay for, and if you pay for nothing you're likely to get exactly that.

Have a look around, ask some people as this chap has done on the forums, but also ask the right people through the correct channels. Such as a white hat hacker, who will tell you the exact same thing I'm writing now.

Lastly, If you're going to make a statement - at least have some sort of reference to back your opinion up.

Cheers bud.

---------- Post added 10-05-2013 at 04:54 PM ----------


*REMOVED*

Hypocrite.

Where are your references that the average consumer should use obscure anti viruses that no one has heard of :S

[=Sam]

Hypocrite.

Where are your references that the average consumer should use obscure anti viruses that no one has heard of :S

I love your feedback man, you seem to really love me. :)

"Studies in December 2007 showed that the effectiveness of antivirus software had decreased in the previous year, particularly against unknown or zero day attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_day_attack). The computer magazine c't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%27t) found that detection rates for these threats had dropped from 40-50% in 2006 to 20-30% in 2007. At that time, the only exception was the NOD32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOD32) antivirus, which managed a detection rate of 68 percent.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-48)

The problem is magnified by the changing intent of virus authors. Some years ago it was obvious when a virus infection was present. The viruses of the day, written by amateurs, exhibited destructive behavior or pop-ups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad). Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime).[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-49)
Independent testing on all the major virus scanners consistently shows that none provide 100% virus detection. The best ones provided as high as 99.6% detection, while the lowest provided only 81.8% in tests conducted in February 2010. All virus scanners produce false positive results as well, identifying benign files as malware.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-50)
Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICSA_Labs), West Coast Labs, VB100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_Bulletin) and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Malware_Testing_Standards_Organization).[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-51)"

Just for you buddy. I won't ask for your reference as I'm well aware you don't have one.

---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 03:05 AM ----------


I would just like to point out that you have given nothing yourself to back the fact that unknown antivirus programs are actually safer.

The real safer ones are usually the expensive ones, maybe they are unknown because they are only used by tech companies, but this might actually give people more reason to hack them because there'd be stuff worth a lot more to steal. What it really comes down to is how powerful the engines and other technologies used are and how often they are updated. Add onto that simple common sense.

The best one's are the one's that use multiple types of protection and most today thankfully do. Today definitions are not enough to protect you so lots of AV's use multiple technologies. Often this is simply being able to identify dangerous behaviour even if there is no definition available with some AVs actually running stuff through a sandboxed mode first to test what they do in a virtual environment.

I use Eset myself and it's often recommended by many in the computer tech industry but it isn't sadly free (although their might be a free version). I also use sandboxie a free sandbox application that allows you to run anything in it in a virtual mode. For example you can open your browser in it and then download and even install applications in it with your security suite still picking up if its a virus (if it's a good one). This is good for testing possible dangerous programs as they are in a virtual mode and once you close it it's gone.


Just encouraging good human behavior man, although I appreciate it. What you've written is knowledgeable and I do respect that bro.

---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 03:06 AM ----------


Why are you so insistent with telling people to ask on other specialist forums, they're hardly questions for white hats to be answering.

Habbox deals with habbo primarily.

I disagree.

[Recursion]

Or, you know, just stick with the one provided in Windows 8 and employ some common sense. No money wasted on a pointless resource hog.

[Calum0812]

Another vote for AVG! Love it!

[Chippiewill]

Coders and programmers that want to get into your computer, use their code to surpass the major Anti-Virus programs. By percentage most people use AV's such as and include, AVG, Avast, Norton etc.

Most anti-virus's used are well known anti-viruses on the market. Making it very easy but still trivial to overpass.

Little known AV's do not fit this criteria so therefore they are more protective tenfold.

This features such a VAST lack of understanding of how an anti-virus functions and operates. There is no *special method* of getting past specific vendors of Anti-Viruses, primarily anti-viruses employ heuristics which means they look in files to see if they do the kinds of things viruses do, there is no easy way to mask this.

And even if you were to succeed at the other end they also just keep a list of stuff which factually are anti-viruses and this list is kept so up to date that you'd be hard pressed to infect more than ~1000 computers before most major AV vendors updated their virus definitions.

[Trinity]

I love your feedback man, you seem to really love me. :)

"Studies in December 2007 showed that the effectiveness of antivirus software had decreased in the previous year, particularly against unknown or zero day attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_day_attack). The computer magazine c't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%27t) found that detection rates for these threats had dropped from 40-50% in 2006 to 20-30% in 2007. At that time, the only exception was the NOD32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOD32) antivirus, which managed a detection rate of 68 percent.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-48)

The problem is magnified by the changing intent of virus authors. Some years ago it was obvious when a virus infection was present. The viruses of the day, written by amateurs, exhibited destructive behavior or pop-ups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad). Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime).[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-49)
Independent testing on all the major virus scanners consistently shows that none provide 100% virus detection. The best ones provided as high as 99.6% detection, while the lowest provided only 81.8% in tests conducted in February 2010. All virus scanners produce false positive results as well, identifying benign files as malware.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-50)
Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICSA_Labs), West Coast Labs, VB100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_Bulletin) and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Malware_Testing_Standards_Organization).[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-51)"

Just for you buddy. I won't ask for your reference as I'm well aware you don't have one.

I'm very sleepy, so maybe I missed something, but none of that backed up the claim of yours that he questioned.
So it looks like you don't have any references either.


Habbox deals with habbo primarily.

I disagree.

In the habbo sections, yes. This is the Tech&Web section though, a lot of us here (maybe most of us, I don't know) don't play habbo.
But even if this whole place was dedicated to habbo and only used by habbo players, that doesn't mean they're not perfectly capable of answering the question.

[HarrySX]

Haven't read this thread, but for Windows, MS Security Essentials/Defender and Windows Firewall is all you'll need.

[AgnesIO]

I love your feedback man, you seem to really love me. :)

"Studies in December 2007 showed that the effectiveness of antivirus software had decreased in the previous year, particularly against unknown or zero day attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_day_attack). The computer magazine c't (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%27t) found that detection rates for these threats had dropped from 40-50% in 2006 to 20-30% in 2007. At that time, the only exception was the NOD32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOD32) antivirus, which managed a detection rate of 68 percent.[48] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-48)

The problem is magnified by the changing intent of virus authors. Some years ago it was obvious when a virus infection was present. The viruses of the day, written by amateurs, exhibited destructive behavior or pop-ups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop-up_ad). Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organized_crime).[49] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-49)
Independent testing on all the major virus scanners consistently shows that none provide 100% virus detection. The best ones provided as high as 99.6% detection, while the lowest provided only 81.8% in tests conducted in February 2010. All virus scanners produce false positive results as well, identifying benign files as malware.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-50)
Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICSA_Labs), West Coast Labs, VB100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_Bulletin) and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Malware_Testing_Standards_Organization).[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antivirus_software#cite_note-51)"

Just for you buddy. I won't ask for your reference as I'm well aware you don't have one.

---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 03:05 AM ----------




Just encouraging good human behavior man, although I appreciate it. What you've written is knowledgeable and I do respect that bro.

---------- Post added 11-05-2013 at 03:06 AM ----------



Habbox deals with habbo primarily.

I disagree.

That states that NOD32 had a good detection rate (well known AV!!!) It also states that well known ones can find up to 99.6% of infections. Now which bit says people should therefore use ones nobody has ever heard of?

Yeah, it doesn't.

[peteyt]

Just encouraging good human behavior man, although I appreciate it. What you've written is knowledgeable and I do respect that bro.

Cheers ha but hate to sound rude (not trying to be) but what you posted as proof isn't actually proof.

Most people who know a bit more than average about security computer wise will probably know AV programs are not 100 percent, they can't be as they can only predict future problems. However nothing that you posted stated that the unknown small AV programs are the best, it just stated that none are perfect. As I mentioned it comes down to the engine and how often its improved and updated to fight off new threats. Also the articles you posted where Wikipedia articles and while some information might be good it should never be used as an actual source.

[=Sam]

Cheers ha but hate to sound rude (not trying to be) but what you posted as proof isn't actually proof.

Most people who know a bit more than average about security computer wise will probably know AV programs are not 100 percent, they can't be as they can only predict future problems. However nothing that you posted stated that the unknown small AV programs are the best, it just stated that none are perfect. As I mentioned it comes down to the engine and how often its improved and updated to fight off new threats. Also the articles you posted where Wikipedia articles and while some information might be good it should never be used as an actual source.

Fair enough man, no worries. :)

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:08 AM ----------


This features such a VAST lack of understanding of how an anti-virus functions and operates. There is no *special method* of getting past specific vendors of Anti-Viruses, primarily anti-viruses employ heuristics which means they look in files to see if they do the kinds of things viruses do, there is no easy way to mask this.

And even if you were to succeed at the other end they also just keep a list of stuff which factually are anti-viruses and this list is kept so up to date that you'd be hard pressed to infect more than ~1000 computers before most major AV vendors updated their virus definitions.

No worries. GL HF

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:08 AM ----------


That states that NOD32 had a good detection rate (well known AV!!!) It also states that well known ones can find up to 99.6% of infections. Now which bit says people should therefore use ones nobody has ever heard of?

Yeah, it doesn't.

Thanks for your love and support brother. :)

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:09 AM ----------


I'm very sleepy, so maybe I missed something, but none of that backed up the claim of yours that he questioned.
So it looks like you don't have any references either.



In the habbo sections, yes. This is the Tech&Web section though, a lot of us here (maybe most of us, I don't know) don't play habbo.
But even if this whole place was dedicated to habbo and only used by habbo players, that doesn't mean they're not perfectly capable of answering the question.

True true, nps.

[AgnesIO]

Fair enough man, no worries. :)

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:08 AM ----------



No worries. GL HF

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:08 AM ----------



Thanks for your love and support brother. :)

---------- Post added 12-05-2013 at 09:09 AM ----------



True true, nps.

I like how when you realise you are wrong you just slide away lmao

I think it is fair to say that the average person is best sticking to the well known brands, rather than risking finding some sort of obscure AV, which may well turn out to be a rogue.

[=Sam]

I like how when you realise you are wrong you just slide away lmao.

Thanks man. :)

Edited by Bolt660 (Acting Forum Super Moderator): Please don't post pointlessly