Antivirus

[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. The computer magazine c't 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 antivirus, which managed a detection rate of 68 percent.^[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. Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations.^[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]
Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs, West Coast Labs, VB100 and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization.^[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. The computer magazine c't 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 antivirus, which managed a detection rate of 68 percent.^[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. Modern viruses are often written by professionals, financed by criminal organizations.^[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]
Although methodologies may differ, some notable independent quality testing agencies include AV-Comparatives, ICSA Labs, West Coast Labs, VB100 and other members of the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization.^[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