What Anti Virus software should I use?

Orion

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
1,613
Location
Missouri
Hey guys, just wondering what anti virus software I should be running on my computer.

Currently, I have Malware Bytes,....but as I understand it, that's not technically an anti virus software.

When I try to turn on Windows Defender, I get a message that it is not on because another program is doing AV protection, but I'm uncertain what that is. I had Avast, but uninstalled it,....and uninstalled McAfee. Need to know what I need to use for the best protection. Thanks!
 

FlashKat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 18, 2006
Messages
2,364
Location
Anaheim, CA.
I use Webroot, and have not had any problems for over 5 years. I did not like Avast, Norton, or McAfee.
 

terjee

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
730
Location
Bergen, Norway
None.

I'll explain:

Antivirus is overrated. I've had more problems with them than I've ever had with viruses. Also, anything you introduce into your setup can be exploitable. Email running through antivirus? Well, then both your email program and your antivirus program are part of the possible exploit surface. Historically, antivirus do no better job than other software at avoiding being exploitable. Custom attacks that target your specifically, are unlikely to be picked up by antivirus. Same with new exploits.

There certainly are things you can do to protect yourself, mostly make sure your software is up to date, consider using Chrome, and consider buying a mac. Don't do stupid things (like opening and running ZIP-files that are mailed to you).

I ran antivirus software for probably 15 years.
How many times did it save me from an infection? Not once.
How many times did there turn out to be exploitable issues with them? Way more often.
How many times did it cause a noticeable performance degredation? More than half the time.

Bottom line; They never stopped an attack, but they made attacks easier.

I'm all for focus on computer security – it's a work-topic for me – but antivirus are basically the "alternative medicine" of the computer world, and has been for years. They were great when people were copying programs on floppies between friends and from untrusted sources. If you want to boost your security in 2016 though, focus on staying up to date, get 1Password or similar, tape your webcam, be careful with your files, use encryption, use secure chat, run through a few "how to secure X"-guides, where X is your email client and similar programs, and buy a Yubikey if you use services that supports it (google and gmail, dropbox does). And for the love of your deity, make sure you have good backups. Not just online ones, but on detached physical hardrives. One that you update regularly, one that you update once or twice a year, with just the important bits (think baby pictures etc). Keep at least one of them in a separate location. That could be what saves you from "encrypted files blackmail".

If you'd like to step it up from there, choose a decent filesystem with redundant storage that checksums, such as using FreeNAS, and also make sure you have backups on at least two types of medium (harddrives plus one of tape and optical). Step up again with ECC-ram, and streaming replication to another site.


edit to add;
The above answer targets the question "Which antivirus should I use". The answer to "Which antivirus should we use" is different. One thing is a single user, they can control their risks in other ways. In a corporate setting for example, that looks very different. You can't have all the people keep their software up to date all the time, you can't prevent all users from opening ZIP files and running programs in them, etc. Corporate settings also offers more options for where to introduce antivirus. An ingress-filter for email for example, could make good use of antivirus (clamav is often a good choice for this).
 
Last edited:

sandalian

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 2, 2012
Messages
281
Location
ICAO:WARJ
I'm using Linux and no longer using antivirus for my computers.

Back then, the time I used Windows, my preferred choice for antivirus is Avast.
My only reason was because it's lightweight and has the ability to scan virus before Windows started.
 

vadimax

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Vilnius, Lithuania
I'm using Linux and no longer using antivirus for my computers.

Back then, the time I used Windows, my preferred choice for antivirus is Avast.
My only reason was because it's lightweight and has the ability to scan virus before Windows started.

Once upon a time Avast update process started to launch itself recursively leading computers to a full stop (hundreds of processes, RAM depleted). Had to uninstall everywhere and refused to use it again.

Regarding Linux: so, now you are not even aware that your system is being exploited? :)

Watch this: Windows kernel is roughly 3 times more secure than Linux kernel. 38 vulnerabilities vs 119 in 2014.
 
Last edited:

terjee

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
730
Location
Bergen, Norway

Please don't propagate trash like this. The clickbait headline is not supported by the article content, and it goes downhill from there.

The number of vulnerabilities found is hardly an indication of the number of vulnerabilities that are there. What's the number of vulnerabilities found in Windows 95 in 2014? I'd be surprised if it was more than in later versions of Windows, so must be more secure then. There's also the difference that one is open source and one is not. Even if both are probably interesting targets, it's a lot easier to run automated code analysis against the open source one. A lot of people consider Linux the future and Windows to be deprecated, which could also cause a difference in how much people look at each. Not to mention that there could also be a difference in how many skilled people actually use or depend on either, and so on and so forth.

The article goes even further down the hill when it compares OS X (an operating system) with Linux (a kernel), and then seemingly concludes or implies that Linux must then be more secure than OS X. A lot of the vulnerabilities in OS X were in applications, not the kernel. That's like comparing apples and a grocery store.

edit to add; Sorry if that sounded harsh. Any harshness was ment towards the author of the article, and not towards vadimax for sharing it.
 
Last edited:

vadimax

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Vilnius, Lithuania
Thinking that OS that takes less than 3% of market share can in any way compete with a heavy-weight -- kind of absolute deprivation from reality:

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

Linux platform looks safe so far because of no one cares to write evil code for it -- microscopic footprint, not even worth the effort. Virus code comes mostly from antivirus software sellers.
 
Last edited:

terjee

Enlightened
Joined
Jul 24, 2016
Messages
730
Location
Bergen, Norway
Depends on where you draw the lines. Linux isn't all that popular on desktop, Windows is. Then pretty much the other way around for cellphones, where Windows is pretty much gone, and Linux is a major player.

I didn't mean to sound pro-Linux btw, I only use it when I get paid to do so, and Windows I don't use at all.
 

vadimax

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
2,273
Location
Vilnius, Lithuania
In my personal opinion the worst step that has been made in computer evolution is in processors' architecture which allows to have data and function return addresses in the same stack space. If not that evil code would be impossible as practically all exploits based on buffer overflow vulnerabilities.
 
Last edited:

aginthelaw

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
2,655
Location
NJ, USA
In my personal opinion the worst step that has been made in computer evolution is in processors' architecture which allows to have data and function return addresses in the same stack space. If not that evil code would be impossible as practically all exploits based on buffer overflow vulnerabilities.

you can say that again
 

braddy

Enlightened
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
516
Hey guys, just wondering what anti virus software I should be running on my computer.

Currently, I have Malware Bytes,....but as I understand it, that's not technically an anti virus software.

When I try to turn on Windows Defender, I get a message that it is not on because another program is doing AV protection, but I'm uncertain what that is. I had Avast, but uninstalled it,....and uninstalled McAfee. Need to know what I need to use for the best protection. Thanks!

You are right to have Malwarebytes (free, I assume) and to scan with it periodically, and you are right about needing an antivirus for real time protection, download Avast free for your anti-virus and also use "Malwarebytes anti-exploit free". Once you download them and get them started, Avast and anti-exploit will update automatically and take care of themselves, although you should do occasional scans with the Avast, both it's full scan and their boot scan. Skip the Windows Defender if you use the Avast.

Today most of us can run deep, full scans, while using the internet or even watching video, and not even noticing it in slowing computer performance.
 

chaosdsm

Enlightened
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
319
Location
Florida
It's truly a complicated question.... The proper answer is one that works... unfortunately, most people aren't willing to pay a decent price for that protection & end up paying me more than the cost of the best AV to fix their computer & I charge far less than most...

AV-Test ORG is an independent testing lab that only tests security (anti virus / internet security / firewall / anti malware) software, & should be your first stop in determining "right AV software for me" I also never suggest more than a 3 year subscription. AVG years ago was best of the best & was free to boot, but then they became one of the worst, & now are back on top with their premium version. ESET was also best of the best for a while, now they're good, but not great. Kaspersky is currently on top & have been for over a year, but who knows what the future brings. This is all because the type of attacks, and how they are implemented, continuously change. Eset & Kaspersky are the only two I've used that have actually stopped a "Zero-Day" attack. "Zero-Day" is defined as the first 24 hours that a virus / malware / trojan, etc... hits the internet - differs from a "Zero-Day Exploit" which attacks a found vulnerability (hardware or software) in a computer system.

None.
.
.
.

Bottom line; They never stopped an attack, but they made attacks easier.


Yes & No... I see no mention of what AV programs you used. Many of the cheap & free ones do little to nothing as do half of the more expensive ones. Also "protection" can be degraded based on settings that the user might change.

Strong cyber-security knowledge & implementation is the best protection you can have, but even the best of the best cyber-security pro's use antivirus programs. Any holes in your knowledge or implementation are exploits waiting to happen...
 
Last edited:

formosa

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Aug 30, 2016
Messages
7
Location
taiwan
Computer security is not just anti-virus. If you want to use Windows, you'll definitely need anti-virus software. I recommend you upgrade to Windows 10, doing so UEFI secure boot will be enabled by default. Malware sometimes tampers with antivirus software as it loads so it appears to be running but in fact disabled. UEFI platform security detects any tampering with antivirus software and kernel drivers and Windows 10 restores the unmodified version so it protects against malware. However if you enable secure boot, you won't be able to use unsigned boot loaders for multi-boot OSes.

For technical details of UEFI secure boot, Windows 10, and antivirus, check out the article listed here: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/...1/65d74e19-9572-4a91-85aa-57fa783f0759?auth=1
 
Top