Linus visits the SKETCHIEST sites on the Web

[Canada EH]

6 hours ago, Wh0_Am_1 said:

This is going to be great!

Why did you quote the OP?

 

 

Did Linus visit a lot of porn sites?

[kirashi]

6 hours ago, Red Hardware said:

So how many of you use antivirus softwares these days?? I mean windows defender is kinda good enough for techy ppl like us but i'm interested to see how many of u guys use these softwares 

I just use Windows Defender, MBAM Premium, and CommonSense™. That being said, I've been doing IT Consulting and PC repair for over 10 years, so I might be a tad more experienced than most people. It doesn't make me impervious to infections, but spotting them is second nature so the chances are very slim.

5 hours ago, Klenex said:

Bitdefender uses the dd/mm/yyyy date format, so the subscription actually ends on the 7th of December

There's such a lack of respect for ISO8601 in today's age of technology. I understand the differing date formats for paper forms, but on a computer or other digital platform there is only ONE correct way to write the date and time.

1 hour ago, SC2Mitch said:

Doesn't Malwarebytes do all of this.... and is cheaper? 

Yes, and yes.

1 hour ago, Minorika said:

Is bitdefender actually good or not?

See above. AV software is really just a matter of personal opinion, at least when it comes to comparing the largest players in the game. Even Norton has come a LONG way from the poorly designed clunky piece of software it used to be.

 

That being said, I love how BitDefender essentially turned into malware itself because it failed to respect @LinusTech's decision to turn it off. Don't take this the wrong way but there's a reason I joke about security software essentially being malware itself due to the its' behavior in certain situations. If the very software suite that's supposed to protect your computer can't be turned off, or has a firewall that cuts off your internet connection due to a faulty update (looking at you Norton, BitDefender, Comodo, Panda, AVG, Avast, and M security...) then it's no better than the malware its' trying to remove. On the other hand, BitDefender isn't M security, so at least it has that going for it.

[captain_to_fire]

To everyone using Bitdefender, one protection component must be disabled and it's the Safe Files feature.

 

While it adds extra protection against ransomware, it can sometimes lead to false positives thinking that any program writing to the disk is ransomware. I think that even if that component is disabled, the other components will still work. Which means that Bitdefender is by no means a "set it and forget it" antivirus unlike others. Just saying.

 

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

Doesn't Malwarebytes do all of this.... and is cheaper? 

Malwarebytes is more of an on demand scanning service rather than providing real time protection. Also, its detection is rather sketchy you might as well stick to Windows Defender. See here https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MRG-Effitas-2018Q1-360-Assessment.pdf

 

[kirashi]

2 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

To everyone using Bitdefender, one protection component must be disabled and it's the Safe Files feature.

 

While it adds extra protection against ransomware, it can sometimes lead to false positives thinking that any program writing to the disk is ransomware. I think that even if that component is disabled, the other components will still work. Which means that Bitdefender is by no means a "set it and forget it" antivirus unlike others. Just saying.

Spot on; this is why I love MBAM's heuristic based anti-ransomware protection. Granted, it's not the same thing as the definition based protection you get from a regular AV suite, but their support is much more responsive to resolving issues with their rulesets. For example, if you run into it blocking legitimate file changes, you simply visit their support forum, provide logs and a copy of the executable binary causing the problem, and within a week they push out an updated rule to whitelist the binary if it's deemed safe.

[Minorika]

1 hour ago, kirashi said:

See above. AV software is really just a matter of personal opinion, at least when it comes to comparing the largest players in the game. Even Norton has come a LONG way from the poorly designed clunky piece of software it used to be.

 

That being said, I love how BitDefender essentially turned into malware itself because it failed to respect @LinusTech's decision to turn it off. Don't take this the wrong way but there's a reason I joke about security software essentially being malware itself due to the its' behavior in certain situations. If the very software suite that's supposed to protect your computer can't be turned off, or has a firewall that cuts off your internet connection due to a faulty update (looking at you Norton, BitDefender, Comodo, Panda, AVG, Avast, and M security...) then it's no better than the malware its' trying to remove. On the other hand, BitDefender isn't M security, so at least it has that going for it.

Thank you

[Wh0_Am_1]

4 hours ago, SC2Mitch said:

Doesn't Malwarebytes do all of this.... and is cheaper? 

It does, but it has only a ~60% detection rate, meanwhile Bitdefender has a 80-90% detection rate. Bitdefender also has better zero day protection than Malwarebytes.

[Progressor]

I don't think this is a good choice of sponsor given that most of your audience is tech savy enough to not need an AV. Unless you're someone's grandma/pa who downloads and clicks on every facebook ad and installs whatever "the thing on the screen" told them to, or someone who need an AV for commercial/office/business purposes, AVs are useless for you. They are mostly bloatware, slowdown your system, constantly give false positives about random stuff that're perfectly safe not to mention even delete important stuff, and they won't protect you against a modern(newly updated virus/rat). Reading the comment on youtube from pissed off people who had to use the product from the AV company that you chose for sponsor, it looks like you did not picked even remotely decent AV company to sponsor you. As someone who download a lot of pirated shit I've never had an issue with viruses since the windows XP days, ironically that was the only time that I used AV software. Now it is possible that my PC is part of a botnet since I don't use a dedicated av(I'd disable windows defender too If I could without getting annoying reminders that it's off) bit for the last decade I'm yet to have any issues in that regard and I pirate shit constantly. Although even an AV wouldn't protect against that give how easy is to fool them.

[Zodiark1593]

34 minutes ago, Progressor said:

I don't think this is a good choice of sponsor given that most of your audience is tech savy enough to not need an AV. Unless you're someone's grandma/pa who downloads and clicks on every facebook ad and installs whatever "the thing on the screen" told them to, or someone who need an AV for commercial/office/business purposes, AVs are useless for you. They are mostly bloatware, slowdown your system, constantly give false positives about random stuff that're perfectly safe not to mention even delete important stuff, and they won't protect you against a modern(newly updated virus/rat). Reading the comment on youtube from pissed off people who had to use the product from the AV company that you chose for sponsor, it looks like you did not picked even remotely decent AV company to sponsor you. As someone who download a lot of pirated shit I've never had an issue with viruses since the windows XP days, ironically that was the only time that I used AV software. Now it is possible that my PC is part of a botnet since I don't use a dedicated av(I'd disable windows defender too If I could without getting annoying reminders that it's off) bit for the last decade I'm yet to have any issues in that regard and I pirate shit constantly. Although even an AV wouldn't protect against that give how easy is to fool them.

Completely missing the conversation about trusted websites and applications being able to be compromised and screwing over the "tech savvy" users anyway.

 

[captain_to_fire]

35 minutes ago, Progressor said:

As someone who download a lot of pirated shit I've never had an issue with viruses since the windows XP days

That you know of. So many virus infections have no visible indicators of compromise like other than digging in to the system files which I don't think most people do. Also, so many malware authors can inject malicious code into a legitimate application:

• Android vulnerability that allows threat actors injecting malicious code into legitimate Android apps without breaking the signature 
• connecting to a hotel wifi (Dark Hotel) or satellite internet can be used to install malware and exfiltrate personal information 
• Or how about the notorious Lazarus Group which was allegedly tied to North Korea and was responsible for devastating attacks in media and financial institutions all over the world especially in Bangladesh.
• Cryptomining scripts (cryptojacking attacks) that can bypass ad blockers. 

And again, most malware infections have no signs of infection until your bank account is drained or your identity has been stolen.

[KostWarCZE]

Linus you idiot! Site blocking and common malware detection is standart in 2018.

Why don't you try something from malware database which is filled with non-identified malware (malware that its not recognized by most anti-malware software nor is blacklisted in anti-malware definition) AND malware like petya, notpetya,WannaCry, etc.. Leo from PC Security channel might help you with that.. https://www.youtube.com/user/ThePCSecurity

Based on my experience bitdefender is terrible anti-virus software which performance agains malware is below average.. + Why don't you show up how many resources it needs to run? 

[captain_to_fire]

35 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Anyone know of an AV/security software that blocks the below web sources/scripts without having to input myself

The higher tier paid versions of Kaspersky AV has private browsing and ad blocker 

 

[captain_to_fire]

5 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

That feature only 'blocks' an unknown set of ads

And no indication if it is only cosmetic or true blocking at the DNS level

Probably doesn't block trackers and analytics scripts which operate silently without any visual elements

Check it out yourself. It’s available with 30 days free trial 

[Radium_Angel]

Computer protection isn't rocket science:

 

(1) Run as Limited User

(2) Run Ad-Blockers in FF/Chrome/Opera/etc.

 

Additional steps (if you absolutely must download questionable stuff)

(3) Do it in a VM

 

AV is the last line of defense and given how bloated even the good ones are, the performance hit isn't worth it.

 

[Radium_Angel]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Anyone know of an AV/security software that blocks the below web sources/scripts without having to input myself?

www.googletagservices.com
www.googletagmanager.com
www.google-analytics.com/ga.js
www.google-analytics.com/ga
www.google-analytics.com/dc.js
www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js
www.google-analytics.com
www.googleadservices.com
video-stats.video.google.com
video-ad-stats.googlesyndication.com
tpc.googlesyndication.com
ssl.google-analytics.com/ga.js
ssl.google-analytics.com
partner.googleadservices.com
pagead-googlehosted.l.google.com
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
pagead2.googleadservices.com
pagead.googlesyndication.com
mobile-gtalk.l.google.com
imageads9.googleadservices.com
imageads8.googleadservices.com
imageads7.googleadservices.com
imageads6.googleadservices.com
imageads5.googleadservices.com
imageads4.googleadservices.com
imageads3.googleadservices.com
imageads2.googleadservices.com
imageads1.googleadservices.com
imageads.googleadservices.com
googletagservices.com
googletagmanager.com
googlesyndication.com
google-analytics.com/ga.js
google-analytics.com/ga
google-analytics.com/dc.js
google-analytics.com/analytics.js
google-analytics.com
googleadservices.com
googleads4.g.doubleclick.net
googleads2.g.doubleclick.net
googleads.g.doubleclick.net
domains.googlesyndication.com
analytics-api-samples.googlecode.com
adservices.google.com
adservice.google.com
4.afs.googleadservices.com

and everything ending with "doubleclick.net" or "doubleclick.com"

I'll buy it in a jiffy

Throwing that in a host file isn't that difficult....

But any basic ad-blocker worth a damn will do that for you...or should.

[avg123]

I pefer Kaspersky to Bitdefender. The one thing I hate about Bitdefender is that you cannot turn it completely off.

[asus killer]

There are AV's that have almost no hit on your PC and do an amazing job, and they do surely work, just try and watch some pirated sports stream or watch movies or series and you'll see.

If you download piracy from scene exclusively and from reputable trackers there is literally zero changes you get a viruses, anything else and you're basically playing roulette

For email if you don't use a client and don't open shit you don't trust, there isn't much danger as well.

It is also nice to have some protection when you go to homebanking, good AV's have secure separate sessions for it.

 

[dionkoffie]

15 hours ago, coonwhiz said:

So I downloaded and installed it from your link. It is giving me an expiry date of 31 days from now. I thought it would be 6 months from now?

Dunno. Mine says full 180 days.

[perplex]

so i thought id see what this is all about, see if it picked up anything...

 

but once installed i went to my network and its blank, folder is empty.... its disabled everything in my network... wtf why has it done this... not worth the trouble imo, ill be uninstalling

[Egg-Roll]

I use Avast, it works for what is needed, I also use ad blockers for many sites on chrome. I've installed both on someones computer and put avast in game mode, because they do stupid stuff and they complain every time something would pop up regardless if it was for safety...

 

18 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

If I was Linus's sister though, I'd probably be kicking the brother's butt for being made an example of...

She doesn't look like the kind of person who would get violent except possibly verbal. But their facial similarities had me comparing for a second to make sure it wasn't a good editing job  And I'm still not convinced.

[DKL]

19 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

To everyone using Bitdefender, one protection component must be disabled and it's the Safe Files feature.

 

While it adds extra protection against ransomware, it can sometimes lead to false positives thinking that any program writing to the disk is ransomware. I think that even if that component is disabled, the other components will still work. Which means that Bitdefender is by no means a "set it and forget it" antivirus unlike others. Just saying.

1

 

Actually, there's a workaround built-in that I found immediately upon installation of it. Application Access lets you list your programs to whitelist manually. However, games and other well-known programs should've been automatically detected and whitelisted by the program itself. This is still a serious shortcoming of the ransom protection security feature which sways users away from enabling it.

In addition, why isn't it automatically detecting my private/home wifi (which is set as such in Windows 10) as Private/Home?

And then once I do select that it still shows up in Vulnerability Scan as a Vulnerability Risk of 1 out of 3 arbitrary red blocks. It didn't even tell me the 'we Recommend changing the password to a stronger one' until after I had set the wifi as a home/private network. In the 2nd screenshot below  I'll show what happens when I set it to look at this as a public network.

And here, with the network set to Public:

It advises that I use what is very likely just an outdated Chromium Browser instead of telling me what's wrong with the Wi-Fi Network? Yeah, that'll make me secure for certain..

 

Criticisms aside for a moment. My main questions are: What are the differences between Bitdefender and Malwarebytes? Is there anything this does better? Anything to make the price worth it over just purchasing Malwarebytes?

 

[captain_to_fire]

2 hours ago, DKL said:

Criticisms aside for a moment. My main questions are: What are the differences between Bitdefender and Malwarebytes? Is there anything this does better? Anything to make the price worth it over just purchasing Malwarebytes?

While antivirus programs are only as good as the update signatures, Malwarebytes for at least a year have been sloppy in detecting viruses. https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/MRG-Effitas-2018Q1-360-Assessment.pdf

 

[DKL]

Interesting, thank you for informing me on that! 

[EPENEX]

 

[darknessblade]

SERIOUSLY  SHIT DEFENDER.
its the biggest CRAP ANTIVIRUS EVER:

 

-------------------

and yes i know quite a lot of computers.

but i have never seen such a piece of SHIT

 

to be frank it was THEIR FREE TRIAL just as they did for LINUS