How To Protect Yourself From Infection -2014 edition

[Builder]

Uh, in what instance does paying suddenly give a higher detection rate? I'm not sure if you're being serious at this point. If any anti-virus makes you pay for it to suddenly start detecting more things, it is an awful anti-virus to begin with and you should stop using it to begin with. You're dumber than I thought. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that the paid antiviruses are better than the free ones.

 

Again, comprimised software isn't something an anti-virus would help you with. Did you not read what I said about my definition of compromised?

[Akolyte]

Some of the information in the OP regarding anti-virus software is just horrible, sorry to say.

 

AVG is one of the worst anti-virus programs you can use. It is one of the most well-known pieces of software for false positives, as well as purposely reporting certain software (such as pirated content) as viruses when actually they are totally clean. We don't need to turn this into a piracy debate, but it DOES have its benefits, and if you want a piece of software telling you what you can/can't download while lying to you in the process then go ahead and use AVG. In addition, AVG falsely detects HTML-enabled email messages as malicious and deletes the messages. Also because it is one of the most popular anti-viruses, it has the most people trying to break it and find exploits.

 

Windows Defender is also pretty bad for similar reasons. Because it now comes bundled with Windows 7 and 8, it is incredibly common (as every Windows user will have it installed) and thus has the most people trying to break it and find exploits similar to AVG. Even Microsoft themselves has acknowleged this.

 

Third, you shouldn't be paying any money for anti-virus software. Free (as in free beer) virus protection software is always perfectly fine.

 

Malware Bytes and Common Sense 2014 is all you need. I haven't been using anti-virus since about 2005, because I don't download things that I have no clue what they are, neither do I browse risky websites. I run a regular Malware Bytes scan, and have never had a single problem.

I have never once had AVG report a false positive believe it or not. 

 

I believe you don't need to pay for antivirus software too.  But I believe its justified if the antivirus program has extra features you want such as a full parental control suite. 

 

But I don't agree with you that AVG is one of the worst, it isn't. But its certainly not the best, unless you have tested AVG against new malware and compared it to others yourself you shouldn't be saying that.  If you have tested the latest version of AVG against malware, then sure.  Its justified  

 

I just hate people that say antivirus software is junk when they've never tested it in a worse-case scenario. 

[Akolyte]

NoScript and AdBlockEdge will protect you from any dodgy website. Even legit websites that get comprimised. Anyway, it's not as simple as just visiting a site and suddenly having a virus.

 

Same with malicious advertising. Use NoScript and AdBlockEdge.

 

Safe downloads with malware bundled? That doesn't sound like a safe download at all. You should be making sure what you are about to download is safe before you even start downloading it to begin with.

 

USB flash drives infected? How so? Don't tell me you put random, used flash drives into your computer where you have no idea what's on them, right? Besides, an anti-virus would not protect you from a malicious USB drive, as the files are already connected to your system.

 

If someone on your network is able to write files to your computer, you've already failed. This isn't as simple as you make it sound.

 

Again, make sure whatever extension you're about to download is safe, and not malicious. This comes under just downloading any old item from the internet.

Yeah, point taken.  

 

I don't believe antivirus software is necessary at all for experience users.  I think of antivirus software as an alarm for your house.

 

Not having an alarm doesn't mean your going to get robbed, it means if you get robbed the chances of it succeeding are much higher.   However, I still believe for "non-techies" antivirus software is necessary, as most of them wouldn't know what a virus looks like.  

[IdortMasterRace]

 

Uh, in what instance does paying suddenly give a higher detection rate? I'm not sure if you're being serious at this point. If any anti-virus makes you pay for it to suddenly start detecting more things, it is an awful anti-virus to begin with and you should stop using it to begin with. You're dumber than I thought. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that the paid antiviruses are better than the free ones.

 

Again, comprimised software isn't something an anti-virus would help you with. Did you not read what I said about my definition of compromised?

 

 

"I meant that the paid antiviruses are better than the free ones." Cool, I assume you have evidence/sources to back that up?

 

"Did you not read what I said about my definition of compromised?" Yes, an anti-virus wouldn't help you with what you said.

 

Nice job playing the "Y-YOU'RE JUST DUMB!" card too, by the way. I'm definitely taking you seriously right now-- oh wait.

 

 

I have never once had AVG report a false positive believe it or not. 

 

I believe you don't need to pay for antivirus software too.  But I believe its justified if the antivirus program has extra features you want such as a full parental control suite. 

 

But I don't agree with you that AVG is one of the worst, it isn't. But its certainly not the best, unless you have tested AVG against new malware and compared it to others yourself you shouldn't be saying that.  If you have tested the latest version of AVG against malware, then sure.  Its justified

 

I just hate people that say antivirus software is junk when they've never tested it in a worse-case scenario. 

 

All I ever hear is about false positives from AVG. Sure you haven't had any, but a majority do unfortunately.

 

I agree, the only time you'd need to pay for anti-virus is for extra features, but otherwise paying gives no advantage to actual detection. For example, Malware Bytes has a premium feature that allows schedule scans rather than just scanning manually. A quality of life feature at best.

 

AVG probably isn't the worst, your right, I'd personally still stick by it being very poor. The reason I say it's junk is because of several valid reasons though.

[IdortMasterRace]

Yeah, point taken.  

 

I don't believe antivirus software is necessary at all for experience users.  I think of antivirus software as an alarm for your house.

 

Not having an alarm doesn't mean your going to get robbed, it means if you get robbed the chances of it succeeding are much higher.   However, I still believe for "non-techies" antivirus software is necessary, as most of them wouldn't know what a virus looks like.  

 

This is valid. But again, it really just requires staying safe and not doing dangerous things. I wouldn't even say there's a difference between being an experienced user or not. You're right, a non-techie might not know how to spot a virus, but as long as they were safe to begin with it wouldn't generally matter.

[Akolyte]

Well, I thought you were sensible, but perhaps not.

 

Antivirus is very necessary for Windows. I'd even say it's worth it to get a paid antivirus. The system is so frequently compromised it's an awful idea not to.

Antivirus is something you don't need, but you get it anyway because its very helpful.  

 

I HATE people who say antivirus is necessary.  And this is hard for me to say because I work for AVG, but its true.  Its not, its recommended.  

I also HATE people who say common sense is all you need.  Its not true.  

 

Antivirus as I said, its something you don't need but like having an alarm in your house or a lock on your door is something you should do.  

[Akolyte]

"I meant that the paid antiviruses are better than the free ones." Cool, I assume you have evidence/sources to back that up?

 

"Did you not read what I said about my definition of compromised?" Yes, an anti-virus wouldn't help you with what you said.

 

Nice job playing the "Y-YOU'RE JUST DUMB!" card too, by the way. I'm definitely taking you seriously right now-- oh wait.

 

 

 

All I ever hear is about false positives from AVG. Sure you haven't had any, but a majority do unfortunately.

 

I agree, the only time you'd need to pay for anti-virus is for extra features, but otherwise paying gives no advantage to actual detection. For example, Malware Bytes has a premium feature that allows schedule scans rather than just scanning manually. A quality of life feature at best.

 

AVG probably isn't the worst, your right, I'd personally still stick by it being very poor. The reason I say it's junk is because of several valid reasons though.

Please explain those reasons, I'll share them with my group. 

[IdortMasterRace]

Please explain those reasons, I'll share them with my group. 

 

see

 

AVG is one of the worst anti-virus programs you can use. It is one of the most well-known pieces of software for false positives, as well as purposely reporting certain software (such as pirated content) as viruses when actually they are totally clean. We don't need to turn this into a piracy debate, but it DOES have its benefits, and if you want a piece of software telling you what you can/can't download while lying to you in the process then go ahead and use AVG. In addition, AVG falsely detects HTML-enabled email messages as malicious and deletes the messages. Also because it is one of the most popular anti-viruses, it has the most people trying to break it and find exploits.

[IdortMasterRace]

I also HATE people who say common sense is all you need.  Its not true. 

 

But surely you agree that some people literally do not need anti-virus, and their general common sense is all they need? For me, common sense is all I need, and is all I've needed for a decade. A lot of people I talk to are in the same boat. In fact, another forum I use literally has the saying, "The only anti-virus I need is Common Sense 2014".

[Akolyte]

A comprimised OS isn't something an anti-virus would help with, because whoever comprimised the entire operating system could easily disable whatever software they wanted, including the anti-virus. Just having a piece of software running wouldn't protect you in that instance.

 

As I've said, I haven't used one in almost a decade, and had no issues, especially not with a comprimised operating system. Microsoft are normally pretty good with their security updates anyway for the most part.

 

Also, please stop with "I'd even say it's worth it to get a paid antivirus", you're literally paying for placebo.

Make, paid antivirus IS WORTH it sometimes. Unless you've tested it yourself against malware less than 24 hours old, you really shouldn't be saying that.  

 

Also, are you saying having application control that ristricts applications based on reputation and popularity in 3 different categories is placebo? Because I don't think so.

 

Do you think a sandbox is placebo? I don't think so.

[IdortMasterRace]

Make, paid antivirus IS WORTH it sometimes. Unless you've tested it yourself against malware less than 24 hours old, you really shouldn't be saying that.  

 

Also, are you saying having application control that ristricts applications based on reputation and popularity in 3 different categories is placebo? Because I don't think so.

 

Do you think a sandbox is placebo? I don't think so.

 

Again, feel free to post evidence and sources that anti-virus that costs money is better than anti-virus that doesn't cost money.

[Akolyte]

see

 

 

AVG is one of the worst anti-virus programs you can use. It is one of the most well-known pieces of software for false positives, as well as purposely reporting certain software (such as pirated content) as viruses when actually they are totally clean. We don't need to turn this into a piracy debate, but it DOES have its benefits, and if you want a piece of software telling you what you can/can't download while lying to you in the process then go ahead and use AVG. In addition, AVG falsely detects HTML-enabled email messages as malicious and deletes the messages. Also because it is one of the most popular anti-viruses, it has the most people trying to break it and find exploits.

So, can you tell me exactly what good software it has reported a threat falsely. And please show proof such as an article, forum post etc.   Also, AVG and many other antiviruses report pirated content as threats, because they often contain Remote Access Tools, and other threats.  Not only that, but its considered piracy, and its illegal.  If your pirating content and using an antivirus, your being a hypocrite. 

How does AVG lie to you?  AVG also doesn't tell you what you can and cannot download.  AVG doesn't care if your downloading a porn film or a game for kids.   I've never found AVG detect HTML messages.

 

People are constantly trying to exploit it.  Which is good because it allows us to fix all the exploits!  Making our behavioral blocker and emulator extremely strong.  

[Akolyte]

Again, feel free to post evidence and sources that anti-virus that costs money is better than anti-virus that doesn't cost money.

One of the security channels on youtube I communicate with is thePCsecurity channel.  

 

 

[Akolyte]

Uh, in what instance does paying suddenly give a higher detection rate? I'm not sure if you're being serious at this point. If any anti-virus makes you pay for it to suddenly start detecting more things, it is an awful anti-virus to begin with and you should stop using it to begin with.

 

Again, comprimised software isn't something an anti-virus would help you with.

You don't pay to get higher detection.   You pay to get the brand's security.   Kaspersky for example is paid only, and they are one of the most powerful antivirus products in the world.  Detection is so high security professionals rely on them for advanced rootkit removal and other malware removal. 

[IdortMasterRace]

So, can you tell me exactly what good software it has reported a threat falsely. And please show proof such as an article, forum post etc.   Also, AVG and many other antiviruses report pirated content as threats, because they often contain Remote Access Tools, and other threats.  Not only that, but its considered piracy, and its illegal.  If your pirating content and using an antivirus, your being a hypocrite. 

How does AVG lie to you?  AVG also doesn't tell you what you can and cannot download.  AVG doesn't care if your downloading a porn film or a game for kids.   I've never found AVG detect HTML messages.

 

People are constantly trying to exploit it.  Which is good because it allows us to fix all the exploits!  Making our behavioral blocker and emulator extremely strong.  

 

A simple search for "AVG false positive" will bring up hundreds of forum posts, articles, reviews of AVG (and similar anti-virus software that has similar issues).

 

No, they do not often contain remote access tools. I'm talking completely clean, non-dangerous, non-malicious software suddenly being marked as a trojan, despite it being 100% not. Piracy being illegal has nothing to do with anti-virus protection, don't move the goalposts. Also, how does piracy and anti-virus make someone a hypocrite?

 

AVG lies to you by telling you clean software contains viruses, normally restricting download ability of that file unless you disable AVG or make an exception. I don't have examples off-hand, because I do not use AVG, but I constantly hear about people downloading safe software, yet AVG tells them it's dangerous because it has horrible detection.

 

You have never found AVG detect HTML messages, lucky you.

 

People constantly trying to exploit it has nothing to do with you being able to fix the exploits, because someone with bad intentions isn't going to report these exploits to you are they? You'd be none the wiser.

 

It's funny because you work at AVG, yet claim to be unbias, yet you've not heard of AVG's false positive issue, neither have you heard of AVG detecting safe HTML messages and instantly deleting them. I think the fact of the matter is you're desperately trying to defend poor software made by the company you work for. Do they pay you to defend AVG to the death or something?

[IdortMasterRace]

One of the security channels on youtube I communicate with is thePCsecurity channel.  

 

 

 

Uh, a YouTube review is not evidence that anti-virus software that costs is better than software that doesn't. I'm expecting graphs, statistics, charts, logs, etc. at this point, not one guy's opinion.

 

 

You don't pay to get higher detection.   You pay to get the brand's security.   Kaspersky for example is paid only, and they are one of the most powerful antivirus products in the world.  Detection is so high security professionals rely on them for advanced rootkit removal and other malware removal. 

 

Again, please provide a source that the detection rate of Kaspersky is higher than MalwareByes/other virus protection software.

[N3rot0xin]

I've been using avast for years, and Malwarebytes + spybot on the side. Its all I need. 

[BurgerBum]

i use webroot SecureAnywere...

it scans fast.

its cheap.

and it works.

 

also its green and pretty. lol

[Akolyte]

I've been using avast for years, and Malwarebytes + spybot on the side. Its all I need. 

Spybot isn't as good as it used to be. But if it works, then sure.

 

Avast is decent.  I prefer AVG.  But really either one does the trick. 

[Akolyte]

i use webroot SecureAnywere...

it scans fast.

its cheap.

and it works.

 

also its green and pretty. lol

Webroot isn't the best.  But, if it works for you and you feel comfortable with it, then sure.

 

Check out Kaspersky too. Its also pretty good and green

[N3rot0xin]

Spybot isn't as good as it used to be. But if it works, then sure.

 

Avast is decent.  I prefer AVG.  But really either one does the trick. 

I dont like AVG, never have. Has never done anything for me. Spybot is more complicated to use now. I just use it for the immunization part, nothign more. 

[Akolyte]

I dont like AVG, never have. Has never done anything for me. Spybot is more complicated to use now. I just use it for the immunization part, nothign more. 

Why don't you like AVG mate. Because I can share it with the team and hopefully make it better and more a appealing

[BurgerBum]

Webroot isn't the best.  But, if it works for you and you feel comfortable with it, then sure.

 

Check out Kaspersky too. Its also pretty good and green

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i cant.

next time my subscription runs out, i'll check out kaspersky.

[Akolyte]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i cant.

next time my subscription runs out, i'll check out kaspersky.

Yeah, Webroot isn't bad.  Its just, its not great.  Not saying its bad, but once again.  Its not the best, Kaspersky is fairly cheap too.  And it has parental controls, firewall, application control, safe money sandbox, identity protection, vulnerbility scanner, antivirus shield, web shield, mail shield, anti-spam, anti-banner, rescue disk, browser configuration, malware rollback and heaps more. 

[N3rot0xin]

Why don't you like AVG mate. Because I can share it with the team and hopefully make it better and more a appealing

Well, the last time that i used it (3-4 years ago, around when I started using Avast 100%), AVG was not a very good product in my experience with it. It always felt clunky and not as smooth and user friendly as I would have liked. It also had a lot of false positives, and would miss other things. Many of my hours have been spent hunting and manually removing rootkits and viruses missed by AVG. BUT, this has all been in the past and most of my issues with the product could have been resolved by this point. It could be a totally different product now, but I like my avast. It fits in well with my Windows ecosystem.