Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 134919	2013-09-03 02:35:00	Virus Malware Protection	Pato (2463)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1352585	2013-09-06 08:57:00	too many antivirus, they will fight with each other and eat too much resources:D	GayleTek (17150)
1352586	2013-09-06 08:59:00	Also is it worth paying for ESET when Avast seems to do a good job? I had good experience with Avast, and I would not recommend paying for ESET as in my experience it throws a lot of false positives just to fake an higher detection rate than free competitors... that applies even to AVG "full", even if it is not so blatantly scareware as ESET. I would also recommend to keep MBAM for on the fly scan, and to use Spybot for cleaning up the mess of spyware, pup, and tracking cookies. About Spybot, the UI changes in last major version let most affectionate users quite puzzled, so it had plenty negative reviews even if the scanning engine is quite solid. Personally I'm keeping up to date Spybot 1.6.x as it is by far more usable than the 2.x releases, and performance is reasonable.	bir8 (17149)
1352587	2013-09-06 10:48:00	I had good experience with Avast, and I would not recommend paying for ESET as in my experience it throws a lot of false positives just to fake an higher detection rate than free competitors... that applies even to AVG "full", even if it is not so blatantly scareware as ESET. Bollocks :lol: Theres been many Customers Computers that have had Avast on which has obvious infections, or the infections have toasted the Avast in the first place. Avast often misses real infections, that other Malware / Antivirus software will detect easily. Going by your comments you would rather have a Program miss a legit infection than give a false positive - its always better to be more protective than not working at all. AVG even the paid version is rubbish, the amount of infected PC's I had through the workshop with a destroyed AVG ( both Free and paid) is disgusting. AVG will slow down just about any computer. At the moment theres a Customers PC in the workshop, "had" Avast, the OS is toasted because of the infections. When it starts up after about 10 minutes because its so bad, its plainly obvious just by icons and all the pop ups its riddled. BTW the PC is not low on specs either. Just curious: when mentioned " I had good experience with Avast," just how many computers are you referring to. 1,2, 10, 20, or 100+ Because I'm referring to hundreds (literally) not just 1 or 2.	wainuitech (129)
1352588	2013-09-06 13:21:00	I'll second Wainuitech's sentiments. I've had countless PC's over the years running Avast and AVG come to me, even lately..... Sometimes I wonder if you're better off with nothing instead of the false sense of security that those two off :-/	Chilling_Silence (9)
1352589	2013-09-06 16:38:00	Just curious: when mentioned " I had good experience with Avast," just how many computers are you referring to. 1,2, 10, 20, or 100+ Because I'm referring to hundreds (literally) not just 1 or 2. 100+, and generally speaking I've seen literary thousands of machines in 20 years: I've seen many AV going from nothing to stars (and vice versa) in general sentiment, but I've never found an AV that never failed in the wild. Of course, I'm not saying all AV are the same, in each moment meaningful comparison of detection rate can be done, however in my experience perfection does not exists - what exists are 0-days exploits that will toast the (former) best existing solution in no time. About false positives, I've mixed feelings. Of course I can second you "Kill them all, God will know His own", a false positive is not nearly as harmful as an undetected malware, BUT there is a big problem here: is the false positive a physiological, acceptable, unavoidable, flaw of the AV, or is it a purposely deceitful declaration of net-non-neutrality (e.g. toward a competitor product or company, or toward someone not buying in "security" certifications Ponzi-schemes, and so on)? I'm all-in for the security side, but I just not give up so easily on net-neutrality to all self proclaimed authority that so often comes up lately (that means there is real money in doing that...).	bir8 (17149)
1352590	2013-09-06 19:56:00	Bollocks :lol: Theres been many Customers Computers that have had Avast on which has obvious infections, or the infections have toasted the Avast in the first place. Avast often misses real infections, that other Malware / Antivirus software will detect easily. . +1 Real world repairs for malware have shown NOD32 to be excellent and AVG and Avast to be lacking. I too saw hundreds of infected PCs with AVG/Avast oblivious to the malware. My own NOD32 picks up 2 exes on my PC has possibly suspect - I know they are not - it's just it suspects it due to the way it's packaged, so I set it to ignore those two. I sure wouldn't ditch NOD32 based on a couple of false positives.	pctek (84)
1352591	2013-09-06 23:28:00	I appreciate all the comments. I am going to stick with ESET Security.	Pato (2463)
1352592	2013-09-07 00:01:00	100+, and generally speaking I've seen literary thousands of machines in 20 years: I've seen many AV going from nothing to stars (and vice versa) in general sentiment, but I've never found an AV that never failed in the wild. Of course, I'm not saying all AV are the same, in each moment meaningful comparison of detection rate can be done, however in my experience perfection does not exists - what exists are 0-days exploits that will toast the (former) best existing solution in no time. I'll agree there, no AV is perfect or ever will be, but I'd rather have a AV give a false positive then miss something that's obvious. Makes me smile when something like Avast or AVG say the PC is clean but even to an untrained eye its obviously not. One thing that cant be trusted is Lab tests -- Its been proven many times that lab tests cant replicate real world usage. One testing site will give a Antivirus a certain marking, and another will give the same AV totally different. I as well have seen thousands, just didn't want to write up that many as it may sound un realistic to some people. On average over a year it can be anything from 100-200 jobs with infected PC's.	wainuitech (129)
1352593	2013-09-07 02:53:00	One thing that cant be trusted is Lab tests -- Its been proven many times that lab tests cant replicate real world usage. The single biggest thing that the lab tests can't replicate is user stupidity. No matter how good your Antivirus, if the user is stupid enough they will get infected anyway.	Agent_24 (57)
1352594	2013-09-11 05:12:00	Anyone here know about the window 7 security.My laptop showing a pop up again and again about the wmrmgr.exe error and i can't fix that problem and can't or update any virus due to that file.How can i fix that?	Morkel (17133)
1 2 3