Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 121414	2011-10-25 07:01:00	Antivirus	dianne pierce (13385)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1239763	2011-11-04 00:20:00	I'd like to recommend bitdefender total security 2012, I don't understand why nobody mentioned this great AV program. I have been using it for a while and its is just great. You also can use trial version to see how it works. p.s. nod32??? lolBit Defender -- :lol: You can stick that - it’s far from good. Since your comment on Nod32 is basically bad --- Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good. After reading your post last night, and being open minded, thought I'd give it a go on a known badly infected drive I have (I made an image of this drive as well, so I can replicate the same infections whenever I want) Bit Defender, if you go to their site, the trial, it will only allow you to download an installer of 847KB, that then downloads the program -- Completely hopeless if the infected PC doesn't have a working Internet connection due to infections. (1st Fail) I downloaded it on a clean, freshly imaged PC, updated it, Bit Defender scans as it downloads/installs and since this was a clean install, obviously nothing to detect. Then slaved the infected drive and scanned -- BD found 49 infections. Removed the drive, uninstalled Bit Defender, after a reboot installed Nod32 - Nod32 found 2 infections while it was installing --- so Bit defender let the host PC become infected.(2nd Fail) I then re-imaged the host PC so I had a clean install (which takes about 5 minutes) installed nod32 again - slaved the other drive, and instantly nod32 detected 3 active infections as the computer was starting up, which were Trojans that bit Defender Missed. Rescanned the so called clean drive that Bit defender had previously scanned and Nod32 discovered and removed a further 9. (3rd Fail) So Bit defender going by those simple basic tests failed at least 3 times. And slow -- oh my god, takes for ever. So to repeat the question asked at the beginning, "Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good"	wainuitech (129)
1239764	2011-11-04 02:39:00	The second largest category (45% of malware) required user interaction to be installed. I don't think the anti-malware scan data gives many hints but I'd take a guess that most of this is installed by people thinking it's something useful or fun - in other words, because of scams. unfortunately, this is what I see out there in the real world . You just cant protection against stupidity , one piece of malware required the user to click on its popups 4x to get the PC infected. 4x !!!! Locking down the user to a limited a/c doesnt help either, malware easily gets past that. :badpc:	1101 (13337)
1239765	2011-11-04 03:30:00	unfortunately, this is what I see out there in the real world . You just cant protection against stupidity , one piece of malware required the user to click on its popups 4x to get the PC infected. 4x !!!! Locking down the user to a limited a/c doesnt help either, malware easily gets past that. :badpc: All oh so true, in fact I would say at a guess, 45% is a bit on the light side.	wainuitech (129)
1239766	2011-11-04 08:15:00	Running as a limited user will make it a lot easier to clean out the infection if it wasn't for the fact that most users would just elevate everything anyway every time they are prompted. You can't really take away admin privileges when you are dealing with home PCs.	Greven (91)
1239767	2011-11-04 08:27:00	Bit Defender -- :lol: You can stick that - it’s far from good. Since your comment on Nod32 is basically bad --- Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good. After reading your post last night, and being open minded, thought I'd give it a go on a known badly infected drive I have (I made an image of this drive as well, so I can replicate the same infections whenever I want) Bit Defender, if you go to their site, the trial, it will only allow you to download an installer of 847KB, that then downloads the program -- Completely hopeless if the infected PC doesn't have a working Internet connection due to infections. (1st Fail) I downloaded it on a clean, freshly imaged PC, updated it, Bit Defender scans as it downloads/installs and since this was a clean install, obviously nothing to detect. Then slaved the infected drive and scanned -- BD found 49 infections. Removed the drive, uninstalled Bit Defender, after a reboot installed Nod32 - Nod32 found 2 infections while it was installing --- so Bit defender let the host PC become infected.(2nd Fail) I then re-imaged the host PC so I had a clean install (which takes about 5 minutes) installed nod32 again - slaved the other drive, and instantly nod32 detected 3 active infections as the computer was starting up, which were Trojans that bit Defender Missed. Rescanned the so called clean drive that Bit defender had previously scanned and Nod32 discovered and removed a further 9. (3rd Fail) So Bit defender going by those simple basic tests failed at least 3 times. And slow -- oh my god, takes for ever. So to repeat the question asked at the beginning, "Please explain why Bit Defender so damn good" Interesting, a good read your tests...but then how is an infection defined? Or it's severity? I think if accumulated, in some cases, over a few months then typical malware type symptoms are likely to occur, which I have seen, and fixed on some PC's. I got rid of super-anti spyware which it claimed it found infections (can't recall exactly) - it found a series of the same files repeatedly everyday (I posted about this a while back). Then it linked to their pro version - which I have read is helpful, but generally for heavily infected PC's. The intent I think was to buy it. Thing is, I have never had a virus, malware, spyware, type symptoms...though may that mean infections are present? Maybe - but how can one gauge the seriousness of it? It's like the errors you get in event viewer - riddled with warnings (which I presume resolve themselves)- but perhaps low key - maybe the same with a batch of infections? I run avast - sometimes I forget it's present...but if I decide to install/run another AV it might find infections - that may not have any real effect or significance.	kahawai chaser (3545)
1239768	2011-11-04 14:18:00	wainuitech First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either. p.s. BD lets you to do free online scan, without installing a program. Ok now about your tests: first of all there is no antivirus that will catch all the viruses, some catch the ones that others can't and so on. if i got it right when you tested both AV-s, first you used BD and then nod right? now try to scan your drive first with nod and then with BD, there also might be some viruses which skipped from nod. I have been using BD total security 2012 for about 3 month and i tested it how it really works, I must mention firewall which blocked all network attacks from one angry "hacker". I visit lots of web pages which are infecting the system and none of the malware programs managed to skip BD. All i'm trying to say is that while i was using BD it worked 100% perfectly. You are also saying that it was very slow, well it is slow if you use it on 32bit machine. I have 64bit system with win 7 and it doesn't work slower then any other AV. p.s. btw doing full scan with 2 AV programs four times in one night? wow there should be really long nights or your system works really fast and if its second case BD couldn't be as slow as you say	chumscrubber (16416)
1239769	2011-11-04 20:38:00	Chumscrubber: to answer some of your statements. First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either. Incorrect ---- There are hundreds of times malware can infect a PC and damage the internet connection and antivirus software can still be installed. Example please see This Thread (pressf1.pcworld.co.nz) Having a AV only able to download and install Via the Internet is a stupid idea by the manufactures. You are correct in saying no antivirus will catch every thing, just some catch more than others. I have just had a person phone (9.00am Saturday)me saying her PC has all popups, and the Avast antivirus looks like its been killed as windows is saying no antivirus is installed. if i got it right when you tested both AV-s, first you used BD and then nod right? now try to scan your drive first with nod and then with BD, there also might be some viruses which skipped from nod. Did that already, when testing AV's thats all part of it - not just a single scan --Result, nod found more infections Than BD, then BD found nothing. You are also saying that it was very slow, well it is slow if you use it on 32bit machine. I have 64bit system with win 7 and it doesn't work slower then any other AV. W7 64Bit systems each time -- as for speed -- BD took 2 1/2 hours to scan 34GB Nod32 took 59 Minutes. The comment saying if you run 32bit software, its Slow -- then once again thats a fail on BD part, as there are millions of people still running 32bit software -- people are not going to buy new PC's or upgrade to a 64bit system, just so they can run BD faster. Also there were many files that BD couldn't scan saying they are locked -- Nod scanned them easily. p.s. btw doing full scan with 2 AV programs four times in one night? wow there should be really long nights or your system works really fast and if its second case BD couldn't be as slow as you say If it were on One PC yes , I'm a Tech, running my own business, hope you dont think I have only one PC :D I have access to 4 Workshop PC's to do what ever I want, when ever I want, so I can have one PC scanning one way, then another scanning another way at the same time (remember I have an image, so I can load it to several drives and they are exact each time) and still have 2 spare PC's.Thats doesn't include the others in the office, and other rooms. In fact yesterday when doing the scans, two were scanning drives, a customers laptop was on another workstation doing updates/installs, another customers PC reinstalling windows, and I was changing a mother board on another customers PC. ( I was moving between different PC's all day) One thing BD doesn't appear to do is pre scan a USB drive when inserting. Nod32 prompts you scan a drive when its attached. And one thing that was a real fail -- as I mentioned before, BD let a clean drive get infected when slaving a drive -- Epic fail on that part. Bit Defender isn't bad, its better than Norton, but there are others that do a better job in some cases. One mistake a lot of people do is depend on One program to "do it all" --- Theres no such thing, you need several programs, one good AV and a couple of good Anti-malware's.	wainuitech (129)
1239770	2011-11-04 21:35:00	First of all if system is infected so bad that you can't access internet, it won't let you install any antivirus either. p.s. BD lets you to do free online scan, without installing a program. What good is a free online scan if you can't access the Internet? That's where bootable AV CDs come in handy.	Agent_24 (57)
1239771	2011-11-04 21:49:00	Only good thing about BD is they've made a Duqu removal tool. This is the " son of stuxnet" virus, so theyre saying. Its the only removal tool I've seen so far. Besides that I wouldnt bother with BD. There are better AV programs around	Speedy Gonzales (78)
1239772	2011-11-04 22:52:00	wainuitech well, I understand what are you saying, but i don't have my own workshop and i can't make all the tests you are doing, I acn't aregue with what you are saying because i have no possibility to do same tests myself, I wrote from my experience, and it was 100% effective. It may be bad for an antivirus program that its slow on 32bit machine but in this thread is mentioned business computer and most of the time business computers have capacity to work with the programs which use lot of resources. Finally i hope to test all those things that you said in your posts but before that I still prefer BD to nod, avast, avira ...	chumscrubber (16416)
1 2 3 4 5