Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia
anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage
and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or
funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get
noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are
stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source
of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you
provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report errors
obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many people will
already have read those errors believing they are actual true facts.
There are also many errors that will go unreported because nobody
reading those particular pages knows the real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

It can be handy to double-check what you *already* know, but relying on
it as a source of new information is plain idiotic.

I didn't say that I RELY on Wikipedia as a source of new information.

My doctor once recomended THIS website for accurate medical information:-

https://patient.info/

I've never felt a need to question the advice and help provided there.

On 09 May 2020, David_B wrote
(in article ):

On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia
anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage
and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or
funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get
noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are
stupid / naive enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source
of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you
provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report errors
obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many people will
already have read those errors believing they are actual true facts.
There are also many errors that will go unreported because nobody
reading those particular pages knows the real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

that would depend , heavily, on what ‘facts’ I’m looking for. Wiki is
good for pointers to find accurate info... sometimes. Other times, Wiki is
good for showing wildly inaccurate info.


It can be handy to double-check what you *already* know, but relying on
it as a source of new information is plain idiotic.

I didn't say that I RELY on Wikipedia as a source of new information.

you said that it was ’trustworthy’, that it was ‘one of the most
trustworthy sites on the Internet’. It’s not trustworthy. As Your Name
pointed out. All you have to do to show how useless Wiki can be is to look
something up, such as ’painted wolf’ , in English, then, say, in German,
French, or Russian. Apparently painted wolves are a whole lot less
interesting in Russian than in English. Or maybe the guy who wrote the
Russian version knows way less than the guy who wrote the English version,
there being 32 pages (letter size) in English vs 6 pages in Russian. And the
English version has several notable inaccuracies, while the Russian version
has _different_ notable inaccuracies. (Yes, I happen to know quite a bit
about painted wolves, a.k.a. African hunting dogs a.k.a. African wild dogs
a.k.a Lycaon pictus. Hint: ‘wolffan’.)


My doctor once recomended THIS website for accurate medical information:-

https://patient.info/

I've never felt a need to question the advice and help provided there.

no-one sane clicks your links, troll-boy.

On 07/05/2020 11:57, David_B wrote:
Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.


No one is interested in your genital diseases. Now clam orf.

On 09 May 2020, Jenny Telia wrote
(in article ):

On 07/05/2020 11:57, David_B wrote:
Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

No one is interested in your genital diseases. Now clam orf.

He doesn’t have genitals, they rotted off after that wild party involving a
_lot_ of rum, several Nigerian and Afro-Caribbean recruits, and conduct
unbecoming an officer.

On Sat, 9 May 2020 09:35:28 +0100, David_B
wrote:

OBVIOUS_STALKING_SNITTED

What action have you taken to improve matters on that site, redacted?

I write, after I've revised the facts. The biggest
contribution you can give is writing, not a measly cash deposit. It's
how Wikipedia started.
Which pages have you edited?
(easy to check, I know you have an account, or did you invent
yet another #FAKE_NYM to disrupt Wikipedia too?).

I might even make a contribution to the cyberstalking page. Or
I could just redirect people he

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Proof is worth a 1000 words.
HTH
[]'s

OT up. This never was about Windows AVs.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 9 May 2020 11:31:57 +0100, David_B
wrote:

STALKING_SNIPPED

My doctor once recomended THIS website for accurate medical information:-

SPAM_SNIPPED

Just stop drinking and most of the reversible damage will be
fixed. You'll have to live with the permanent damage to your brain and
liver (those man-tits in the picture on your special page are a sign
of liver failure - I've already explained that, but you probably
"forgot" due to the obvious brain issues)

OT up. Your comments are completely unrelated to the subject
line.
PS You "accidentally" left one of your stalking targets in the
un-snipped text. So your special page goes up to warn noobs what they
are dealing with. The page is 100% accurate. Just click on any of the
MSG_IDs on it for proof.

-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 2020-05-09 10:31:57 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage
and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny.
It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for
ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive
enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you
provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report
errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many
people will already have read those errors believing they are actual
true facts. There are also many errors that will go unreported because
nobody reading those particular pages knows the real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

Places that are not "user-added" piles of garbage and lies. Places that
actually have someone who knows what they're talking about is in charge
and actually checking things BEFORE they go live to the public. Of
course there will still be some errors, but far far fewer than on the
"user-added" garbage pits like Wikipedia and IMDB.

On 09/05/2020 23:16, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 10:31:57 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia
anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of
garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling
clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that
doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people
visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website is
a trustworthy source of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can
you provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report
errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many
people will already have read those errors believing they are actual
true facts. There are also many errors that will go unreported
because nobody reading those particular pages knows the real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

Places that are not "user-added" piles of garbage and lies. Places that
actually have someone who knows what they're talking about is in charge
and actually checking things BEFORE they go live to the public. Of
course there will still be some errors, but far far fewer than on the
"user-added" garbage pits like Wikipedia and IMDB.

I'd welcome some examples of such places.

Please advise. TIA.

On Sat, 9 May 2020 23:27:34 +0100, David_B
wrote:

snip intelligence gathering on the victim, but he's probably too smart to give any personal information you can use

I'd welcome some examples of such places.

Please advise. TIA.

Webpages filled with facts?

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

It's 100% accurate. Check it out.
YW.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 2020-05-09 22:27:34 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 23:16, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 10:31:57 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of garbage
and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling clever or funny.
It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that doesn't get noticed for
ages, if ever, and misinforms people visiting it who are stupid / naive
enough to believe the website is a trustworthy source of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can you
provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report
errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many
people will already have read those errors believing they are actual
true facts. There are also many errors that will go unreported because
nobody reading those particular pages knows the real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

Places that are not "user-added" piles of garbage and lies. Places that
actually have someone who knows what they're talking about is in charge
and actually checking things BEFORE they go live to the public. Of
course there will still be some errors, but far far fewer than on the
"user-added" garbage pits like Wikipedia and IMDB.

I'd welcome some examples of such places.

Please advise. TIA.

As someone else said, it depends on what you're looking for. There is
no single "everything" website.

Having said that, somewhere like Encyclopeadia Britannica website is
far more reliable than Wackypedia will ever be because the facts are
checked by actual experts, not a bunch of internet idiots who *think*
they're experts and a pile of morons who think they're being funny or
clever by posting garbage and lies.
https://www.britannica.com

Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 22:27:34 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 23:16, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 10:31:57 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia
anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of
garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling
clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that
doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people
visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website
is a trustworthy source of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can
you provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report
errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many
people will already have read those errors believing they are
actual true facts. There are also many errors that will go
unreported because nobody reading those particular pages knows the
real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

Places that are not "user-added" piles of garbage and lies. Places
that actually have someone who knows what they're talking about is in
charge and actually checking things BEFORE they go live to the
public. Of course there will still be some errors, but far far fewer
than on the "user-added" garbage pits like Wikipedia and IMDB.

I'd welcome some examples of such places.

Please advise. TIA.

As someone else said, it depends on what you're looking for. There is no
single "everything" website.

Having said that, somewhere like Encyclopeadia Britannica website is far
more reliable than Wackypedia will ever be because the facts are checked
by actual experts, not a bunch of internet idiots who *think* they're
experts and a pile of morons who think they're being funny or clever by
posting garbage and lies.
https://www.britannica.com


Showing a little more respect for your fellow man would be a good
exercise for you! I think that the parts of Wikipedia I use (Hint: Not
popular culture) are pretty good. I've been giving them my support for
almost 10 years. Of course, you, of all people, would know better...

On 10/05/2020 06:35, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 22:27:34 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 23:16, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-09 10:31:57 +0000, David_B said:
On 09/05/2020 07:34, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 23:18:08 +0000, David_B said:
On 08/05/2020 23:19, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-08 10:19:50 +0000, David_B said:
On 07/05/2020 22:52, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-07 09:57:31 +0000, David_B said:

Here's a huge table from Wikipedia .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...virus_software

It's well worth a look!

No mention, though, of ClamXav.

*Odd*.

https://www.clamxav.com

https://www.facebook.com/clamxav

Why would anyone trust the user-supplied rubbish on Wikipedia
anyway?!?!

I support Wikipedia financially each year.
IMO, it's one of the most trustworthy sites on the Internet.

Wikipedia (and other user-edited places like IMDB) is full of
garbage and lies ... thanks to morons who think they're beling
clever or funny. It's extremely easy to put up some garbage that
doesn't get noticed for ages, if ever, and misinforms people
visiting it who are stupid / naive enough to believe the website
is a trustworthy source of information.

I'd be most interested to review an example of what you claim. Can
you provide one?

I always report incorrect information I find ANYWHERE on-line. You
should, of course, do likewise.

You've just proven the point. The fact that people have to report
errors obviously means there *are* errors to begin with, and many
people will already have read those errors believing they are
actual true facts. There are also many errors that will go
unreported because nobody reading those particular pages knows the
real facts.

Where do *YOU* go to find out the *REAL FACTS*?

Places that are not "user-added" piles of garbage and lies. Places
that actually have someone who knows what they're talking about is in
charge and actually checking things BEFORE they go live to the
public. Of course there will still be some errors, but far far fewer
than on the "user-added" garbage pits like Wikipedia and IMDB.

I'd welcome some examples of such places.

Please advise. TIA.

As someone else said, it depends on what you're looking for. There is no
single "everything" website.

Having said that, somewhere like Encyclopeadia Britannica website is far
more reliable than Wackypedia will ever be because the facts are checked
by actual experts, not a bunch of internet idiots who *think* they're
experts and a pile of morons who think they're being funny or clever by
posting garbage and lies.
https://www.britannica.com

I once again thank you for your thoughts. I'd not considered visiting
Britannica for detailed technical information but found nothing about
antimalware product selection. For general information, though, I will
now visit on a regular basis. :-)

There's an interesting video here, but it's dificult to always
understand the speakers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ9QKJYcq5A

How would YOU determine whether or not ClamXav was installing a rootkit
on an Apple computer?

David_B wrote:

I once again thank you for your thoughts. I'd not considered visiting
Britannica for detailed technical information but found nothing about
antimalware product selection. For general information, though, I will
now visit on a regular basis. :-)

There's an interesting video here, but it's dificult to always
understand the speakers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ9QKJYcq5A

How would YOU determine whether or not ClamXav was installing a rootkit
on an Apple computer?

The essence of rootkits, it they're root, and they can do anything
they want.

As an example, years ago in a Mac forum, someone wrote in that
filenames that began with the letter "f" had all disappeared from
the system. And this was some sort of file system filter that had
been installed, to hide the miscreant. The owner of the machine
noticed something weird was going on, which gave away the game to an extent.

That is just to illustrate, that properly done, rootkits make stuff like this... useless.
You'll notice that one of these has a .kext in it, which
hints that it's more than just a casual application or App and
is going to be "entering the arena" on the next reboot.

https://www.switchingtomac.com/tutor...-for-rootkits/

It takes a thief to catch a thief.

When Mark Russinovich made RootKitRevealer for Windows, there was
a discussion thread, where some members of the hacker community
popped by to laugh at Mark for making such a thing, and poking
fun at how they'd tip it over and so on. Whether bravado or not,
I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for things like this to
always work when you need them. If I was making a rootkit (and
rootkits aren't that prevalent from a percentage perspective),
I would be *testing* with these things before deployment.
And testing with Cloud Upload disabled, so "samples" of my handiwork
could not go anywhere. The offense always has the advantage on
this stuff.

Microsoft is afraid enough of malware, to have tumblers installed
on ths OS, that if triggered, shut down the OS in microseconds.
This covers cases where Windows Defender discovers it's been
outfoxed and if the choice is between a malware finishing an install
or not, they'll just shut it down "dirty-style" to stop it. I've
not seen any reports in the wild of this happening, so maybe it's
all bull****. Rather than Task Manager sitting there with that
"do you want to save your work" crap, the machine is just dropped
like a rock. As effective as THERMTRIP#.

And all that means in practice, is a person developing something
to attack the computer, has to put up with the computer "dropping"
on them, while they're testing. Until they/ve figured it out.

Paul

Another website which compares:
https://www.av-test.org/en/

https://www.av-test.org/en/about-the-institute/
The AV-TEST GmbH is the independent research institute for IT security
from Germany. For more than 15 years, the experts from Magdeburg have
guaranteed quality-assuring comparison and individual tests of
virtually all internationally relevant IT security products.

On Sun, 10 May 2020 08:23:22 +0100, David_B
wrote:

I once again thank you for your thoughts. I'd not considered visiting
Britannica for detailed technical information but found nothing about
antimalware product selection.

What on Earth for?
You claim you don't use an AV on your Mac. I can post the
MSG_IDs if your memory is too pickled to remember.

FURTHER_STALKING_SNIPPED

-------------------------------------
BD: I want people to "get to know me better. I have nothing to
hide".
I'm always here to help, this page was put up at BD's request,
rather, he said "Do it *NOW*!":

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

65 confirmed #FAKE_NYMS, most used in cybercrimes!
Google "David Brooks Devon"
[]'s


--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012