A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Comparison of Anti-Virus software



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #46  
Old May 10th 20, 07:52 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Ken Blake[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote:

FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP.
Safe hex is the way to go with any OS.




As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them
should be omitted:

Safe Hex
Antivirus program
Antispyware program
Firewall

What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned,
relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you
will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much
to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc.

--
Ken
Ads
  #47  
Old May 10th 20, 08:54 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

David_B wrote:


"Until they've figured it out"!

I *do* so like that comment. :-)

As always, I value your comments. I'd read the article you mentioned
when it was first issued - *AND* I used all procedures mentioned therein
to test my old iMac (Except ESET - my OS was too new for it).

I was only satisfied that I was 'clean' when I bought a replacement
machine - not just a replacement hard drive. Although I have 'tested'
many Mac AV softwares, I will never install ClamXav on this machine
'just in case'!


Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.

Paul
  #48  
Old May 10th 20, 10:39 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Your Name
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 2020-05-10 07:23:22 +0000, David_B said:
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?


I wouldn't be installing ClamXav anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's
completely pointless on a Mac.


  #49  
Old May 10th 20, 10:52 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote:

FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP.
Safe hex is the way to go with any OS.




As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them
should be omitted:

Safe Hex
Antivirus program
Antispyware program
Firewall

What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned,
relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you
will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much
to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc.


A firewall is part of safe Hex(two here, one in the router).
And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a
resident AV.
You forgot backups. I do daily incremental and less often full
backups. Hardware can crash. No AV will protect you from that.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #50  
Old May 10th 20, 11:02 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 10/05/2020 22:39, Your Name wrote:
On 2020-05-10 07:23:22 +0000, David_B said:
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?


I wouldn't be installing ClamXav anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's
completely pointless on a Mac.


I agree. :-)

How many folk might be tempted by a 30 day "Free Trial"?
How many might then decide NOT to pay for the software and uninstall it?

If their computer then continued to perform well, how many folk would
even consider that something untoward may have been left hidden -
'behind the scenes'?

That's what Rootkits do - operate surrepticiously. Perhaps NEVER to be
found!

Do you know if upgrading to a new Mac operating system would erradicate
an installed rootkit?

  #51  
Old May 10th 20, 11:09 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 10/05/2020 20:54, Paul wrote:
David_B wrote:


"Until they've figured it out"!

I *do* so like that comment. :-)

As always, I value your comments. I'd read the article you mentioned
when it was first issued - *AND* I used all procedures mentioned
therein to test my old iMac (Except ESET - my OS was too new for it).

I was only satisfied that I was 'clean' when I bought a replacement
machine - not just a replacement hard drive. Although I have 'tested'
many Mac AV softwares, I will never install ClamXav on this machine
'just in case'!


Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.


That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul.

I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take
a very long time and be VERY expennsive.

  #52  
Old May 10th 20, 11:12 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On Sun, 10 May 2020 23:02:26 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 10/05/2020 22:39, Your Name wrote:

I wouldn't be installing an AV anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's
completely pointless on a Mac.


I agree.


Message-ID:

*LIAR*
Follow the thread.
He not only obtains a crack for the commercial software from a
fellow crook and uses it, but worse, offers it to others. When they
decline, he says he was "testing if they were honest".
He'll claim he "forgot". He probably did.
Alcohol in excess can do that to the brain.
[]'s

PS: One of his stalking_target's name was altered to an AV.
He tries to feed the bots with negative posts. It did not alter the
meaning of the post in any way.
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #53  
Old May 10th 20, 11:45 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

In article , David_B
wrote:

Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.


That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul.


it's meaningless.

I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take
a very long time and be VERY expennsive.


you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine
using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time
to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish).
  #54  
Old May 11th 20, 09:57 AM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 10/05/2020 23:45, nospam wrote:
In article , David_B
wrote:

Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.


That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul.


it's meaningless.


How would YOU look for a rootkit an an Apple computer?

I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take
a very long time and be VERY expennsive.


you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine
using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time
to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish).


It wasn't simply a "claim" - it is the truth.

Once one stops working for a living, and it's too cold and miserable to
go boating, one has all the time one needs to do such things. I did it! ;-)


  #55  
Old May 11th 20, 12:37 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 10/05/2020 23:12, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2020 23:02:26 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 10/05/2020 22:39, Your Name wrote:

I wouldn't be installing an AV anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's
completely pointless on a Mac.


I agree.


Message-ID:

*LIAR*
Follow the thread.
He not only obtains a crack for the commercial software from a
fellow crook and uses it, but worse, offers it to others. When they
decline, he says he was "testing if they were honest".
He'll claim he "forgot". He probably did.
Alcohol in excess can do that to the brain.
[]'s

PS: One of his stalking_target's name was altered to an AV.
He tries to feed the bots with negative posts. It did not alter the
meaning of the post in any way.


I have no idea why you are responding to *ME*, Shadow.

You appear to 'have a screw loose'. You have recently claimed that you
are currently using a computer running Windows XP and have *NO*
anti-virus software installed. The chances of YOU having had a rootkit
installed on your machine - without your knowledge - are exceptionally high.

This post refers http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158919690900

Please explain to 'Your Name' why you incessantly claim that alcohol
plays a part in my posting when you know full well that I've imbibed NO
alcohol since I stopped drinking completely on 21st March 2018
  #56  
Old May 11th 20, 12:42 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system, uk.comp.sys.mac, alt.comp.os.windows-10
Wolffan[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 224
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 11 May 2020, David_B wrote
(in article ):

On 10/05/2020 23:45, nospam wrote:
In , David_B
wrote:

Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.

That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul.


it's meaningless.


How would YOU look for a rootkit an an Apple computer?

I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take
a very long time and be VERY expennsive.


you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine
using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time
to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish).


It wasn't simply a "claim" - it is the truth.


I doubt it. You’ve simply been caught in too many lies for me to believe
anythiung you post.


Once one stops working for a living, and it's too cold and miserable to
go boating, one has all the time one needs to do such things. I did it! ;-)


oh, it’s very clear that you have a lot of time to waste. It’s also clear
that you simply have no idea of the magnitude of the task you describe
yourself as having done. Not to mention the insane stupidity of using a text
editor, of all things, to examine a vast number of _binary files_.

  #57  
Old May 11th 20, 04:53 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
Ken Blake[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 569
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 5/10/2020 2:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote:

FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP.
Safe hex is the way to go with any OS.




As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of them
should be omitted:

Safe Hex
Antivirus program
Antispyware program
Firewall

What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm concerned,
relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a chance that you
will make a mistake some day when you're very tired, have had too much
to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse, etc.


A firewall is part of safe Hex




To me, it's something very different.


(two here, one in the router).



Same here.


And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a
resident AV.



There's a big difference between the two types. Your frequent scans can
detect malware that has already infected you. A resident AV can often
prevent malware installation, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what
makes it much better.


You forgot backups.



No, I didn't. To me, it's also something very different.


I do daily incremental and less often full
backups.



I do much the same.


Hardware can crash.



Yes. And be stolen.


No AV will protect you from that.



Right.


--
Ken
  #58  
Old May 11th 20, 07:16 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,uk.comp.sys.mac,alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

In article , David_B
wrote:

Some Mac downloads, you can go through them with
7ZIP on Windows and examine what filetypes are in
there. Which could give a hint how much "leverage"
they need to do their job.

That's not something I'd feel confident to explore, Paul.


it's meaningless.


How would YOU look for a rootkit an an Apple computer?


these days, one can't be too careful, thus an sem is mandatory, ideally
fortnightly or less to prevent the spread to other nearby computers,
given that r0 is incalculable.

I've been advised that such forensic examination of a machine could take
a very long time and be VERY expennsive.


you claim to have opened every single file on a windows 95 machine
using a text editor, of all things, so clearly you have plenty of time
to spare (not that anyone believes such rubbish).


It wasn't simply a "claim" - it is the truth.


it's bull****.

first of all, your claim that every printed page is secretly being sent
to hp is utter lunacy.

second, your claim that opening every file on a win95 system in a text
editor, of all things, was proof is even more ludicrous.

*which* file and *what* anomaly did you supposedly find in it that led
you to believe such rubbish?
  #59  
Old May 11th 20, 09:00 PM posted to comp.sys.mac.system,alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac
Shadow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,638
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On Mon, 11 May 2020 12:37:12 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 10/05/2020 23:12, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2020 23:02:26 +0100, David_B
wrote:

On 10/05/2020 22:39, Your Name wrote:

I wouldn't be installing an AV anyway ... like all anti-malware, it's
completely pointless on a Mac.

I agree.


Message-ID:

*LIAR*
Follow the thread.
He not only obtains a crack for the commercial software from a
fellow crook and uses it, but worse, offers it to others. When they
decline, he says he was "testing if they were honest".
He'll claim he "forgot". He probably did.
Alcohol in excess can do that to the brain.
[]'s

PS: One of his stalking_target's name was altered to an AV.
He tries to feed the bots with negative posts. It did not alter the
meaning of the post in any way.


I have no idea why you are responding to *ME*, Shadow.


Because you posted the *LIE*.

You appear to 'have a screw loose'. You have recently claimed that you
are currently using a computer running Windows XP and have *NO*
anti-virus software installed. The chances of YOU having had a rootkit
installed on your machine - without your knowledge - are exceptionally high.

This post refers NON Usenet complient_format_snipped


And USB-Kaspersky missed it? BitDefender from Linux missed it?
You as a "researcher" are worse than a joke.

Please explain to 'Your Name' why you incessantly claim that alcohol
plays a part in my posting when you know full well that I've imbibed NO
alcohol since I stopped drinking completely on 21st March 2018


Because you admitted quite recently you drank.
You are trying to avoid the thread topic, so let's get back to
it:

Here's some more MSG_IDs to follow your progress on cracking
the software you "would never, ever install"

Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:
Message-ID:
etc etc
And success at last!!! The crack!!! His crony broke the
protection!!!
Message-ID:

He even took a photo to commemorate the success. PrintScreen
is still a mystery to him....

That's our BD. Sorry for any inconvenience he might be causing
in the Windows groups. If you want to know him better, here's his
personal webpage:

https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
HTH
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #60  
Old May 11th 20, 10:45 PM posted to alt.computer.workshop,alt.comp.os.windows-10,uk.comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.system
David_B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default Comparison of Anti-Virus software

On 11/05/2020 16:53, Ken Blake wrote:
On 5/10/2020 2:52 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2020 11:52:11 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On 5/10/2020 10:52 AM, Shadow wrote:

Â*Â*Â*Â*FWIW, I haven't used a resident AV for ages.... and I'm on XP.
Â*Â*Â*Â*Safe hex is the way to go with any OS.



As far as I'm concerned, there are *four* ways to go, and none of
them should be omitted:

Safe Hex
Antivirus program
Antispyware program
Firewall

What you do is of course up to you, not me, but as far as I'm
concerned, relying just on safe hex is foolhardy. There's always a
chance that you will make a mistake some day when you're very tired,
have had too much to drink, having just had a fight with your spouse,
etc.


Â*Â*Â*Â*A firewall is part of safe Hex




To me, it's something very different.


(two here, one in the router).



Same here.


And I scan with USB-booted AVs quite frequently. I said I don't use a
resident AV.



There's a big difference between the two types. Your frequent scans can
detect malware that has already infected you. A resident AV can often
prevent malware installation, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what
makes it much better.


Such scans *MAY* detect malware (that which is not surrepticiously hidden!)

Â*Â*Â*Â*You forgot backups.



No, I didn't. To me, it's also something very different.


I do daily incremental and less often full
backups.



I do much the same.


Hardware can crash.



Yes. And be stolen.


No AV will protect you from that.



Right.



Can a drive-by download install a rootkit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

If so, such rootkit may never be discovered by a USB-booted AV

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win...otkits-malware

Nobody with a modicum of common sense wiould run Windows XP with no
resident AV. Anyone who does so is a danger to himself and others.

*NEVER CLICK ON A LINK POSTED BY SHADOW*!

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.