| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject: Norton vs McAfee? |
 |
|
British Telecom, in their infinite wisdom have changed from Norton to McAfee as their provider anti-virus ware. I have Norton at the moment & I have not had any trouble with it. I know it has a dodgy reputation. In a few months I will either have to change to McAfee or use freeware. I am paying for the BT Yahoo! anti virus anyway, so I may as well go along with it.
Does anyone have any opinions on the subject?
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
roger_m
Warrior Addict
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 605
Location: Blackwater, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Personally I'd stay well from both Symantec/Norton and McAfee.
Avast is an excellent choice for a free antivirus program.
AntiVir has better detection, but less features. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldengreek
Warrior
Joined: 29 May 2006
Last Visit: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 270
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I can't stand either one of those two "resourse hogs." I prefer Nod 32 or Kaspersky. Actually you can get by with no AV if you are the only user and a safe surfer and your computer will run much faster and smoother. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trickyricky
Warrior
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 192
Location: London, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with roger_m - avoid both McAfee and Norton, use Avast Free antivirus instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK thanks. I will have to think about it a bit. Avast sounds good. Either that or change to ubuntu...LOL
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crap Wear Worrier
Warrior Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 05 May 2009
Posts: 364
Location: Far end of nowhere
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lurkingatu2
Warrior
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Last Visit: 12 Jul 2010
Posts: 54
Location: oregon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crap Wear Worrier
Warrior Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Last Visit: 05 May 2009
Posts: 364
Location: Far end of nowhere
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary R
Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 9701
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| goldengreek wrote: |
| Actually you can get by with no AV if you are the only user and a safe surfer and your computer will run much faster and smoother. |
That is not a statement that I would agree with.
Surfing without protection is as good a way of saying "come and get me" as I can think of.
Look through the HJT rooms here and at the other forums, and you'll find ample evidence of that fact.
_________________
Gary R Administrator at Malware Removal University
If you've been helped, please donate to help with the costs of this volunteer site .... Spyware Warrior Donations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
roger_m
Warrior Addict
Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Last Visit: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 605
Location: Blackwater, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary R wrote: |
| goldengreek wrote: |
| Actually you can get by with no AV if you are the only user and a safe surfer and your computer will run much faster and smoother. |
That is not a statement that I would agree with.
Surfing without protection is as good a way of saying "come and get me" as I can think of.
Look through the HJT rooms here and at the other forums, and you'll find ample evidence of that fact. |
I agree with goldengreek. It's certainly not something I recommend, but personally I usually have no antivirus software installed, and use only the Windows firewall and never get infected, even when visiting "unsafe" websites.
I do occasionaly get infected, but not via web surfing, due to installing an infected download. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary R
Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 9701
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
You're entitled to your opinion of course, but its not one I happen to agree with.
Perhaps I have a somewhat jaded outlook, but I've removed too many infections from computers with little or no protection, for me to ever think it's a good idea to go online without more than just Windows Firewall to protect you.
Even with the best of browsing habits, there are too many ways now to "automatically" contract an infection, or to be "duped" into letting something on board.
_________________
Gary R Administrator at Malware Removal University
If you've been helped, please donate to help with the costs of this volunteer site .... Spyware Warrior Donations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
roger_m wrote:
| Quote: |
| I do occasionaly get infected, but not via web surfing, due to installing an infected download. |
These days I keep an AV installed and up to date purely for scanning downloads. Personally I feel no need to keep the 'resident' protection on otherwise.
Probably not the best choice for most folks though. 
_________________
Inperfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikey
Malware Expert
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 1061
Location: CenTex
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary R wrote: |
| goldengreek wrote: |
| Actually you can get by with no AV if you are the only user and a safe surfer and your computer will run much faster and smoother. |
That is not a statement that I would agree with.
Surfing without protection is as good a way of saying "come and get me" as I can think of.
Look through the HJT rooms here and at the other forums, and you'll find ample evidence of that fact. |
He just said without an AV. He didn't say without any security. So I have to agree with him in that context.
Even tho, since my last stroke, I don't actually do the 'hands on' anymore, I'm still responsible for more than a thousand appliances strewn accross multiple SOHOs and medium size enterprises and my policies are still in effect.
There is no anti-malware scanner of any kind running resident anywhere.
However, nothing can initiate anywhere without my prior approval and, since 2002, we have never had any unwanted entity on board.
Some folks feel the need to periodically rip the guts out of their sys and apps using bloated resource hogs. Afterwards, they are surprized that their wares fail to function properly anymore. It doesn't have to be that way.
For some reason, most of the so called security experts still recommend all the same old antiquated techniques we were using a decade ago. I think it's because of the hype still preached to them by the devs who profit from user ignorance.
Yes, some low level techniques like blocklists and other content filters are suggested but only a handful of folks try to teach real security. Thus the majority of users are led down the path to continual exploitation by the propagators of malware, vendors of the bogus anti-malware scanners, and the pri/sec community too. Sometimes even, the propagators are the anti-malware folk themselves.
Developers can just as easily produce tools that work as the ones they develop now. Of course, they would loose that continued purchase of subscriptions that scanner DBs afford them. As an insider, I know first hand how corrupt this bogus industry is.
Even one of the well established anti-malware developers has now denounced the bogus and obsolete methods that have thus far been predominant (scam) and they completely retooled their organization. More and more honest developers will surely follow suit. If they don't, I hope they get left behind.
Anyway, to sum up, I do indeed personally agree with his statement.
As always, JMO.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE
Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.
Mikey's Stuff
Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suzi
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 10271
Location: sunny California
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have to weigh in here. Some people are fine with no AV, imo, if they have sufficient other security measures in place. But, with the numbers of hacked websites, sites that are normally good and safe, I think many people need some real time anti-malware protection.
Example, I was on a reputable software site just a couple of weeks ago, and clicked on the link to their forum, which had been hacked with a malicious iframe link. I had my AV real time turned off. But my other security software popped up alerts and I was able to block the exploits and malware. There was a PDF exploit on the site also, possibly the 0 day Adobe exploit. Fortunately I don't have Adobe Reader installed, or I might have been in trouble.
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikey
Malware Expert
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 1061
Location: CenTex
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| suzi wrote: |
I have to weigh in here. Some people are fine with no AV, imo, if they have sufficient other security measures in place. But, with the numbers of hacked websites, sites that are normally good and safe, I think many people need some real time anti-malware protection.
|
Just in case there was any misunderstanding, I agree 100% with that statement.
However, to me, "real time anti-malware protection" doesn't mean the status quo of using a totally reactionary antiquated and obsolete malware scanner that relies on a signature DB.
I find it very curious; Why would anyone want to invest in a malware cleanup when they could just as easily pro-actively prevent it while at the same time using less resources incl failed sys/app function and man hours?
Better technologies and techniques have been around for many years now. As far as I can tell, it's just all about greed in one form or another.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE
Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.
Mikey's Stuff
Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Using a good process firewall is certainly the way to go if you want to run a light system and stay safe with no AV. I can honestly say no infection has got onto my system since learning to use Process Guard a few years back. (Admittedly I've been offline some of that time...)
I think the problem is that you do have to learn how to use a process firewall, and that seems to be a sticking point for a lot of otherwise sensible, intelligent people. I've seen it so many times with friends and family - start to explain and the eyes immediately glaze over. They assume immediately that it is so far beyond them that they will never understand. And yet it is remarkably easy to learn this stuff. Read some forum posts. Google a bit.
Wish it were otherwise, but that is too much for an awful lot of people.
_________________
Inperfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikey
Malware Expert
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 1061
Location: CenTex
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, the learning curve is really high. It took a whole 20mins to show and explain best practice (according to Mikey) to a fourth grade kid yesterday.
Of course, it's not always like that. It's always much easier to teach them when they don't already have so many misconceptions.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE
Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.
Mikey's Stuff
Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary R
Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 9701
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mikey wrote: |
| Gary R wrote: |
| goldengreek wrote: |
| Actually you can get by with no AV if you are the only user and a safe surfer and your computer will run much faster and smoother. |
That is not a statement that I would agree with.
Surfing without protection is as good a way of saying "come and get me" as I can think of.
Look through the HJT rooms here and at the other forums, and you'll find ample evidence of that fact. |
He just said without an AV. He didn't say without any security. So I have to agree with him in that context. |
He also made the implication that practising safe surfing was all that was needed to keep safe, and IMO it isn't.
| Quote: |
| ...... if you are the only user and a safe surfer |
My reply to that implication was ......
| Quote: |
| Surfing without protection is as good a way of saying "come and get me" as I can think of. |
......... and I hold to that statement.
| Quote: |
Perhaps I have a somewhat jaded outlook, but I've removed too many infections from computers with little or no protection, for me to ever think it's a good idea to go online without more than just Windows Firewall to protect you.
Even with the best of browsing habits, there are too many ways now to "automatically" contract an infection, or to be "duped" into letting something on board.
|
I don't think I made any recommendation as to what method of protection I think people should use, only that surfing without it was IMO a bad idea.
_________________
Gary R Administrator at Malware Removal University
If you've been helped, please donate to help with the costs of this volunteer site .... Spyware Warrior Donations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Osage
Warrior
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Last Visit: 07 Sep 2011
Posts: 227
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
We have all heard Mikey's claims, but its one thing to be a member of Mikey's network with some Mikey big brother saying thou shalt run no software not on my approved list, and quite another thing to be a single individual with no big brother on their back making the world look smaller. More the strategy of some strange religious cult that isolates itself from the modern world, or more charitably, the strategy of a rational business owner who does want his employees playing games, downloading music, or having fun, when they are supposed to be working using only certain work related software.
As for that other Mikey claim that antiquated anti malware apps will rip the guts out of your OS, I can point to a very few cases where that might be true with false positives isolated incidents, but in basically 14 or more computer years counting my wife and I, its yet to happen to us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikey
Malware Expert
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 1061
Location: CenTex
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Gary, I wasn't really meaning any particular disagreement with what you said.
I was just trying to explain that in a certain context, I agreed with what he said. Perhaps I should have said "only in this particular context". I appologize for implying that I disagreed with your comment.
=======
Osage, I didn't realize that you were so witty. I wonder what users reading this will take away from your post.
BTW The kid yesterday and the elderly woman I mentioned a few days ago(clean and unburdened for several yrs now) are some of the many I've shown how to secure their sys over the years. And their machines are not under our immediate control.
Say, I have an old page from my site(currently down because of my health) that I'll try to update and paste up later. It's titled; 'Firewalling the Simple Use'. In fact, I think the idea warrants it's own thread. Thx for pushing my tired old brain in that direction.
Might take a couple days tho as I've got to see the Doc's today and tomorrow. I swear they want to turn me in to a pin cushion.
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE
Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.
Mikey's Stuff
Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mikey
Malware Expert
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Last Visit: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 1061
Location: CenTex
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As for that other Mikey claim that antiquated anti malware apps will rip the guts out of your OS, I can point to a very few cases where that might be true with false positives isolated incidents, but in basically 14 or more computer years counting my wife and I, its yet to happen to us. |
Just an afterthought;
While most of us in the industry have seen it thousands of times, I'm reminded of one situation in particular. You should have been with us doing app support for Lavasoft when we were dealing with the thousands coming to the board looking for help when AA trashed the WinSock stack.
We figured that for every one user that came looking for help, there had to be hundreds more because this particular episode left users with no connectivity. That was when LSPfix was first deved to fix just another LS screwup.
BTW Right here on this site, we've seen dozens of products producing F/Ps that were potentially crippling in nature. Some of those products are now even considered respectable in the status quo instead of rogues.
It's kind of hard to imagine anyone who works in the industry who hasn't seen this in a large way. I guess you are very lucky not to have seen it for yourself. I hope your luck holds.
Well, I gotta get out of here. They always say 'change is hard'. It kinda reminds me of back when we first started warning folk about spyware.
Later...
_________________
-
W2K/2K3/XP/2K8/Vista/W7/RHE/DEBIAN/SUSE
Spyware/Adware is NOT freeware, it costs all of us dearly.
Mikey's Stuff
Fiddler and friends...essential web diagnostic, forensic, & development tools.
- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary R
Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 9701
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mikey wrote: |
Hey Gary, I wasn't really meaning any particular disagreement with what you said.
I was just trying to explain that in a certain context, I agreed with what he said. Perhaps I should have said "only in this particular context". I appologize for implying that I disagreed with your comment. |
I never took it that you were in disagreement Mikey, I was just clarifying my own standpoint just in case it was in any way unclear.
I've always read your posts on firewalling with interest. They educated me greatly.
Personally I've used a HIPs/Process Firewall as the mainstay of my defences for quite some time now.
When dealing with people face to face they're what I recommend.
Because of the constraints imposed by working the forums, when cleaning people up online, I recommend a more "conventional" set up for the purely pragmatic reason that I don't need to teach people how to use them.
_________________
Gary R Administrator at Malware Removal University
If you've been helped, please donate to help with the costs of this volunteer site .... Spyware Warrior Donations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah MBAM recently quarantined a 'fake driver' from my computer. I checked on their site & a few people had the same problem. It turned out to be a false positive. Luckily I was able to restore the driver from quarantine. Interestingly my computer seemed fine without it for a bit. I actually restored it before MBAM gave the all clear. That's a bit scary. My brother is a software engineer & he reckons McAfee isn't as bad as Norton. He won't touch Norton with a barge-pole!
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just thought I would say that I went with McAfee. I can always uninstall it if it turns out to be pants!
It seems OK, it loads much faster into the systems tray (I could brew a pot of tea waiting for Norton) & my computer actually seems to be a bit faster. Of course, this could just be my imagination.
It doesn't seem bad at all....but there again I once downloaded the virus better known as Flock Browser!   
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, thank you...very funny. 
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wasn't joking Daveski.
From the webpage I linked, in case you didn't get that far:
| Quote: |
McAfee blocked Hijackthis_v2 and tells me it contains a virus. Strange since I've used Hijackthis on a daily basis and none of my antivirus products have ever alerted me to the presence of a virus in it. McAfee claims Hijackthis is infected with the W32/Generic.worm!p2p, which according to their virus database is a generic detection of worms that can propagate through P2P file-sharing software (Kazaa, Gnutella, eDonkey, Bearshare, Shareaza, Gnucleus, Limewire, Morpheus, Grokster, etc.). I don't have any of these P2P file sharing programs installed on the computer and use HijackThis on it regularly.
Just to be sure, I ran the Hijackthis_v2 file through several online file scanners and none of them found a virus in the file. This makes me question the accuracy of McAfee's virus database and file signatures. |
McAfee site advisor also had Mikey's old site flagged as dodgy when it was still up and running - I only found that out when looking for it a while back. I don't know if he had any response from them to the comments he posted on their page:
http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/voiceofthepublic.com/summary/
I knew a number of students at the university I used to work at who lost weeks of work thanks to McAfee (handed out free by the uni) failing to keep the crap out. I still have the copy they gave me when I started there. I use it as a coaster.
_________________
Inperfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'll see how it goes. I have spoken to a lot of people who have had no problems with it whatsoever. From what I can see from talking to people on their forum, it is fairly easy to uninstall. I have good customer support with BT Yahoo! who have been very helpful. I have F/Ps with MBAM anyway sometimes. I have learned to live with them. From what I can see McAfee is a great improvement on Norton. If I used freeware AV I have no customer support & would have to download a separate firewall (unless I use MS). If McAfee were that bad surely they would go out of business!
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well good luck.
| Quote: |
| If McAfee were that bad surely they would go out of business! |
You've clearly never worked in the food industry. 
_________________
Inperfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Osage
Warrior
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Last Visit: 07 Sep 2011
Posts: 227
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aBenG wrote: |
Well good luck.
| Quote: |
| If McAfee were that bad surely they would go out of business! |
You've clearly never worked in the food industry. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to totally agree with aBenG on that comment. In my mind the choice of Norton V. McAfee is one of those why trade a headache for an unset stomach questions. Sadly in terms of AV world market share, the great herd of AV buyers are very poor predictors of quality as they seem to unerringly flock to low quality AV's. And on top of that there is a synergistic effect, very smart malware writers will purchase popular security suites, put them on test bed PC's, adn keep refining their wares until they get by those
popular AV's. Which is why my mantra is stay unpredictable.
And also, I do somewhat owe mikey an apology, given his observation that, " Osage, I didn't realize that you were so witty. I wonder what users reading this will take away from your post."
Actually, mikey, in many ways is correct, HIPS and Hosts plus process control is far more effective in prevention. And the dangers of false positives are not to be underestimated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, thanks for all of the advice. I originally had Bullguard on my machine but since I was paying BT Yahoo! I thought I would try Norton when eventually I had to pay for Bullguard or lose it. Norton didn't cause me any real problems, even if it was a little annoying at times.
BT Yahoo! decided to change to McAfee, I may as well see what it is like. Many people told me how good Spybot S&D was. I'll never download it again. It isn't a patch off SUPERAntiSpyware & missed a trojan on my laptop that SAS found & removed. SAS has never caused me any trouble.
I know McAfee isn't a trendy or fashionable AV, I mean fcuk me! I wouldn't want to break a lifetime of un-trendiness!
I have spoken to a lot of people who have had no problem with McAfee at all & tell me it isn't the Antichrist or the plague. 
I suppose you can all have a good laugh when it turns all 'HAL 9000' on me.
I'm paying for the damn thing, I may as well try it. I can uninstall it pretty easily if it is that bad.
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aBenG
Warrior
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Last Visit: 28 Feb 2012
Posts: 297
Location: Darkest UK
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just trying to help you out guy.
Fashion doesn't really come into it, there are easy better ways to be protected is all.
http://spywarewarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=22016
This or similar plus a 2 way firewall, if you're willing to read up on it a little.
If you've paid for a poor tool why turn down a better one that's free? 
Don't think anyone will be laughing if HAL comes to visit.
_________________
Inperfect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, guy, I have spoken to just as many people (in fact more) who tell me that McAfee is not complete rubbish.
Of course, they are probably all ignorant & possibly senile or something. I am pretty sure a lot of them did some major hallucinogenics in the '60s (or probably dribble a lot when they talk).
I have had McAfee only 3 days now. It seems to be working fine. You may have had bad experiences with it, but many haven't.
I don't mind that I have an untrendy Belnea laptop or that I use the not particularly fashionable SeaMonkey browser.
I have to check McPants out for myself. I do appreciate the advice, but I am going to give McAfee a fortnight at least.
If it <language removed by admin> up it is easy to uninstall (unlike Norton) & I have spoken to people on the McAfee forum on how this is done. There is a clean-up tool as well, if needed.
I will get all 'with it' & trendy eventually.
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suzi
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Last Visit: 25 May 2013
Posts: 10271
Location: sunny California
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Daveski17, please watch the language. No f words allowed.
_________________
Former Microsoft MVP 2005-2009, Consumer Security
Please do not PM or Email me for personal support. Post in the Forums instead and we will all learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, sorry. I got a bit carried away.
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Letterman
Warrior Guru
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Last Visit: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 345
Location: Kenmore, Wa. (U.S.)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Daveski17 wrote: |
Well, guy, I have spoken to just as many people (in fact more) who tell me that McAfee is not complete rubbish.
|
If you have the time, read thru AV-Comparatives' Feb. 2009 test results to see how well AV vendors stack up - http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report21.pdf
By all means, give McAfee a try but make your final a/v decision an educated one. Btw, my vote for free a/v is avast! b/c it can do a boot-time scan.
_________________
“He saw reality too clearly. Faulty denial mechanism.
Failed to block out the terrible truths of existence. In the end, his inability to push away the awful facts of being in the world rendered his life meaningless.”
- from the film "Stardust Memories" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Letterman
Warrior Guru
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Last Visit: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 345
Location: Kenmore, Wa. (U.S.)
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, regardless of which a/v you ultimately go with I highly recommend a decent 2-way firewall such as Online Armor (free and I use it) and/or a kernel-level process protecting program like ProcessGuard (available in free and paid versions). More ProcessGuard info. here.
_________________
“He saw reality too clearly. Faulty denial mechanism.
Failed to block out the terrible truths of existence. In the end, his inability to push away the awful facts of being in the world rendered his life meaningless.”
- from the film "Stardust Memories" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK thanks. I have a hub firewall as well as one on my computer. I think that should cover it.
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daveski17
Warrior
Joined: 17 Oct 2008
Last Visit: 17 Jan 2013
Posts: 118
Location: Rainy Olde England
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Harry Letterman wrote: |
| Daveski17 wrote: |
Well, guy, I have spoken to just as many people (in fact more) who tell me that McAfee is not complete rubbish.
|
If you have the time, read thru AV-Comparatives' Feb. 2009 test results to see how well AV vendors stack up - http://www.av-comparatives.org/image...c_report21.pdf |
I see McAfee is very highly rated in AV-Comparitives.
| Harry Letterman wrote: |
| By all means, give McAfee a try but make your final a/v decision an educated one. Btw, my vote for free a/v is avast! b/c it can do a boot-time scan. |
From what I can see McAfee seems to be good. It might not be 'trendy' or fashionable at the moment, but it obviously works.
Thanks for the info Harry.
_________________
Cry, 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.
~ Shakespeare Julius Caesar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Letterman
Warrior Guru
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Last Visit: 11 Dec 2012
Posts: 345
Location: Kenmore, Wa. (U.S.)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Daveski17 wrote: |
| I have a hub firewall as well as one on my computer. I think that should cover it. |
By "hub firewall" do you mean one that is built into a router? If so then, yes, you do have fairly good protection. Having said that, I still encourage you to check into ProcessGuard as an extra layer of defense. The reason is that if your firewall's allow/deny rules are not properly defined or are weak (or have been manipulated without your knowledge by malware) and some piece of garbage does make it onto your system PG will notify you immediately and block execution of the program at the kernel level (.sys files).
Read about some attacks used to hack computers at this ProcessGuard page. Then check PG's Features page to see how it can protect you. Last, PG has a very informative (and persuasive) page on Process-Injecting Trojans -
| Quote: |
| DID YOU KNOW? Trojans can ONLY be detected if the vendor of your anti-virus/anti-trojan scanner has a sample of the trojan. Unfortunately, this often isn't the case, and you may be infected with a trojan even if your scanner tells you you're clean. Even if you're protected by a firewall, there are many firewall-bypassing and firewall-killing tricks that are commonly used by trojans that effectively render firewalls useless. |
http://www.diamondcs.com.au/processguard/attacks/codeinjection.php
_________________
“He saw reality too clearly. Faulty denial mechanism.
Failed to block out the terrible truths of existence. In the end, his inability to push away the awful facts of being in the world rendered his life meaningless.”
- from the film "Stardust Memories" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
