[Closed] What Internet security?

A big third party nothing. I had the same issues with Norton, it kept crashing, needed reinstalling and was generally a PITA.

Use Windows defender and firewall now after the same question on here. Its free and its beenn fine for a year and it just works.

Windows stuff and malware bytes. Norton is only good for slowing down your pc.

The best Internet security is running Windows Update, updating Java and Adobe products (or removing them if you don't use them), not clicking on attachments in unsolicited emails and staying off porn and app torrent sites.

Beyond that, install:

Windows 8: Defender (built into the OS)
Windows 7: Microsoft Security Essentials (download from MS)
Windows XP: Linux

The best Internet security is running Windows Update, updating Java and Adobe products (or removing them if you don't use them), not clicking on attachments in unsolicited emails and staying off porn and app torrent sites.

Beyond that, install:

Windows 8: Defender (built into the OS)
Windows 7: Microsoft Security Essentials (download from MS)
Windows XP: Linux

This.

Viruses often perform some type of harmful activity on infected hosts, [b][u]such as stealing hard disk space or CPU time,[/u][/b] accessing private information, corrupting data, displaying political or humorous messages on the user's screen, spamming their contacts, or logging their keystrokes.

on that basis I think Norton qualifies as a virus.

Built in windows tools for me with the odd malwarebytes scan if things are slowing down or acting strangely.

Been using Avast for several years, no issues whatsoever. Was on the paid version but been on the free version for 2 years now.
There's several reviews out there of the free stuff. I used the older version of the PC Mag one initially http://uk.pcmag.com/security-reviews/142/guide/best-free-antivirus-2014

The stuff Cougar posted is perfectly fine, but the best protection is from Trend Micro (the dotted line being Defender):

[img] [/img]

It's not free though.

I compromise PC's for a living. For general web browsing I use a chromebook, saves me being paranoid about visiting dodgy websites (which I have to for work!). My windows devices use built in windows and run virtual machines for checking out anything dodgy on.

All AV is crap really. It will stop the obvious stuff that's been around a while is all. Good internet hygiene is the best defence.

but the best protection is from Trend Micro

Two things,

1) What's the source for that graph?

2) Performing well in tests is not necessarily the best yardstick. Norton (conspicuously absent from that chart unless I'm being blind) consistently does well in tests.

Linux

Just about got my head around the graph, thanks. Karparsky was on the radar, but this has been a eye opener for me. Will look into window defender and some malware scanner combo a bit more. Thanks.
Would be good to hear from anyone else who still buys in third party software.

1) What's the source for that graph?

2) Performing well in tests is not necessarily the best yardstick. Norton (conspicuously absent from that chart unless I'm being blind) consistently does well in tests.

1) http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/

http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ is also a good site for doing comparisons

Realistically any of the better performing packages listed in either will do a decent job of protecting you, but as you say no AV software is a replacement for common sense - don't install dodgy 'codecs' to look at grot/free sport streaming sites, don't open that 'Unpaid invoice for $65997' email and it's attachment sent by someone you have never heard of, don't download software (especially pirated) from untrusted sources, make sure you have all windows and software updates etc etc etc

2) Norton/Symantec may refuse to participate in the testing..

*disclaimer. I work for one of the vendors listed in the above tests...

I had a look at one of the reports at av-comparatives. I can't immediately cut and paste but they make a couple of good points in passing.

(Under "Test Procedure - Software") they say that patched up-to-date installs of Windows and third party products made it "much harder" to find real-world examples to test against, and

(Under "Comments") they say that with Windows firewall and MSE installed the "usual" source of infection is down to user error (clicking on daft stuff as per my previous post).

Anyone who tells you different is probably selling AV.

*disclaimer. I work for one of the vendors listed in the above tests...

... oh. (-:

I'm [i]almost[/i] at a point where I'd be prepared to say that if you keep your system patched, don't have a rhythm website habit and don't fall for phishing emails, you don't actually need AV on a modern Windows OS. Almost. I can't quite bring myself to do it, just to be on the safe side.

The other thing I note from that test is it only uses two metrics for testing; what a product prevented, and what it blocked erroneously.

There's no accounting for costs, inconvenience / transparency to the user, performance impact to the system, improvements to be had from a non-default install, etc etc. The best product on that list could get its accolade by aggressively scanning anything and everything constantly, kicking hell out of the PC in the process, and it'd be an award winner. Why doesn't every techie worth their salt recommend Norton? They're actually very effective products, often do really well in tests.

I have a free solution which I give you a cast-iron guarantee will absolutely prevent 100% of known and unknown electronic threats, though might fare less well on false positive tests. It's called "pulling out the power lead."

The av-test site appears to be more balanced, in that it scores for usability and performance, thumbs up for that. They're a little more secretive about their test conditions though. I'd like to see a more in-depth overview of what and how they're testing.

I just bought a Windows 8 laptop, and it came with McAfee pre-installed which I wasn't expecting as I planned to just use Defender as recommended above.

Is it actually worth me going to the bother of uninstalling McAfee so that I can switch on the MS security elements that it interferes with?

My internet hygiene is impeccable BTW 🙂

Cougar - Moderator
staying off porn sites.

😯

[quote=offthebrakes ]Is it actually worth me going to the bother of uninstalling McAfee so that I can switch on the MS security elements that it interferes with?
My internet hygiene is impeccable BTW

Yes. Irrespective of your internet hygiene. For the reasons mentioned above concerning impact on system performance.

updating Java

Disabling/uninstalling Java. You'll more than likely not need it unless you're a corporate and it's a principal source of infection.

http://java.com/en/download/help/disable_browser.xml

[quote=Cougar ]Windows XP: [s]Linux[/s] VM

(admittedly that has limited applications, but we're still using that in the local school pending the system upgrade I'm busy working on - no real worries when they get a fresh system every time they reboot, and any upgrades to the underlying system are very tightly controlled)

offthebrakes - Member

I just bought a Windows 8 laptop, and it came with McAfee pre-installed which I wasn't expecting as I planned to just use Defender as recommended above.

Is it actually worth me going to the bother of uninstalling McAfee so that I can switch on the MS security elements that it interferes with?

Cougar - Moderator

I'm almost at a point where I'd be prepared to say that if you keep your system patched, don't have a rhythm website habit and don't fall for phishing emails, you don't actually need AV on a modern Windows OS. Almost. I can't quite bring myself to do it, just to be on the safe side.

And the percentage of users that actually do that in real life would be remarkably low, unfortunately...

AV as a technology is always a last resort - it's scanning something that is about to execute on your system to check it's not going to do something nasty. It's already downloaded itself as there's a weakness somewhere, be it in the software or the user that's operating the system. If you were really really careful, didn't download anything dubious, kept everything patched and used a lot of common sense then the chance that you would get infected would be a lot lower.

But..... There's always the chance where bikepinktrackmagicworld.com is mistakenly serving malicious ads that will compromise a system without any intervention and no software patch is available - that's when it's good to have that extra layer of security...

aracer - Member

Yes. Irrespective of your internet hygiene. For the reasons mentioned above concerning impact on system performance.

If you check some of the links above (eg. av test) McAfee / Intel actually has less of an impact than Windows Defender and provides much better levels of protection...

On a modern system though, you really aren't likely to notice AV slowing your system down in most 'home' use cases. If your system is grinding to a halt there's probably something else fundamentally wrong with it, modern AV packages are pretty light compared to how they used to be a few years back...

modern AV packages are pretty light compared to how they used to be a few years back...

Modern PCs are pretty powerful compared to how they used to be a few years back, more like.

Cougar

Modern PCs are pretty powerful compared to how they used to be a few years back, more like.

True - but a lot of the stuff has moved from your PC into the cloud though - definitions, instructions for cleaning infected files etc as the sheer volume of new samples is just too big to constantly download, which should reduce memory and disk usage...

But now I'm starting to sound like I work in marketing 😯

So in summary, I'll leave McAfee where it is by sheer inertia.

Until, that is, its relentless requests to sign up for some pointless extra functionality finally break my spirit, when I'll uninstall it in a fit of pique, thoroughly botching the job and leaving my shiny new laptop unable to run either McAfee or MS Defender.

Sorted 8)

It will almost certainly expire at some point in the next year and ask you for money. Which many people agree to because it must be better as it came with the computer / is already working. Lucrative marketing model.

I work for one of the vendors listed in the above tests...

And I've just worked out who that is. Your lot always used to be my go-to for Citrix server AV.

It will almost certainly expire at some point in the next year and ask you for money.

Indeed. Lets see if I can tolerate it that long.

Cougar

And I've just worked out who that is. Your lot always used to be my go-to for Citrix server AV.

Whois'ing my IP is cheating, especially on one of the rare days I'm actually logged on from a corporate location and not back in blighty... 😉

I was making a point of being particularly unbiased in my views as well!

offthebrakes » Is it actually worth me going to the bother of uninstalling McAfee so that I can switch on the MS security elements that it interferes with?
My internet hygiene is impeccable BTW
Yes. Irrespective of your internet hygiene. For the reasons mentioned above concerning impact on system performance.