[Help] Computer got hit pretty bad with viruses

[Lacius]

Can you just shut up about that already.
There is no need to say anything that astro has not said for me.

I've only responded to you when, although you've just admitted that there's no need for you to do it, you've attacked other people's use of a specific operating system for no discernable reason.

 

[Kioku]

I've only responded to you when, although you've just admitted that there's no need for you to do it, you've attacked other people's use of a specific operating system for no discernable reason.

Him and his don't quite get it. I'm all for respecting other people's opinions. However, when they start shoving them around as facts, especially without any valid reasoning. Then it just becomes a matter of ignorance.

 

[AyanamiRei0]

I just find it pretty funny that you got a bunch of viruses by trying to pirate a Anti Malware program

 

[Deleted-379826]

Well finished all 3 scans and the panda scan says there is no threats??! Which could be good although I did the recommended scan not system scan but will also follow the guide for after infection

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I just find it pretty funny that you got a bunch of viruses by trying to pirate a Anti Malware program

Funniest part was it was the second most leeched and seeded and stuff (maybe first) xD

 

[The Real Jdbye]

A very simple advice is to not look on shady websites for software cracks or whatever. Even better, don't install anything you couldn't verify the source.

You don't even need the full version of malwarebyte. Simply using the free version is enough.
Again, like I said, if you or anyone actually know what they are doing on their machines, AVs are rather useless.

That's not entirely true as sometimes exploits leave you vulnerable to malware without you needing to download and run anything and Windows is not exactly the most secure thing. And anyone who pirates PC software or games is more vulnerable to malware attacks than someone who buys all their software and games legitimately. Downloading pirated software from a big torrent site or even a private tracker is no guarantee that it's not infected.
You never know whether a crack or keygen or pirated piece of software is clean but by using an AV you're safer from malware attacks from such things.
That's why all Windows users should always have an AV even if they never end up needing it. Better safe than sorry.

Most people don't know what they're doing, and mistakes do happen even to those who do know what they're doing. Merely visiting a website with infected advertisements could infect a computer, and a real-time antivirus would be helpful in that situation, among others. I do not recommend people go without a real-time antivirus program because, even if one understands what he or she is doing, not having a real-time antivirus program does increase one's chances of infection.

To use an analogy, one is very unlikely (<1%) to contract HIV when on PrEP, but I wouldn't call condoms useless; they're still recommended.


I was going to link to this guide earlier before I noticed it got scrambled. It is a very good guide with a lot of useful information if one is willing to wade through the formatting mess.


Malwarebytes Premium is a real-time antivirus, but there's no need for it. Most real-time antivirus programs are effectively the same, and most people only use Malwarebytes for cleaning preexisting infections.

If one is looking for a real-time antivirus, I recommend Windows Defender (for its ease of use and the fact that it stays out of one's way) or Avast (for its effectiveness if you're a tech savvy user who doesn't mind some intrusion from time to time). Their detection rates are comparable, and I see no reason to buy a paid antivirus program.


Instead of building strawmen and putting words in other people's mouths, go use Windows 10 like you said you would and come back when you've found a legitimate criticism of it. No one's going to feed you.

I don't know if you have checked Windows Defender reviews lately but it has one of the worst detection rates on the market and I would not suggest it to anyone. I was using it myself for years but I stopped once I found out how shitty it was.

 

[Kioku]

That's not entirely true as sometimes exploits leave you vulnerable to malware without you needing to download and run anything and Windows is not exactly the most secure thing. And anyone who pirates PC software or games is more vulnerable to malware attacks than someone who buys all their software and games legitimately. Downloading pirated software from a big torrent site or even a private tracker is no guarantee that it's not infected.
You never know whether a crack or keygen or pirated piece of software is clean but by using an AV you're safer from malware attacks from such things. That's why all Windows users should always have an AV even if they never end up needing it. Better safe than sorry.

I don't know if you have checked Windows Defender reviews lately but it has one of the worst detection rates on the market and I would not suggest it to anyone. I was using it myself for years but I stopped once I found out how shitty it was.

I wish I could say the same, but it, alongside MBAM has kept my systems pretty clean.

Of course, I usually direct people to webroot for paid..

 

[Deleted-379826]

My only complaint is I'm guessing it deleted my p__ated key for hotspot shield, my vpn, but seems good let me check if my games are good
EDIT: if portal 2 works then I guess im fine

 

[Lacius]

I don't know if you have checked Windows Defender reviews lately but it has one of the worst detection rates on the market and I would not suggest it to anyone. I was using it myself for years but I stopped once I found out how shitty it was.

That has been a legitimate concern in the past, but three things:

1. When we talk about real-time detection rates, we're usually talking about the difference between 85-99%, which really isn't that different. 99% is obviously better than 85%, for example, but when I set someone up with a real-time antivirus program, I want it to be something I know will still be up to date and running five years from now without requiring interaction from the user.
2. Last time I checked, Windows Defender had a real-world detection rate of 97.7%, compared to Avast's 98.6%. Windows Defender is comparable to the best real-time antivirus programs and not bad at all.
3. Windows Defender is also one of the best when it comes to disk usage, resources, and lack of false positives (consistently zero).

 

[Deleted-379826]

That has been a legitimate concern in the past, but two things:

1. When we talk about real-time detection rates, we're usually talking about the difference between 85-99%, which really isn't that different. 99% is obviously better than 85%, for example, but when I set someone up with a real-time antivirus program, I want it to be something I know will still be up to date and running five years from now without requiring interaction from the user.
2. Last time I checked, Windows Defender had a real-world detection rate of 97.7%, compared to Avast's 98.6%. Windows Defender is comparable to the best real-time antivirus programs and not bad at all.
3. Windows Defender is also one of the best when it comes to disk usage, resources, and lack of false positives (consistently zero).

It says many things downloaded from gbatemp like sm4shexorer is malware so I mean it can get pretty bad

 

[Lacius]

It says many things downloaded from gbatemp like sm4shexorer is malware so I mean it can get pretty bad

Many things downloaded from GBATemp include exploits by design, which are inevitably going to be flagged as malicious. It's nobody's fault. I wouldn't even consider it a false-positive; it's doing its job. It's more like a sorta-positive.

 

[Deleted-379826]

Many things downloaded from GBATemp include exploits by design, which are inevitably going to be flagged as malicious. It's nobody's fault. I wouldn't even consider it a false-positive; it's doing its job. It's more like a sorta-positive.

Oh I see

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also since we are talking about AV why does chrome make you think twice about jar files? I'd like to know the dangers

 

[AyanamiRei0]

I wish I could say the same, but it, alongside MBAM has kept my systems pretty clean.

I'm quite paranoid about getting any kind of virus and if think i do i'll just scan with MBAM and avast because sometimes for some reason Avast sometimes disables itself and i don't have a clue why :\

 

[Lacius]

Oh I see

In other words, if I'm downloading software from GBATemp that takes advantage of an exploit in my Wii U, which is the same thing a virus would do, it is going to be flagged as malicious; that's a good thing.

Also since we are talking about AV why does chrome make you think twice about jar files? I'd like to know the dangers

Because Java is notoriously unsafe. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but something like half or a third of all malicious software a few years ago was exploiting Java.

Edit: When I am working on someone's computer and I see Java installed, I always ask if the owner uses Java. If he or she says, "No," or "I don't know," I remove it immediately. There doesn't appear to be much of a need for Java, and it feels like it's always being exploited. Unless you use it for something really specific with no alternative, I recommend you get rid of it.

 

[Deleted-379826]

In other words, if I'm downloading software from GBATemp that takes advantage of an exploit in my Wii U, which is the same thing a virus would do, it is going to be flagged as malicious; that's a good thing.


Because Java is notoriously unsafe. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but something like half or a third of all malicious software a few years ago was exploiting Java.

Oh that makes sense thanks ! well wrapping up with the last scan from malwarebytes because it suggested although I don't think there is a need for me to post my log and stuff because everything I was concerned about is completely fine so thanks for everything guys!

 

[The Real Jdbye]

That has been a legitimate concern in the past, but three things:

1. When we talk about real-time detection rates, we're usually talking about the difference between 85-99%, which really isn't that different. 99% is obviously better than 85%, for example, but when I set someone up with a real-time antivirus program, I want it to be something I know will still be up to date and running five years from now without requiring interaction from the user.
2. Last time I checked, Windows Defender had a real-world detection rate of 97.7%, compared to Avast's 98.6%. Windows Defender is comparable to the best real-time antivirus programs and not bad at all.
3. Windows Defender is also one of the best when it comes to disk usage, resources, and lack of false positives (consistently zero).

As far as I can tell Windows Defender isn't even on the chart you linked, except for on the 2009 charts, which is very old and it has steadily declined ever since.
I will agree that it is light on resources though.

 

[Lacius]

As far as I can tell Windows Defender isn't even on the chart you linked, except for on the 2009 charts, which is very old and it has steadily declined ever since.
I will agree that it is light on resources though.

May 2016, under Microsoft. 97.7%.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

May 2016, under Microsoft. 97.7%.

Huh. Not sure how I missed it. If you look at the previous months it varies a lot per month though. A lot of the results are not so positive.
It's not as bad as I originally thought though. It's not completely useless as an AV, but looking at the results, some of the AVs get consistently >99.5% detection rate, and Defender gets at worst around 91% during the past few months. If you look at it differently that means a lesser known virus/malware is around 20 times more likely to be undetected by Defender than the top AVs.

 

[Lacius]

Huh. Not sure how I missed it. If you look at the previous months it varies a lot per month though. A lot of the results are not so positive.

Windows Defender's score is never bad. We can agree that we shouldn't judge a program based on previous builds if the newest build with its improvements consistently scores well, so we can disregard very old scores. The average score for Windows Defender in 2016 is 93.9%. The average score for Avast in 2016 is 98.7%. That's a difference of about 4.8%, which is still comparable. We're also assuming May 2016 is more an outlier than it is indicative of an upcoming trend.

 

[Deleted-379826]

Ok one last thing after 3 more scans with malwarebytes each time it said there was "malware" in my hosts file in system32. My explanation is for some things I "bought" you had to enter in certain addresses to allow some things so I did. It never caused any problems and I'm guessing thats what malwarebytes is talking about. So should I care? Or am I done for the day!

 

[Lacius]

Ok one last thing after 3 more scans with malwarebytes each time it said there was "malware" in my hosts file in system32. My explanation is for some things I "bought" you had to enter in certain addresses to allow some things so I did. It never caused any problems and I'm guessing thats what malwarebytes is talking about. So should I care? Or am I done for the day!

The smart thing to do would be to check your hosts file and delete anything unfamiliar. If Malwarebytes is picking it up, it's unlikely stuff you added to bypass license checks.