Terminator02 said:while it may be old, it is still relevant and all of the programs mentioned are still aliveJoe88 said:this article is over a year old
I already get free 3rd party anti-virus/spyware/firewall/ect.. protection from symantec endpoint from my school
also, my dad gets free Norton from work, and he makes me use it so... yeah kinda sucks
im not really gonna get anything started with my dad, we've always used his works antivirus (used to be mcafee)Urza said:http://gbatemp.net/t229377-recommended-ant...t&p=2865030
how does the article use anecdotal evidence? and it is not from random people
also, i checked the website and Microsoft scored well
Matthew said:while it may be old, it is still relevant and all of the programs mentioned are still aliveTerminator02 said:QUOTE(Joe88 @ Nov 28 2010, 11:36 PM) this article is over a year old
I already get free 3rd party anti-virus/spyware/firewall/ect.. protection from symantec endpoint from my school
also, my dad gets free Norton from work, and he makes me use it so... yeah kinda sucks
Your not FORCED to use it though are you?
It was directed at the thread in general, not your particular post.Terminator02 said:how does the article use anecdotal evidence? and it is not from random peopleUrza said:
and they are...Urza said:Heddings' article in the OP doesn't offer any useful information (and actually contains several inaccuracies)
First of all, he claims that MSSE doesn't ship with behavior-based detection, when it does (and had at the time the article was written). This entire article is essentially extolling software-based security, yet when he (falsely) identifies a huge flaw in the software, he brushes it under the rug and tells you to act safer.Terminator02 said:and they are...Urza said:Heddings' article in the OP doesn't offer any useful information (and actually contains several inaccuracies)
dont just say some things are wrong and not explain
Panzer Tacticer said:First rule of anti viruses, is none are perfect.
Not as vital as putting on a condom maybe, but pretending one anti virus solution is ever perfect is like assuming you can use 1 condom indefinitely.
This. For a full virus scan you use multiple AVs until they scan clean or pick up quarantined viruses by other AVs.
Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enoughManFranceGermany said:The only Free Anti-Virus, with great Heuristic and DB Engine, Monitoring http and FTP Traffic, is Avast. For even more Security I use ThreatFire with it.
MSE is bullshit, never get high rankings in independent Tests.
By this logic Norton must be one of the most amazing AVs because this link says so. It may have avast as the top free one, but seeing as they completely bullshitted their way through the Norton review no one in their right mind would consider them trustworthy.
Terminator02 said:
That one is more trustworthy as it doesn't list a single AV as the best. Like it was said earlier you need to use multiple virus scanners to make your machine the most virus free you can.
QUOTE(RupeeClock @ Nov 29 2010, 10:40 AM) Point is never use Norton, ever. Three big offenses are that its virus scan actually doesn't pick up shit, it slows the system down to hell, and worst of you, you have to PAY for that.
Why do you think they give Norton away free with computer systems? It's the only way they can move their shit, onto unsuspecting customers!
They put it onto machines so that when unsuspecting customers renew their subscription the company that it was bought from (pcworld, currys, etc) will get money for bundling it with their machines. Think of it more as a referral link but they sign you up under their address.
QUOTE(ecko @ Nov 29 2010, 05:14 PM)
The difference in chance of coming across a POSIX-compliant virus that can actually do damage within the limitations of the permissions system, and coming across a virus that absolutely rapes Windows' monolithic kernel is akin to the chance of getting AIDS from sitting on a park bench, and by having unprotected sex with a hooker holding a "FREE AIDS" sign.sprogurt said:ecko said:Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enough
UNIX systems still get viruses. I could say stay with windows so you don't get a UNIX based virus, it's just the risk is lowered on a UNIX based machine. It's still possible.
you're correct, *nix also has some viruses in the wild, however, it's by a magnitude less then windows machines.sprogurt said:ecko said:Stop Paying for Windows Security, Linux is good enough
UNIX systems still get viruses. I could say stay with windows so you don't get a UNIX based virus, it's just the risk is lowered on a UNIX based machine. It's still possible.
For a windows machine I'd say use MSE, MBAM, Spyware Doctor, Combo fix and a few more (can't remember them off the top of my head).
Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.Rydian said:UAC says hi.
"Well a Windows user could just disable UAC or give the permission anyways."
Well a Linux user could just run as root or sudo the command anyways.
Sources plz.Urza said:Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.
The most recent:Rydian said:Sources plz.Urza said:Except Windows is inherently a much less secure platform, and as such there are many ways to nullify or even bypass UAC completely through various holes in the kernel design, making it fairly useless.