>>> Recommended Security Software <<<

Ah it makes me laugh when I read threads like this.  None of the programs in existence will find, or remove a well written virus/bot/trojan.  Rootkits, programming flaws, secret API calls, windows holes/flaws, encryption, packing, binding, will thwart any of these programs to detect or remove the virus/bot/trojan.

Even a well known virus that has been out for 3+ years can be packed, encrypted, or binded to be fully undetectable to any anti-virus program available.  Adding a rootkit to that will decrease the chances of it being detected in the future while maintaining its presence in the system. 

Rootkits are probably the most interesting when added to malware, as it can change the data stream, whether it be from the RAM, HDD, or Network, to either tell the firewall or anti-virus that what it is looking for doesn't exist, or give it garbage.

Bottom line, don't waste your money or your resources for a 20% chance it might detect something.


Edited by venom - 05 Dec 2008 at 3:10am

Yes here DST is quite right, Root Kits are quite detectable, Symantec and Trend both regularly issue updates thwarting rootkits and detect unusual system activity associated with hidden processes.

Edited by Kliebor2 - 05 Dec 2008 at 1:26pm

Don't be foolish Venom, Anti-Virus is part of being a safe user of the Internet.

The other part is ignoring boastful foolish people that think they know everything and throw around idiotic challenges.

Regards and Merry Christmas,

Dave

Anti-virus only protects you from being a dumbass. For anyone with common sense, it's more of a hassle than anything.

Chiming in here quite late, but I thought I'd throw down the obvious point.  Anti Virus programs, free or not, are simply insurance.  Just as you buy insurance on a car or a home, you insure your software and hardware against attacks by purchasing, or not, Anti Virus programs.

When you've reduced it to that thick syrup in the bottom of the pan it comes down to peace of mind of the user.  Whether your anti virus works or not isn't the point, rather that the user is content in "feeling" that he or she is protected.  Granted, your chances are far greater that you'll use your firewall or anti virus program more often than you would claim on your home owners insurance, but the point is that it is something to insure your investment, whether you use it or not, and it is market driven to get people to buy into the concept that you "need" it.

Do you really "need" it?  That question is going to be answered by logical and factual evidence by the architects and engineers of the software, the columnists that review the software and by the basic and human need of man to feel secure within his own realm of understanding. 

Bottom line, we purchase or download for free these kinds of things because it makes us "feel" more secure.  Whether we really are more secure is irrelevant, but most people are driven by emotional intelligence and mass marketers understand this. Do anti virus marketers build software to truly protect you?  I believe they do.  They're some pretty fine programs out there to pick and choose from.  Are we more secure because of them?  Probable.  Does it meet a personal need of my own in the process?  Bingo!     

Edited by EdH63 - 21 Feb 2009 at 11:20am

I think you missed my point, DST4ME.  I'm advocating using something to secure your PC from the scourge that does exist however, many people will purchase security programs simply because it makes them feel safer as opposed to not having one at all.  As you said, does it mean they are 100% safe?  No. Let me offer a different word and say it's "assurance" instead.  I'm not saying that any software company would be on the hook as if you were insured by them because you bought their program... of course not. What I'm saying is that people by/use these programs to bring a self assured sense about them because it helps protect their investment, much like insurance does when applying it to a car or a home.  Because you have insurance doesn't mean something isn't going to happen.  But you are hoping you'll never need to use it.

Car dealers are my customers nationwide and in sales meetings, when I'm training finance and sales personnel to sell my products, I train on positive up-selling.  I other words, you wouldn't sell a car to a potential buyer by stating that, "eventhough this car has been crash tested and has a five star safety crash rating you could still suffer a hideous and horrible death if you were to get into an accident even with your seatbelt on".  The customer probably would reconsider your product at that point.

My point is that customers are not purchasing from emotional intelligence and will use these programs whether they're 100% convinced it will stop something from happening or not.  It absolutely does brings a fasle sense of security to the forefront which, in turn, triggers the impulse to need it.  Why by it if it brings a false sense of security?  Well, we really don't know it's false in the moment, do we?  Something is going to happen somewhere down the line, and by having the assurance that there is a program that is holding the front line, they will "feel" safer.  That doesn't mean your world won't cave in around you when your supposed software messiah allows the hacker through the door.  The willingness to purchase or use is greatly based, more than we realize, on the basic and emotional impulses of the buyer.  Depending on our past experiences, our desperation and how we've been sold, we will make a choice regardless if the program actually does what it says it will do to the extent we hope it will.

I'm not advocating one program over another rather, simply stating the common thread in the human buying habit.  People buy on impulse and emotion and not so much the logic in the program architecture.  You and I may purchase that way, but the majority is lead differently and that's why there are Best Buy sales people... DOH!  Just kidding all you BB people.  I just had to throw that out there.     






Edited by EdH63 - 21 Feb 2009 at 6:53pm

Norton2009 works superbly for me, even has a gaming feature that you enable and it uses less of your computers resources
i would recommend Hijack this only for stubborn bots that other programs wont get rid of

Just because I don't agree, it doesnot mean that I missed your point, I get your point, I don't agree with it. I never agree with making choiced by how you feel about it.

Edited by DST4ME - 21 Feb 2009 at 8:21pm

My pleasure, avira is good but like nod32 best, but remember what ever you download, always scan it first then open it and you will be OK with most AVs

I like to use my own firewall but once I go vista 64bit I am going with smart security.

I was one of the people who tested the Smart Security when it first came out and was in beta. its pretty good

well Smart Security's av is nod32 so that part of it is top notch, its the firewall of it that is new

I currently have Zone Alarm Security Suite 2009 & have had almost no problems.  My new gaming PC from DS will need to run Zone Alarm Extreme Security 2010 & I'm curious to know what you think about it?

ZA is not as good as eset, eset is lighter and faster.

I'm using what Harleyman is using... Spyware Doctor by PC Tools (PAID VERSION).  Very good all-in-one program and I haven't had any problems with it thus far.  I also use Spy Sweeper (PAID VERSION).

Yes, I am using Windows Firewall.  It is more than sufficient.  Spyware Doctor is, as I said, an all-in-one.  It provides your antivirus and a program called "IntelliGuard".  IntelliGuard offers you a very flexible settings platform to monitor your programs so that everything is taken care of.  Go to their site and read-up on it.  It's comprehensive enough to do the job, yet non-invasive where it goes protocol crazy.

Spy Sweeper is a program that has some redundant features but monitors a little differently. I use, as others will too, a variety of different programs that will overlap to some degree in their functionality.  This is because different programs will catch different things, so it's good to be redundant when it comes to these types of programs.  I will run some more than others, but they all get used.

I think one thing we want to keep in mind when it comes to protecting our investments is that there is less of a need to protect yourself from hackers as there is a need to protect yourselves from spyware, viruses and accumulated junk files and bad registry entries.  These are the things that most commonly occur that will corrupt your system.

If you take a program like Zone Alarm, which I had, and you look at the data file produced in the area of that program that allows you to review all the "attacks" against your computer, it can look like the freaking world is trying to get into your system.  However, that is the misconception.  The reality is firewall programs like ZA pick-up and register every hit that taps your IP port just passing by.  In other words, every time someone surfs by your IP port going somewhere else, ZA will register that as an attack and file it in the data center.  It is not an "attack", rather your FW registering the active hit in the port itself as the user moves by the line.  Custom firewalls can very expensive and generally unnecessary unless you are truly protecting yourself form hackers.  If you are protecting yourself against hackers then you won't be Joe User Americana.

Windows FW is more than sufficient.


Edited by EdH63 - 15 Oct 2009 at 4:39pm

Yeah, I had Zonealarm also. They were doing well until Vista came out, then went downhill (bugs, customer support, and other issues . . . whether that's their fault or Vista's, meh, take your pick).

Edited by Psimon - 15 Oct 2009 at 7:44pm