Do you use : No Antivirus , FREE Antivirus , or PAID Antivirus and why?

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Another decent one is NIS , it's very light and runs smooth in the background.

 

[HyNrgy]

if your talking about Norton they ruined it for me a long time ago for a long time to come

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

They (Norton) recoded their lineup like 5 to 6 years ago , their protection software is first rate and very light.

 

[HyNrgy]

well, i admit has been over that since used...was great at the begining then to much resource hog for so long....just a bad taste if you will

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

It's one of the lightest on the market now , the only version I won't use is the 360.

 

[Skylyne]

Norton still has a fairly bad reputation with the security community (namely hackers). Until I see someone show they have actually improved their security measures, and are genuinely a safe software to use, I would recommend straying from them; Symantec in general, really.

 

[spooky2th]

Re: Skylyne,

I tried blocking all the ads. Kaspesky has a good ad blocking option plus a banner blocking option as well. Don't like to use those options. I like to get the full web site just minus the malware. On top of that, just visiting web sites alone gets unwanted stuff loaded to the comp drive, ads or no ads.

So many apps? This is why I like Kaspersky Internet Security. It does it all. And very well too. Load it and set it up the way you want and not have to keep up with multiple other apps.

I don't know why you've had such poor luck with the internet... I have run my personal computer with zero security software, and absolutely no firewall, which never got infected; and yes, I checked it with proper security software after a couple years passed, and it was clean as a whistle. I also rarely censored the sites I visited, and didn't exercise too much caution with browsing... but maybe it was browsing habits and techniques? Also, websites will only download rogue software onto your computer if the sites themselves are rogue; visiting Yahoo won't yield malware just by visiting their homepage (for example). Click jacking, malware ads, and counterfeit sites will give you silent installs, but simply loading a legitimate page (ie: Google, or Facebook) won't yield a silent install of malware. You can't do a rogue hosting of malware on a heavily trafficked public webpage without raising red flags, and doing so would likely get you caught. If you're getting silent downloads, you're most likely visiting websites that are pretty sketchy to begin with.

Kaspersky's 'Safe Money' feature is a decent attempt at securing on-line transactions, but it's a relatively poor method. Using certificates to "secure" a connection is easily bypassed by man-in-the-middle attacks, and offers no real security. They basically scan for OS vulnerabilities that are currently known, and tell you to update if you're out of date; and that's one of those things that you should be doing as it is. Their virtual keyboard would go ignored by a majority of users without a touchscreen, and the "secure keyboard" is only going to protect you from keyloggers... which is a relatively outdated method. I would say that keyloggers are an entry-level attack method, and/or are a fall back plan for other methods of attack. It's also a bit dumb to only use protection from keyloggers at particular times only... just saying.

Only trying to put it out there that Kaspersky is doing elementary security techniques that are easily bypassed. Not to mention, all of these can be done manually, with little effort. Regularly check your updates, manually check your SSL certifications (easy with most browsers, and relatively quick), and use the on-board virtual keyboard in Windows (Start Menu > Accessories > Ease of Access > On-Screen Keyboard, for those who are on Win7 and below). All of this could be easily performed in a couple minutes, and you can always speed things up with keyboard short-cuts, as well as using a browser that can check for certificate revocation (like Chrome). There's no real need to pay for any of this, and it only adds a couple minutes to your purchase times to do it manually. If it comes free with your security software (like Kaspersky), that's one thing; but buying Kaspersky because of this is like paying someone to do basic arithmetic for you... it's just so easy to do. I have to put it like that because that's the only way to make it stick out; it is that easy.

I'll consider doing a full-on bareback experience with the internet when I have a new primary computer... run my old machine with absolutely no protection measures, and with no manually installed browser extensions (using either Iron or Aviator), and I will only use basic browsing safety techniques. If I can do some screen capture crap, I will; and I'll see about uploading it to youtube for CIS 101 purposes. No intentional software installs from shady websites, etc., etc., etc.. It will be fun to see exactly what happens. I haven't seen anyone really destroy Win7 very easily, so I'm wondering just how easy it is to muck it up like so many people claim. It's pretty easy to avoid getting infected when you are actively looking out for shady things.

Webroot:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832296083&cm_re=WEBROOT-_-32-296-083-_-Product
AntiVirus 2015 1 Year 1 Device PC - Download

$3.99

Since I don't have any invisible money (aka digital currency on a debit/credit card), I'll see about using someone else's... with permission, of course. Don't need people thinking I'm a fraudster now, do I?

I don't have problems any more especially since I found kaspersky. kaspersky's firewall does pop up on seemingly safe web site on acassion, with warnings about trogens, worms or whatever malware that it has stopped. I have it set to let me know when major events or when malware has been stopped. Lot's of times I check out the virus or whatever it was and look it up to see what's going on.

It has even popped up in yahoo mail at times from an ad or something.

 

[Skylyne]

I don't have problems any more especially since I found kaspersky. kaspersky's firewall does pop up on seemingly safe web site on acassion, with warnings about trogens, worms or whatever malware that it has stopped. I have it set to let me know when major events or when malware has been stopped. Lot's of times I check out the virus or whatever it was and look it up to see what's going on.

It has even popped up in yahoo mail at times from an ad or something.

I can believe Yahoo ads would contain something on occasion... they aren't known for their security measures, in any way. Not to mention, they actually are best friends with the NSA and GCHQ, so some of the blocked malware could likely be from one of those two intelligence agencies; wouldn't surprise me.

Care to define what "problems" you no longer experience? Are they computer slow-down problems, or persistent malware infections? What kind of websites does make it pop up with warnings/notifications? Do you have a list of blocked/quarantined items? Since your answers are extremely vague, it's actually quite difficult to believe. When you say "seemingly safe web site," are you talking about common sites like Facebook, or even Tom's Hardware; or are you talking about random websites that pop up from a search engine, and look harmless based on content?

I'm trying to figure out exactly what has improved for you. I might use that information for further research, or personal recommendations; I don't know yet. If you want to PM me some links to places that throw up red flags for you, I can check them out, and let you know if I think Kaspersky is actually protecting you, or giving you false alarms. Since I have trained myself to browse the web a particular way, I don't know what other people are experiencing, and if they are even having real threats stopped when their AV software says so. I'm trying to figure that out, since you kind of opened the door for it lol.

 

[Njwootton]

Free antivirus. I don't want spam in my computer but on the other hand I don't want to pay for something and sometimes it just gets in the way. So, what I do is avast + malwarebytes. So anything I can stop I do and anything that gets through I delete,

 

[spooky2th]

I have had stuff blocked from Tom's in the past. I don't think there are any safe web sites as hackers, criminals and govt criminals can and do infect web sites covertly. Most of the times the web site owners don' have a clue. I never go to facebook or any other of the data mining social web sites. At the least, facebook adds tracking malware (probably more) to computers that keeps on tracking and sending info back to facebook and where ever, long after logging out. I read an article about a higher-up CIA agent saying that facebook is one of their most useful tools for population control.

What has improved for me is that I am not getting infected any longer. I am getting bolder as time goes by and getting reckless here and there with my surfing now-a-days. I just hope Kaspersky doesn't let me down. Most of the hackers are in russia and now china is coming up second place fast. Russian hackers hate Kaspersky. The russians know what they are doing. Guess that's why Kaspersky is always rated so high.

Don't have anything in my kaspersky quarantine or reports now. I have them set at the the default to empty quarantine and delete reports after 30 days. Have not had a warning or any other popups in a while with kaspersky. Ran a full scan last night and went to bed setting the comp to shut down after the scan finished and today the report came back clean.

I don't have anything specific to share right now as all my reports and quarantine are clean now. I used to cruise porn sites some and Kaspersky was busy then. Busy and kept my comp clean.

 

[Skylyne]

What you're talking about sounds more like standard internet cookies than actual malware. Cookies aren't even the same thing as malware, though they can always collect just as much browsing information/etc.. Some sites use a lot of cookies, and others don't; it just depends on how involved they like to get. Realistically, cookies are harmless; the only way they can really be "harmful" is if they are harvested by a hacker, and then used to spoof your internet sessions (ie: if you have an always logged in account to a certain website). Even with that said, there isn't too much information that can be collected beyond browsing habits, patterns, and very basic eavesdropping info. In reality, unless you're using a VPN, blocking cookies does nothing; and even then, not all VPN providers are truly secure and anonymous.

I would deduce Kaspersky was blocking basic cookies, and similar internet cache; nothing I would really consider threatening. I have seen software claim cookies/etc. to be "malware" or "threats," though, and I find that extremely deceitful. I think that's more of a selling point for software companies; a means of tricking John Doe into buying their software, because John has no idea what he's looking at. I definitely would like to see screenshot of your quarantine log when it fills up again, as it would help immensely. Do you know what kind of infections you were getting? Was it actually malware, or was it "infections" that were things like cookies, and other non-malicious data that was really just junk files?

Come to think of it, most AV software I've seen labels cookies as some sort of "threat," which is really deceptive. If you want to avoid them being on your computer, then there are very easy methods to prevent them from being used. Some websites require cookies for things (like when you log in), so I would say that was the reason for your "threats" being flagged on places like Tom's. Also, you're half right about covert infections on public websites... it's a slightly difficult way of putting it. Can it happen? Yes. Is it likely that it will stay on the website? Only if it's done right (which is relatively difficult when the website is run correctly). Even then, it doesn't take much effort to see a bug in the code when there are updates made to the webpage. The chances of a public server being infected by a rogue/covert operative are slim. Also, anyone who's trying to infect your computer for surveillance purposes likely has a better method of spying on you... just saying. Viruses seem to mostly be used for scamming people; it's always about the money. Since the hackers that are trying to get money don't need to try too hard to attract people to their websites (misleading URLs alone are highly effective), then the likelihood of you getting an infection from a website like Tom's, or or Yahoo, written by such a scammer, is going to be relatively minimal; high risk, and minor gain for the hackers, compared to scamming users into using their fake sites.

Also, infected emails are much more effective, and pose significantly smaller risks, than infecting a major website. There's relatively minor gain from infecting a public website, unless it's for surveillance reasons; and even then you can easily take basic security measures to help prevent the silent installs of practically anything that would infect your computer (usually from Java script exploits, ads, pdf viewer exploits, and other auto-run things that are easily disabled). The methods used are easier to infect users by luring them to a place littered with malware/viruses than to infect major websites; not to mention, the pay out is much more satisfying for the amount of work that is done by comparison.

While you can't stop the infections nobody has reported/found yet, I think you get the picture. Definitely would like to see a quarantine list when it fills up again. Feel free to PM me about it; I'll take a peak.

 

[ImranKhan1992]

I use this Paid Kaspersky Internet Security.
Kaspersky Internet Security 2014 1 PC 1 Year - Flipkart.com $7.56

 

[Skylyne]

Not a bad price, at all, for Kaspersky.

I just shelled out the $4 for Webroot to give them a go, and not feel pressured for time to test their software (something I hate about trial software). If I had the time to dedicate to clean removals, and resetting the trial periods (I could...) I'd bother with it; but I figured it wasn't worth cheaping out for $4 haha. I'll continue the Qihoo testing when I finally replace my current primary PC (hoping to get that done sooner than later, as it actually costs me money to not have it), and I'll be testing out Webroot for a while. I'll write up something for it later, if anyone is interested.

 

[Exlord]

I have been using comodo internet security for couple years now. I have not encountered any virus problems . it's free and it does it's job and with a little customization and personalization you won't even know that its there ...

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Bitdefender here , very light , just like the recoded Norton.

 

[Wizard Bear]

Nope. Mostly because I hate those annoying pop-ups, don't go on any shady websites, and download games through steam (And BF4 through origin...).

 

[spooky2th]

What you're talking about sounds more like standard internet cookies than actual malware. Cookies aren't even the same thing as malware, though they can always collect just as much browsing information/etc.. Some sites use a lot of cookies, and others don't; it just depends on how involved they like to get. Realistically, cookies are harmless; the only way they can really be "harmful" is if they are harvested by a hacker, and then used to spoof your internet sessions (ie: if you have an always logged in account to a certain website). Even with that said, there isn't too much information that can be collected beyond browsing habits, patterns, and very basic eavesdropping info. In reality, unless you're using a VPN, blocking cookies does nothing; and even then, not all VPN providers are truly secure and anonymous.

I would deduce Kaspersky was blocking basic cookies, and similar internet cache; nothing I would really consider threatening. I have seen software claim cookies/etc. to be "malware" or "threats," though, and I find that extremely deceitful. I think that's more of a selling point for software companies; a means of tricking John Doe into buying their software, because John has no idea what he's looking at. I definitely would like to see screenshot of your quarantine log when it fills up again, as it would help immensely. Do you know what kind of infections you were getting? Was it actually malware, or was it "infections" that were things like cookies, and other non-malicious data that was really just junk files?

Come to think of it, most AV software I've seen labels cookies as some sort of "threat," which is really deceptive. If you want to avoid them being on your computer, then there are very easy methods to prevent them from being used. Some websites require cookies for things (like when you log in), so I would say that was the reason for your "threats" being flagged on places like Tom's. Also, you're half right about covert infections on public websites... it's a slightly difficult way of putting it. Can it happen? Yes. Is it likely that it will stay on the website? Only if it's done right (which is relatively difficult when the website is run correctly). Even then, it doesn't take much effort to see a bug in the code when there are updates made to the webpage. The chances of a public server being infected by a rogue/covert operative are slim. Also, anyone who's trying to infect your computer for surveillance purposes likely has a better method of spying on you... just saying. Viruses seem to mostly be used for scamming people; it's always about the money. Since the hackers that are trying to get money don't need to try too hard to attract people to their websites (misleading URLs alone are highly effective), then the likelihood of you getting an infection from a website like Tom's, or or Yahoo, written by such a scammer, is going to be relatively minimal; high risk, and minor gain for the hackers, compared to scamming users into using their fake sites.

Also, infected emails are much more effective, and pose significantly smaller risks, than infecting a major website. There's relatively minor gain from infecting a public website, unless it's for surveillance reasons; and even then you can easily take basic security measures to help prevent the silent installs of practically anything that would infect your computer (usually from Java script exploits, ads, pdf viewer exploits, and other auto-run things that are easily disabled). The methods used are easier to infect users by luring them to a place littered with malware/viruses than to infect major websites; not to mention, the pay out is much more satisfying for the amount of work that is done by comparison.

While you can't stop the infections nobody has reported/found yet, I think you get the picture. Definitely would like to see a quarantine list when it fills up again. Feel free to PM me about it; I'll take a peak.

Kaspersky doesn't warn about or quarantine cookies. It does have a browser configuration tool as well as a cleaner tool and a vulnerability scan that shows where the system and browser is vulnerable with fixes for what it finds.

What is blocked I usually look up especially if I don't know what it was and Kaspersky has blocked some serious stuff in the past. Just checked again and nothing neutralized, nothing blocked and nothing quarantined in the past 30 days.

Just playing an innocent game on the internet can be harmful to systems.

Kaspersky Lab Discovers Malicious Game of Tic-Tac-Toe

http://usa.kaspersky.com/about-us/press-center/press-blog/kaspersky-lab-discovers-malicious-game-tic-tac-toe

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Kaspersky tends to find a lot of firsts.
A+

 

[Skylyne]

Kaspersky doesn't warn about or quarantine cookies. It does have a browser configuration tool as well as a cleaner tool and a vulnerability scan that shows where the system and browser is vulnerable with fixes for what it finds.

What is blocked I usually look up especially if I don't know what it was and Kaspersky has blocked some serious stuff in the past. Just checked again and nothing neutralized, nothing blocked and nothing quarantined in the past 30 days.

Just playing an innocent game on the internet can be harmful to systems.

Kaspersky Lab Discovers Malicious Game of Tic-Tac-Toe

http://usa.kaspersky.com/about-us/press-center/press-blog/kaspersky-lab-discovers-malicious-game-tic-tac-toe

Well, as I said, the likelihood of someone actually embedding a virus on a heavily trafficked website has a minimal risk/reward payout. I did use cookies as a primary example, as cache can occasionally be stored and considered malicious by some software; however, that doesn't mean that I'm limiting the possibilities to what I've said. I find it very difficult to believe that it was blocking very much malicious software. Based on what you've said, some of the protection you've had is based on Kaspersky blocking the website entirely... I've always ignored those warnings (from every single warning system I have) and I've never had a single genuine virus/infection because of that disobedience; not even a single piece of malware (yes, I ran MBam and other programs to check). I've never had a single infection from the internet, in over five years, and I have even tested things by going to some very sketchy websites, with minimal protection. Either I'm using a superior browser, or something else is going on. It's difficult for me to believe that you've had so many things genuinely blocked, as it just doesn't add up to me. I can believe that certain malware was blocked by some websites, but I really would like to know what websites these are; that might change my perception, because your browsing habits may vary from mine by miles. Certain websites scream out "I'm a host to malware" to me, and I've not once had a genuine infection that any AV software picked up. I've even tested my latest batch of security software (Bitdefender, Qihoo, and now Webroot) by going to some very sketchy places, and ignoring all warning signs of infected websites. Not one actual threat has been detected from using these websites, even though the initial warning page said it was "known for" or was a "known host of" malware. I'll even take things a bit further, and see what happens. I'll come back if things are interesting... but know that I always have my system's security software set to a pretty decent paranoia level with things. I already have a lot of internet traffic on my computer as is, so the software has a decent amount to comb through to begin with. I'll sacrifice performance for proper security measures with testing.

Now, in regards to that trojan game you linked, that almost looks like your typical fear monger article; honestly. With no source of where the game was obtained, or even mentioning how a user would end up downloading it, there's very little evidence to make me think that it's a real threat to those who actually understand proper browsing techniques. It all comes back to what I've said before: your security software should be your last line of defence. If you're installing viruses on your own, visiting shady websites, or even downloading software from an unknown provider, then your browsing habits need to change... you don't need to find a security software that blocks everything. If your security software ever fails you, and you use horrible browsing habits, then you're beyond SOL. Getting an infection in this manner would be like spilling hot coffee on your lap, then complaining that the person who sold you the coffee didn't warn you it was hot... and the cup was obviously hot to the touch. I understand why people want a security software that blocks most everything, but it's unrealistic to expect these companies to provide such a service for users who have no internal filter for their browsing habits.

If your security software needs to work overtime to protect you, then I will easily conclude that your browsing habits are the real threat. Just being blunt about it. It's difficult for me to believe that so many people have a similar issue to you; I've heard a similar story with many AV wares, from many people over the last few years. I just can't figure out what people are doing that makes their AV software catch/flag so many things. Every time I run an AV software, I practically never see it. The only times I do are when I do manual scans (always yielding false positives), or when I get false positives during live scans. I just don't see how people subject themselves to so many viruses, because I just have never seen a security software ever bother me with a genuine threat that I wouldn't have noticed on my own... I'm starting to wonder if the "average" user just trusts every single website on the internet to be harmless, and is often browsing websites that would rank in the top 100 infected websites on the web. A bit far-fetched of a thought, but it's the only thing that really makes sense to me.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Kaspersky , Bitdefender , Norton are all great security suites.

 

[spooky2th]

Kaspersky doesn't warn about or quarantine cookies. It does have a browser configuration tool as well as a cleaner tool and a vulnerability scan that shows where the system and browser is vulnerable with fixes for what it finds.

What is blocked I usually look up especially if I don't know what it was and Kaspersky has blocked some serious stuff in the past. Just checked again and nothing neutralized, nothing blocked and nothing quarantined in the past 30 days.

Just playing an innocent game on the internet can be harmful to systems.

Kaspersky Lab Discovers Malicious Game of Tic-Tac-Toe

http://usa.kaspersky.com/about-us/press-center/press-blog/kaspersky-lab-discovers-malicious-game-tic-tac-toe

Well, as I said, the likelihood of someone actually embedding a virus on a heavily trafficked website has a minimal risk/reward payout. I did use cookies as a primary example, as cache can occasionally be stored and considered malicious by some software; however, that doesn't mean that I'm limiting the possibilities to what I've said. I find it very difficult to believe that it was blocking very much malicious software. Based on what you've said, some of the protection you've had is based on Kaspersky blocking the website entirely... I've always ignored those warnings (from every single warning system I have) and I've never had a single genuine virus/infection because of that disobedience; not even a single piece of malware (yes, I ran MBam and other programs to check). I've never had a single infection from the internet, in over five years, and I have even tested things by going to some very sketchy websites, with minimal protection. Either I'm using a superior browser, or something else is going on. It's difficult for me to believe that you've had so many things genuinely blocked, as it just doesn't add up to me. I can believe that certain malware was blocked by some websites, but I really would like to know what websites these are; that might change my perception, because your browsing habits may vary from mine by miles. Certain websites scream out "I'm a host to malware" to me, and I've not once had a genuine infection that any AV software picked up. I've even tested my latest batch of security software (Bitdefender, Qihoo, and now Webroot) by going to some very sketchy places, and ignoring all warning signs of infected websites. Not one actual threat has been detected from using these websites, even though the initial warning page said it was "known for" or was a "known host of" malware. I'll even take things a bit further, and see what happens. I'll come back if things are interesting... but know that I always have my system's security software set to a pretty decent paranoia level with things. I already have a lot of internet traffic on my computer as is, so the software has a decent amount to comb through to begin with. I'll sacrifice performance for proper security measures with testing.

Now, in regards to that trojan game you linked, that almost looks like your typical fear monger article; honestly. With no source of where the game was obtained, or even mentioning how a user would end up downloading it, there's very little evidence to make me think that it's a real threat to those who actually understand proper browsing techniques. It all comes back to what I've said before: your security software should be your last line of defence. If you're installing viruses on your own, visiting shady websites, or even downloading software from an unknown provider, then your browsing habits need to change... you don't need to find a security software that blocks everything. If your security software ever fails you, and you use horrible browsing habits, then you're beyond SOL. Getting an infection in this manner would be like spilling hot coffee on your lap, then complaining that the person who sold you the coffee didn't warn you it was hot... and the cup was obviously hot to the touch. I understand why people want a security software that blocks most everything, but it's unrealistic to expect these companies to provide such a service for users who have no internal filter for their browsing habits.

If your security software needs to work overtime to protect you, then I will easily conclude that your browsing habits are the real threat. Just being blunt about it. It's difficult for me to believe that so many people have a similar issue to you; I've heard a similar story with many AV wares, from many people over the last few years. I just can't figure out what people are doing that makes their AV software catch/flag so many things. Every time I run an AV software, I practically never see it. The only times I do are when I do manual scans (always yielding false positives), or when I get false positives during live scans. I just don't see how people subject themselves to so many viruses, because I just have never seen a security software ever bother me with a genuine threat that I wouldn't have noticed on my own... I'm starting to wonder if the "average" user just trusts every single website on the internet to be harmless, and is often browsing websites that would rank in the top 100 infected websites on the web. A bit far-fetched of a thought, but it's the only thing that really makes sense to me.

Have used KIS for many years now. That's why I can say with experience that KIS has blocked many serious threats. And yes, it was partly do to my surfing habits.For a while I used to search and browse to web sites with known infections to test KIS and have been pleasantly surprised.

As for the article about the tic-tac-to game, there was this link in the article.

https://securelist.com/blog/research/67004/tic-tac-toe-with-a-twist/

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Thanks for the link , nice bit of info.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

http://www.av-test.org/en/

Another great source.

 

[lightcloud]

Yes that is a great source SR-71 Blackbird.

As I will be building a PC with Windows 8.1. I presume Avira and Bitdefender are the best for Internet security according to AV-Test.

Great source mate. Ant I it was last updated recently in April 2014, which I like, new updates.

 

[spooky2th]

http://www.av-test.org/en/

Another great source.

Looking at the info in the link, if I had to pick another protection software to use besides KIS, I think I'd go with Bitdefender.