Ever Notice?

[hjlbx]

Hello,

Ever notice how some people change their AV more frequently than they change their underwear?

Is it not better to invest the time and effort into learning all the intricacies and subtleties of a single AV rather than continually jump around from one to the next?

I understand evaluation of AV to see if it meets expectations. That is not what I'm talking about.

I think there is a lot of boredom or someone misses the AV "toy" factor. Something to mess about with just to occupy their time.

I personally do not care so much about the software. The software is easy - it just takes time and effort in using it to eventually figure it all out. All the underlying knowledge though...that is what I care about.

The body of knowledge is vast. And not knowing some arcane, obscure fact can get you bit.

And just maybe I do not know what the hell I'm talking about...

Poke fun at self is good thing.

hjlbx

 

[jamescv7]

Unsatisfied (main reason)

As they explore more about computer security, it cause for them to be more conscious which result on something always lack on their setup. Therefore the main weapon here is your common sense to avoid all the things and be satisfied.

 

[VirusAttak]

Unsatisfied (main reason)

As they explore more about computer security, it cause for them to be more conscious which result on something always lack on their setup. Therefore the main weapon here is your common sense to avoid all the things and be satisfied.

I totally agree with @jamescv7 Un-satisfaction always comes in form of a "Change"

 

[scot]

It is upto their choice. I totally agree with all the opinions here.

 

[kiric96]

well, in my case in my every day journal i see people who dont care about what the AV does... it is like: install it and leave it... ahh but when for some reason you get infected... emm well they start to blame about that AV... it is useless, it doesnt detect and etc etc etc... they dont take the proper time to see how the AV works, how it behaves etc, most of the time if you tweak your settings you will have a solid rock in your system... like for example norton(everybody here in my country) say that is useless because it has a lowww detection rate.. but they dont know that norton focuses in behavioral analysis instead of malware detection... eset is another example, recently i saw a infection in my campus... eset took ages to add that malware... so we could see that the 80% of the university was infected... what they did about this??? ok, no detection, change the AV in this case avast was the solution... it was a simple infection just to search and delete...

here and anywhere the concept is this one "it doesnt work, just change fo something that does" xD

 

[Nico@FMA]

well, in my case in my every day journal i see people who dont care about what the AV does... it is like: install it and leave it... ahh but when for some reason you get infected... emm well they start to blame about that AV... it is useless, it doesnt detect and etc etc etc... they dont take the proper time to see how the AV works, how it behaves etc, most of the time if you tweak your settings you will have a solid rock in your system... like for example norton(everybody here in my country) say that is useless because it has a lowww detection rate.. but they dont know that norton focuses in behavioral analysis instead of malware detection... eset is another example, recently i saw a infection in my campus... eset took ages to add that malware... so we could see that the 80% of the university was infected... what they did about this??? ok, no detection, change the AV in this case avast was the solution... it was a simple infection just to search and delete...

here and anywhere the concept is this one "it doesnt work, just change fo something that does" xD

As a symantec expert (well wrong word/title) but after using Symantec/Norton for little over a decade or so i can tell you that you are wrong about the behavioral scanning by Norton.
Norton/Symantec is 60% signature based (20% of that 60% are old signatures the rest are Next gen type of signatures)
They use 20% Online based detection (rep system and cloud) and another 20% based upon Bloodhound, Sonar and Heur.
The reason why the detection seems so low, is because Norton/Symantec has a really low FP percentage and usually it is out of the box configured to only check for modified files AFTER installation. Yet with a simple switch in the menu you can open up a whole range of scanning that will significant increase its detection, protection but also its FP percentage.
Also it needs to be noted that Symantec products specially their latest packages do have one of the highest detection and removal scores around. Most of the more well rounded members here can testify to this.
Lots of the controversy about some of these brands like Norton and Mcafee are older then the tower of pisa.
Don't fall for it as its so 1960's lol. The truth is that Norton is a hell of a lot better then most people give it credit for.

That said ESET seem to have failed miserable at your university and everyone got infected.
LOOOOOL they did deserve to be infected IMO because any university network only being protected by just ESET? is asking to be infected.
Thats not ESET its fault, as ESET would have rocked the boat IF and only IF the university took the effort to secure its network to stop infections in the first place.

Cheers

 

[hjlbx]

Hello,

I am of mindset now choose solid, respectable option and stick with it.

I see members who use AV that does not rank high in tests but do not get infected.

Why is that?

I think they have knowledge and experience...is the primary reason.

AV software no substitute.

 

[donetao]

Hi! @hjlbx Personally all this hipe about my AV detects more than yours does is rather amusing to me. I have been using MSE, MBAM Pro,WOT,MABM Anti-Eploit for a long time.I have never been infected. Most members here will tell you that MSE is the worst AV you can have. I will tell you this my friend. I have replaced infected PC's that had AVG, Norton and MCAfee with MSE here in my village. The PC's run better and faster. The only time I have seen a PC with MSE get infected was when MSE hadn't been up dated and ran.
The way your PC gets infected is clicking on things that are waiting to infect you and being lazy when your surfing the Web. You can't just click on any damn thing you please and exspect your AV to protect you all the time.
That's my 2 cents!!
You can't click on crap like this and not get caught some time. The law of average will catch up with you. The thing that has helped my seniors stay safe the most is WOT!!

 

[Exterminator]

I have been using the same 2 AV/Security Suites for close to 20 years without an infection.Kaspersky & Eset and Eset since version 2 which was pre ESS.A few years back I started using EIS on Windows 7 installations when it was a 2 part suite and Kis 2015 & ESS 8 on Windows 8.1 depending on when I was given a license.
I would find it hard to use anything else when since I have been without an infection for so long.Of course that is not solely due to the AV programs but I feel better with them.
I do try other AV programs in Virtual Box especially on Windows 10 tech preview.I am of the menatality that if it aint broke don't fix it. I say stick with what works for you on your system regardless of what others say or some AV comparison reports.
I think many change because they like something new or the GUI is pleasing to the eye.They get a free license or base it off reports they see online.Personally I wouldn't care if the GUI was black & white if it did the job.

 

[Nico@FMA]

I have been using the same 2 AV/Security Suites for close to 20 years without an infection.Kaspersky & Eset and Eset since version 2 which was pre ESS.A few years back I started using EIS on Windows 7 installations when it was a 2 part suite and Kis 2015 & ESS 8 on Windows 8.1 depending on when I was given a license.
I would find it hard to use anything else when since I have been without an infection for so long.Of course that is not solely due to the AV programs but I feel better with them.
I do try other AV programs in Virtual Box especially on Windows 10 tech preview.I am of the menatality that if it aint broke don't fix it. I say stick with what works for you on your system regardless of what others say or some AV comparison reports.
I think many change because they like something new or the GUI is pleasing to the eye.They get a free license or base it off reports they see online.Personally I wouldn't care if the GUI was black & white if it did the job.

Well you got one hell of a point there buddy, you are so right its scary.
But on a serious note, ESET, KAV, Norton, Mcafee or any of the bigger and older names are fully mature and proven programs that in some cases have been developed so well, that they integrate better into the Windows OS then some of Windows its own programs.
And as @donetao said MSE is considered crap and i am personally one of those people that do consider MSE as absolute garbage.
Yet i do have to note that MSE does do its job on a average system, but usually when nothing is wrong it all seems good and this is exactly where the crappy part starts, MSE usually is capable enough to deal with detections IF detected.
But the moment your infection is a bit more exotic shall we say and has been developed with a little more then showing a "you are hacked" alert box in your screen, then MSE usually loses the battle or it claims that the system is clean again while infections run rampant.
And this is generally not even because MSE is bad, but its usually because the OS itself turns against MSE and locks it out.

Anyway as you said if it ain't broken don't fix it.

 

[cruelsister]

I believe there are a number of assumptions being made here that may not be valid:

1). That a given product will maintain a given effectiveness level over time. This is definitively untrue- due to financial considerations, a corporation may downsize in some areas that will adversely impact the effectiveness of a product due to a lack of qualified personnel.

2).That product development will occur consistent with the changing malware landscape.

3). A disregard for the potential of newer technologies emerging which will provide better options then were previously available.

So if any of the above cases are possible, only the truly oblivious will blindly stay with a given product for a prolonged period without considering other options.

 

[kiric96]

As a symantec expert (well wrong word/title) but after using Symantec/Norton for little over a decade or so i can tell you that you are wrong about the behavioral scanning by Norton.
Norton/Symantec is 60% signature based (20% of that 60% are old signatures the rest are Next gen type of signatures)
They use 20% Online based detection (rep system and cloud) and another 20% based upon Bloodhound, Sonar and Heur.
The reason why the detection seems so low, is because Norton/Symantec has a really low FP percentage and usually it is out of the box configured to only check for modified files AFTER installation. Yet with a simple switch in the menu you can open up a whole range of scanning that will significant increase its detection, protection but also its FP percentage.
Also it needs to be noted that Symantec products specially their latest packages do have one of the highest detection and removal scores around. Most of the more well rounded members here can testify to this.
Lots of the controversy about some of these brands like Norton and Mcafee are older then the tower of pisa.
Don't fall for it as its so 1960's lol. The truth is that Norton is a hell of a lot better then most people give it credit for.

That said ESET seem to have failed miserable at your university and everyone got infected.
LOOOOOL they did deserve to be infected IMO because any university network only being protected by just ESET? is asking to be infected.
Thats not ESET its fault, as ESET would have rocked the boat IF and only IF the university took the effort to secure its network to stop infections in the first place.

Cheers

i quit norton due to the fact that couldnt find any setting that will protect me "the way i want", (i end up with a comodo variant) every body here can tell that norton has an average detection rate.. and i found some FP during my experience... i agree that norton has a bunch of settings that can make it stronger... but i prefer malware to be detected by signatures rather than IPS or IDS norton is quite (still) buggy also. you can read my disappointments here. but please note that after this i tested the most recent product while signatures are the same.. it improved

and for the eset part... our main lab network is isolated from the rest of the campus (network) so it means that you can get infected by a computer there.. via usb sharing... but that would apply only for that room... even if the rooms are in the same "block" the other room will be safe... however we are in a third word country where those aspect are not important or well at least or teachers dont mind about security... may be they know that we are smart enought to protect ourselves from being infected.