- Nov 15, 2012
- 1,765
Which Antivirus do you dislike?
- Thread starter MrExplorer
- Start date
- Status
3link9 said:
Sandbox or BB on its own would be a starting point.
Won't bash at you because of this:
Despite MSE being decent enough for average user, one factor to consider is browsing habits and the type of sites among other things. I have said before and will say it again: I would never revisit MSE on windows 7 due to its slow scan speed and removal. But MSE on normal users have 2 extreme results (good and bad)
To me, any AV would protect me or even AVless, but I have finished a test recently on one computer with a user who somehow always gets infected (browsing habits range mainly from web surfing just about anything as well as some downloads...
No AV: 1 month later - 3 hours spring cleaning using different tools
MSE: 1 month later - spring cleaning that lasted nearly 2 hours using different tools
avast!: 1 week later - Ransomware: According to avast logs it was picked up... still a mystery how it still ended up infected.
AVG: 2 weeks later - unbootable (somehow it picked up a system file into quarantine). Easy fix
Panda: 3 days later was called to identify why browsing was slow as well as system boot/responsiveness: 2 light infections.
Final test: 25 days only: EAM trial: no infections, no complaints. He is now a happy user of EAM.
Also advised him to stop doing certain things and seems to have done the trick
- Jan 21, 2012
- 639
kaspersky 2012 was really slow and heavy, but 2013 version s quite OK, i am not telling that its lite, but its OK.... i am using 2013 version now, but its updates are really very slow, dont know why they still following that slow update process !!!
McAfee is another, last i used 2012 version, and i felt heavy, dont know how is 2013 version though....
Used AVG free 2013, but faced many problems like slow response and others
McAfee is another, last i used 2012 version, and i felt heavy, dont know how is 2013 version though....
Used AVG free 2013, but faced many problems like slow response and others
- Nov 4, 2012
- 133
norton ... last time i used norton it infected my pc with a virus instead of removing any and that was the last time my pc was infected after switching to comodo my life is eased
kaspersky...... really heavy on resources use to hog cpu alot while scanning
avg .. managed to clean an infection a long time back but still much heavier than kaspersky.
emsisoft..... best detection best results still hoged out cpu.
avast.... was really fast really light but slowed down the internet speed
eset.... light good and easy....
kaspersky...... really heavy on resources use to hog cpu alot while scanning
avg .. managed to clean an infection a long time back but still much heavier than kaspersky.
emsisoft..... best detection best results still hoged out cpu.
avast.... was really fast really light but slowed down the internet speed
eset.... light good and easy....
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
Biozfear said:
I know a lot of you are paranoid users, but Microsoft already provides one of the best security features if you choose to use it correctly called UAC.
Think about it, if UAC is at default settings, do you really think any malware will get around it, if you don't approve it?
Just simply deny any unknowns prompted by UAC and you will never get one single infection. It is better then any third-party behavior blocker.
UAC is even better on Windows 8. I rather utilize that security feature then to add a bunch of third-party HIPS, sandboxes and behavior blockers which would cause compatibility problems and make using your system less user-friendly.
If you learn to utilize UAC to its full potential, Windows Defender/MSE + Windows Firewall is all you really need.
It is a lot easier to learn how to utilize UAC, then to try to learn other advanced protection features.
Thanks.
- Oct 22, 2011
- 860
UAC does help but for the normal user, It will get annoying and they will just click allow for everything especially since it doesn't include warnings like most HIPS and BB's do.
Once again, my friends and my older cousin (who I consider the king of Malware infections) are prime examples.
Once again, my friends and my older cousin (who I consider the king of Malware infections) are prime examples.
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
3link9 said:
Normal users don't know how to use other advanced protections either, they will click allow on them as well or even disable them to allow something that they want to run including malware. If UAC is set on default, it will only notify you when programs try to make changes to Windows settings.
PC security only applies to the users who want to learn to protect their systems and UAC will do that for those who want to learn how to utilize its features. Once again UAC is much easier to learn then most other advanced protection tools. You simply deny anything that you don't want anything about, most programs will still function since they will not need to change Windows settings and malware will always be blocked.
Thanks.
- Jul 26, 2012
- 353
Avast!
`cause i`m sick and tired of desinfecting pc which have avast installed. last week for example i desinfected a pc "running" avast (the quote is because i was sarcastic `cause avast`s services were shut down by malware).it was full of trojans!!!i used malwarebytes and hitman pro to desinfect them..their self defenses are poor. their detection rates are poor. these are the av tests i like not av-comparatives or others..this doesn`t happen to computers running eset or bitdefender.(i know because i install them).i used to recommend avast to friends. maybe a couple of years back. not now. not anymore. i only recommend (as free security) avg, panda cloud, avira. even MSE but no more avast!
this is only my opinion. hope i didn`t upset someone here!
cheers!
`cause i`m sick and tired of desinfecting pc which have avast installed. last week for example i desinfected a pc "running" avast (the quote is because i was sarcastic `cause avast`s services were shut down by malware).it was full of trojans!!!i used malwarebytes and hitman pro to desinfect them..their self defenses are poor. their detection rates are poor. these are the av tests i like not av-comparatives or others..this doesn`t happen to computers running eset or bitdefender.(i know because i install them).i used to recommend avast to friends. maybe a couple of years back. not now. not anymore. i only recommend (as free security) avg, panda cloud, avira. even MSE but no more avast!
this is only my opinion. hope i didn`t upset someone here!
cheers!
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
I will say the one I dislike is Norton because I have never had a good experience with it.It is terrible to remove from a system and has screwed up many a machine.To be fair to it though I have not installed or used it for a few years.
As for Kaspersky I find it very easy to use.I have nevr been infected while using it.It is a "heavy" program but my system handles it fine.I have never had update problems or experienced long update times.It has never caused problems on any system or OS I have used it on.Overpriced maybe but personally I think there are many others that are can be put into the overpriced category also.
Not a Norton "hater" or a Kaspersky "fan boy" just my personal experiences with these 2 programs
As for Kaspersky I find it very easy to use.I have nevr been infected while using it.It is a "heavy" program but my system handles it fine.I have never had update problems or experienced long update times.It has never caused problems on any system or OS I have used it on.Overpriced maybe but personally I think there are many others that are can be put into the overpriced category also.
Not a Norton "hater" or a Kaspersky "fan boy" just my personal experiences with these 2 programs
In my opinion, all amtiviruses are about the same, the reason I prefer MSE over other AVs is because it doesn't break computers as all the listed antiiviruses have done in the past. To me, that's a good reason to dislike most but I don't.
The only antivirus that I voted for in this poll is Bit Defender. I voted for it because antiviruses with BD engine are the only antiviruses that made my computer run badly. I even tried workarounds, something that I am not normally willing to do. I don't do workarounds to make software work along other programs, in my case Sandboxie. My feelings are worst for Bit Defenders cousin, Bull Guard. Trying BG, I experienced same problems as with BD but it was worst because I had a hard time uninstalling it.
A couple of posters in this thread brush aside Sandboxie and/or sandboxing all the time, the statement that I ma going to make is for our younger users and is based on my personal experience using SBIE for four years.
If you use Sandbocie all the time, you wont get infected. Period. You can run it along most of the antiviruses that are in the poll, it wont matter which one you choose because the AV will be there only for the ride. If you learn and use Sandboxie properly and know what it doesn't do, you will never get infected again.
Bo
The only antivirus that I voted for in this poll is Bit Defender. I voted for it because antiviruses with BD engine are the only antiviruses that made my computer run badly. I even tried workarounds, something that I am not normally willing to do. I don't do workarounds to make software work along other programs, in my case Sandboxie. My feelings are worst for Bit Defenders cousin, Bull Guard. Trying BG, I experienced same problems as with BD but it was worst because I had a hard time uninstalling it.
A couple of posters in this thread brush aside Sandboxie and/or sandboxing all the time, the statement that I ma going to make is for our younger users and is based on my personal experience using SBIE for four years.
If you use Sandbocie all the time, you wont get infected. Period. You can run it along most of the antiviruses that are in the poll, it wont matter which one you choose because the AV will be there only for the ride. If you learn and use Sandboxie properly and know what it doesn't do, you will never get infected again.
Bo
- Jan 7, 2013
- 325
exterminator20 said:
Must have been older version,2007- I guess? :/ cause the latest (2010+) version of Norton are easy-to-remove once..also they improved lot of in every room that were left by unsatisfied clients. Norton works kick-butt now
Biozfear said:The same can be said to the users who know what they are doing and running any AV or no AV won't make a difference either
Hey, How did you know, how did you know I was talking about you?
Just kidding. You are right, it can be said the same of people that know what they doing but there is one little difference.
Whats the difference? If you are running sandboxed, you can make mistakes and they wont hurt you. Thats it. Using the sandbox allows users to make mistakes and get away with it. Isn't that nice?
....and that is something that is not so when your security depends on what you know or an antivirus or any kind of security program where you have to make a decision cause there is always a chance of making a mistake.
Bo
bo.elam said:
The same could be applied to Toolwiz Timefreeze in freeze mode, or a paid solution Shadow in Shadow mode.
Or the user could use BufferZone Pro.
On a side note, Sandboxie can be a bit of a task for the beginner entry user to configure it properly. Most will probably run free version at stock settings and give up on configuring since they will not read up walls of text guides and what not. Thats the traditional human behavior.
Payback said:
Norton still suffers from Removal issues even in 2013 version. Not many systems affected as pre 2012/2011 but still enough for users to be aware of it.
I had trouble removing NAV 2012 from my other laptop for example, while on the gaming one only had a small hiccup.
Norton being very good is still subjective to users opinions, which is the same for nearly all security solutions (excluding Anvi, Iobit Malware Fighter from that list).
Biozfear said:
You mention BB and HIPS all the time as viable solutions that can be used along an AV but not sandboxing/virtualization. The programs that you just mentioned use sandboxing and/or virtualization and are also ignored by you. You called SBIE, a few days ago, "Adequate". Please, look in the dictionary what that word means. That word and SBIE has nothing to do with each other.
About this kind of programs being difficult. Biozfear, honestly, are there any programs available that are easier to use than SD or TimeFreeze? I ask, because I dont know any.
Difficult programs? To me, those are the ones that ask users what to do. If the user makes the wrong choice, the game is over. HIPS and BB work that way.
Programs that use Sandboxing or virtualization treat every program the same and the user has only one concern really. That is what is recovered out of the sandbox and installed in your system.
About SBIE with default settings. Most of the people I know in life that are using SBIE are using it on default settings and dont get infected. Settings are there for you and me but for most users, they don't need to make any changes other than 1) Set the sandbox to delete on closing, 2) Set your browser to save bookmarks and 3) Set SBIE to be able to save files out of the sandbox.
Tzuk is a pretty smart guy. He created a default settings sandbox that is usable and safe at the same time. Well balanced so it would be easy for new users but strong enough to contain most malware if not all. Let me finish by saying that SBIE can be learned as you go, users don't need to learn everything in one day. Four years later, I am still learning something new everyday. No BS, it is true.
Bo
- Status
Similar threads
