How sure are you about your AV ?

[DeathtoGnomes]

According to these folks, only 3 AV programs were capable of protecting your system against the ETERNALBLUE exploit installing the DOUBLEPULSAR backdoor.

Read it all here: https://www.mrg-effitas.com/eternalblue-vs-internet-security-suites-and-nextgen-protections/

 

[Batou1986]

I find that I am my own best AV system

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

me and Mbytes cant agree more.

 

[jboydgolfer]

If only the license i purchased for Malwarebytes would protect me from ALL virus'

 

[Ferrum Master]

Like a surpise...

I am sure the AV's can be exploited themselves.

Keep in mind... there are more zero days in the wild... it is electronics warfare on certain level, backup, don't do stupid browsing and warez... is it too much asked?

 

[ERazer]

MSE, malwarebytes, and common sense

 

[Solaris17]

This is understandable. but Microsoft patched the SMBv1 bug a month or two ago. I'd like to take this time to stress that you should NOT base your AV effectiveness off of a wild zero day that became popular in the news. Something that catches infections a high percentage of the time is a better bet. There are other infections that exist.

 

[Kursah]

Also to add to what Sol said, it is best to not only rely on one AVAM solution. That just asks for getting into trouble.

That being said I've been quite impressed with the new Windows 10 Defender "Creator's Edition" and I've used MBAM premium for years.

Keeping several other manual scan clients and quick free AVAM install solutions on-hand.

Hey @Solaris17 you should post the link to your AV thread in your sig dude...that is one of the most useful threads here... might as well give it a little advertisement love!

 

[Bill_Bright]

Not buying that article. It seems to assume our computers are still vulnerable to the exploit. If you keep Windows updated, there's nothing to protect. Microsoft pushed out the patch in March.

MSE, malwarebytes, and common sense

Or if you have W8 or W10, then WD, Malwarebytes and common sense.

 

[dirtyferret]

anyone use malwarebytes ransom ware beta?

 

[Bill_Bright]

anyone use malwarebytes ransom ware beta?

Ummm, not sure why anyone would. The new version of Malwarebytes (Malwarebytes Antimalware/MBAM is history) includes Ransomware protection. If you look at the Malwarebytes Ransomware Beta site, it has not been updated since April 2016.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Not buying that article. It seems to assume our computers are still vulnerable to the exploit. If you keep Windows updated, there's nothing to protect. Microsoft pushed out the patch in March.
Or if you have W8 or W10, then WD, Malwarebytes and common sense.

so that means we can count on m$ to 100% protect us as long as windows is updated?

 

[Bill_Bright]

so that means we can count on m$ to 100% protect us as long as windows is updated?

I was specifically talking about this one exploit. Folks who didn't dink with Windows Update defaults and allowed Windows Update to apply the patch last March were not affected because the vulnerability no longer existed. So at that point, it did not matter which anti-malware solution they used.

Those who were affected had not applied the patch.

Are you suggesting there are absolutes? That is, is there any program or company you can count on 100% to protect you? Of course there isn't. But for sure, keeping Windows fully updated is one of the best protection insurance we can use.

 

[R-T-B]

I actually use no antivirus. Haven't for years. I even disable Windows Defender. It's amazing what common sense and a good firewall/Windows Update policy will do.

I haven't had an infection in over a decade, and that was my brother. But then, I apply patches every patch tuesday, and don't mess around about it.

so that means we can count on m$ to 100% protect us as long as windows is updated?

Not MS completely, but combine it with good computer hygiene and frankly, yes.

 

[64K]

I actually use no antivirus. Haven't for years. I even disable Windows Defender. It's amazing what common sense and a good firewall/Windows Update policy will do.

I haven't had an infection in over a decade, and that was my brother. But then, I apply patches every patch tuesday, and don't mess around about it.

What about when you're looking at Frog Porn? What about that?

 

[R-T-B]

What about when you're looking at Frog Porn? What about that?

I have my frog pond out back for that.

...

the sad thing is, I'm not even kidding. We basically have a swamp in our backyard, and they make so much noise this time of year in their "mating rituals" that I can hear them every evening, when I sleep indoors (through several walls.) It's kinda creepy.

Other than that, Virtual Machines.

 

[dirtyferret]

Ummm, not sure why anyone would. The new version of Malwarebytes (Malwarebytes Antimalware/MBAM is history) includes Ransomware protection. If you look at the Malwarebytes Ransomware Beta site, it has not been updated since April 2016.

thanks, I recall seeing it but did not know it has already been bundled into their current Anti-malware

 

[Jetster]

So sure it's a waste of money. I haven't seen a virus in years

 

[Bill_Bright]

thanks, I recall seeing it but did not know it has already been bundled into their current Anti-malware

Yeah, that's the big distinction between the old Malwarebytes Antimalware (MBAM V2.x) and the new Malwarebytes (MB3.x), Malwarebytes now includes Web protection, Exploit protection, Malware protection and Ransomware protection, bundled under 1 UI.

Sadly, they rolled out MB3.x in a rush before the Christmas holidays before thoroughly beta testings and there have been a lot of problems with some of those protection features becoming disabled. This problem as persisted, even as recently as today for some. Fortunately, this latest bug was fixed quickly.

So sure it's a waste of money. I haven't seen a virus in years

I would not call peace of mind a waste of money. But then again, I am happy running and recommending the "free" Windows Defender because I feel paying when capable free options abound is a waste.

IF you are very disciplined at where you go on the Internet and what you click on, and you keep Windows updated AND you are the only user who ever uses your computer or connects to your network, you may not need any anti-malware solution. But I feel that argument is the same people use for not wearing their seatbelts or having car insurance. They may never need them. But then again they might.

And if they do, but don't, they will wish they did.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I'm going to piss some people off but I don't care. This is for those of you smug and haughty in your ivory towers who don't use antivirus and say you're careful about where you go and that's why you don't get infections. I have two words for you: Drive-by Downloads.

A Drive-by does not care if you are careful. it's usually a nice Trojan, hiding inconspicuously on a known and trusted web page that the site owner doesn't even know is infected. It exploits vulnerabilities in browsers to infect you, the vast majority of which you can avoid and ARE protected from by a reputable antivirus (more properly known as an anti-malware now, but the AV tag has stuck with the public, so they continue to be called that) that uses web-filtering software.

A fully patched and protected OS and browser is not adequate protection from a drive-by, since those protections go out almost 30 days AFTER a vulnerability is discovered. Nobody's PC (at least here on TPU), is so damned weak that using an AV will make it grind to a halt; most are imperceptible to modern systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

https://www.webtitan.com/blog/prevent-drive-by-malware-downloads/

https://www.comodo.com/resources/home/newsletters/nov-10/ask-geekbuddy.php

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/portal/mmpc/shared/ransomware.aspx

http://www.securityweek.com/internets-big-threat-drive-attacks

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

In conclusion, it was not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just aware that some people will be. If I have provided enough incentive to educate yourselves further, then the price is worth it.

 

[TheMailMan78]

A lot of misinformation in this thread, including the OP's link.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If I have provided enough incentive to educate yourselves further, then the price is worth it.

It does not matter if you have provided enough incentive. It's a losing battle in the same war I've been fighting in another thread with bullheaded XP users who insist their XP systems that connect to the Internet are safe because they "know what they are doing".

No matter how many links to recognized experts and reputable sites we provide (so they don't have to take our word on it), everybody else is wrong and they are right - even though they can provide no corroborating evidence from any recognized expert to support their claim. Instead, Microsoft and I are just "bullies" for pushing to get rid of XP. I've even seen the excuse, "because Microsoft wants me to upgrade, I won't".

I personally know dozens of security experts - including a few who would be considered "world renown". And I know dozens more through forums and blogs and such. And they will argue tooth and nail over which security solution is best.

But I don't know one recognized security expert who doesn't use an anti-malware solution - even if it is just the one built into Windows, Windows Defender (which BTW, many use - because it is there, and it works - without hogging resources). And of course, they keep Windows current, avoid being click-happy, and they use a password safe/manager too.

 

[R-T-B]

I'm going to piss some people off but I don't care. This is for those of you smug and haughty in your ivory towers who don't use antivirus and say you're careful about where you go and that's why you don't get infections. I have two words for you: Drive-by Downloads.

A Drive-by does not care if you are careful. it's usually a nice Trojan, hiding inconspicuously on a known and trusted web page that the site owner doesn't even know is infected. It exploits vulnerabilities in browsers to infect you, the vast majority of which you can avoid and ARE protected from by a reputable antivirus (more properly known as an anti-malware now, but the AV tag has stuck with the public, so they continue to be called that) that uses web-filtering software.

A fully patched and protected OS and browser is not adequate protection from a drive-by, since those protections go out almost 30 days AFTER a vulnerability is discovered. Nobody's PC (at least here on TPU), is so damned weak that using an AV will make it grind to a halt; most are imperceptible to modern systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive-by_download

https://www.webtitan.com/blog/prevent-drive-by-malware-downloads/

https://www.comodo.com/resources/home/newsletters/nov-10/ask-geekbuddy.php

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security/portal/mmpc/shared/ransomware.aspx

http://www.securityweek.com/internets-big-threat-drive-attacks

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/driveby-download,news-18329.html

In conclusion, it was not my intention to offend anyone, I'm just aware that some people will be. If I have provided enough incentive to educate yourselves further, then the price is worth it.

I hear what you are saying man, but I've literally been operating over a decade this way with no infection, so I think you are overinflating the risk if you use good security hygiene. Heck, I've even been the target of some pretty devoted attempts to spearfish my credentials courtesy my time in bitcoin land, but my security minded-self has kept me safe.

This approach may not work for everyone, but it works for me. And since I keep regular backups offsite and don't mind a reinstall, I really don't mind if I get infected briefly either. I just haven't.

But I don't know one recognized security expert who doesn't use an anti-malware solution

I may not be "recognized", but I have a good college background in cryptography and data security, so you sorta just met one. That said, I do NOT reccomend it for Joe Schmoe.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

I was specifically talking about this one exploit. Folks who didn't dink with Windows Update defaults and allowed Windows Update to apply the patch last March were not affected because the vulnerability no longer existed. So at that point, it did not matter which anti-malware solution they used.

Those who were affected had not applied the patch.

Are you suggesting there are absolutes? That is, is there any program or company you can count on 100% to protect you? Of course there isn't. But for sure, keeping Windows fully updated is one of the best protection insurance we can use.

Most of us here know there are no absolutes, but there are people less adept at computers that believe there are absolutes and that they start with m$ because of of windows, and because of that thought process everything that happens is also, defacto, m$'s fault.

Let me quote a neighbor, "I was told that this (meaning her pc on windows) has built in anti wuch-u-call-it (virus)". This is the same neighbor that wanted me to fix her PC bacuse it wont connect to the internet anymore, which she didnt have due to lack of bill payment (and other reasons).

I'm pretty sure she doesnt have the incentive to educate herself past her next...high.

I may not be "recognized", but I have a good college background in cryptography and data security, so you sorta just met one. That said, I do NOT reccomend it for Joe Schmoe.

I'd say take off the Frog costume so we can recognize you, but a thought occurred that you might be naked under there, so forget I even mentioned it.

 

[R-T-B]

I'd say take off the Frog costume so we can recognize you, but a thought occurred that you might be naked under there, so forget I even mentioned it.

Bah, this frog costume is the most "kid-friendly" version of me that's ever existed on the internet. Trust me, you don't want it gone...