McAffee Seems to be Blocking Attempts to Download Other Anti-Virus Programs!

[BiggieShady]

Sadly, not as many people have that common sense as you'd think. Especially not workers using machines they ultimately aren't responsible for.

Dear diary,

this morning at work I got unknown executable over email from unknown person, and immediately I ran it as an administrator.
Another job well done.

 

[Athlonite]

ROFLMFAO @BiggieShady

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error.

And its a good thing Windows Defender is a good solution or else there would be 100s of millions of Windows Defender users out there using infected systems - a fact the biased Microsoft haters choose to ignore.

and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.

Yeah right. Because Microsoft has no interest in keeping their customer's computers secure.

Thinking about the comment, "Sadly, not as many people have that common sense as you'd think. Especially not workers using machines they ultimately aren't responsible for."

First, I think it's insulting to the human race. Common sense really is pretty common - hence the name, "common" sense. Second, I think it insulting to suggest we, as technical providers, don't know as much about human nature, or computer users as "you'd think". Especially for those of us who have been working with computers, computer/network security, and computer users longer than most on this site have been alive.

Third and most importantly is the all important "T" word. If you own or manage a company, or you are the IT person responsible for maintaining the company's information systems, and you don't properly "train" your users how to use those company computers safely, then it is YOU who have failed to do your job properly, not the user/worker, or the security programs on those systems. And it is YOU who needs to go back into training, or do your job properly, or be shown the door.

And if a worker is careless because it is not their own personal computer, you retrain, issue a stern warning, or send them packing. It is that simple! I've been supporting large Federal and State networks and computer systems, large corporate networks and computer systems, SOHO networks and computer systems, and personal networks and computer systems for decades. I have successfully trained young kids, invincible teens, adults and seniors. And guess what? It is not hard! Except for the senior of seniors, almost all have been using computers most of their lives.

And if they are employees and they refuse to learn or heed that "common sense", they no longer get access to those company computers and networks. If they need that access to do their jobs, out the door they go. Again, it is that simple.

To suggest a computer gets infected because it has Windows Defender on it instead of Avast, Kaspersky, or some other solution is just being, at best, totally naive.

 

[newtekie1]

Again, the majority of your post is all about how it doesn't really matter that Defender isn't really a good AV, because the person shouldn't be infecting the computer with a virus in the first place... I'm done with that argument. It's idiotic. You know damn well if it was true there would be absolutely no need for anti-virus programs to exist in the first place. Time to move on Bill, your logic doesn't make any sense.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Again, the majority of your post is all about how it doesn't really matter that Defender isn't really a good AV

NO WHERE did I ever say that. So you can't defend your position with reality so you misrepresent what others are saying? That's really sad.

I specifically said, "WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better".
Then I said, "Windows Defender is a good solution". No where did I say or even imply it "isn't really a good AV". You have just demonstrated you make things up and spread falsehoods.

You are right. It is idiotic. I asked repeatedly to stay on topic and not drag this thread down with biased, misinformed BS about Windows Defender. But you did it again.

I'm done with that argument.

Oh that would be wonderful, if only true.

 

[newtekie1]

NO WHERE did I ever say that. So you can't defend your position with reality so you misrepresent what others are saying? That's really sad.

I specifically said, "WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better".
Then I said, "Windows Defender is a good solution". No where did I say or even imply it "isn't really a good AV". You have just demonstrated you make things up and spread falsehoods.

You are right. It is idiotic. I asked repeatedly to stay on topic and not drag this thread down with biased, misinformed BS about Windows Defender. But you did it again.

Try following the logic, I know it is hard, especially when you only read half a sentence. I'm saying Defender isn't really a good AV, your defense has been it doesn't really matter because people should be "trained" and just use "common sense" and not open viruses in the first place.(Side note: One has to wonder why something requires training if it is common sense, but whatever, just more illogical nonsense.)

 

[Tatty_Two]

This place is turning into a chat room, up and down, back and forth arguing, it seems the topic is McAffee so lets stick to that please before I have to add reply bans.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Deleted out of respect for Tatty's request.

 

[CandymanGR]

i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.

Do you reinstall just the window, or the frame also?

 

[er557]

i don't use any antivirus i don't need anything to slow down disk usage. if something happens reinstall window.

That's a really really bad approach, most times you never know something is wrong until it's too late, either that or you're a master of common sense and recognize threats by intuition. Today's malware is incidious and calls home, unless your machine has NOTHING important one needs an AV and at least an automatic 3rd party firewall, and 3rd party manual spyware scans once in a while.

 

[John Naylor]

1. I consider myself hardware / software whore .... brand loyalty doesn't recognize that things change.

2. In the most recent Windows 10 test (December) , 13 products cored 6.0 / 6.0 in the testing. Only Kaspesky Internet Security 20.5 and McAfee Internet Security 20.5 scored the trifecta of 6.0 / 6.0 / 6.0 .... McAfee's score was perfect w/o 100% detections in both categories in November and December testing ... Kaspersky had two 0 day malware atatckes get thru. many times this will often depend on when the test is done ... A test done on Wednesday will pick up updates downloaded on Tuesday but an update on Monday would miss. Performance was identical and McAfee had 1 false positive to kaspersky's 1.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/

3. With the latest test February (Win7) Kaspersky again scored the perfect trifecta but McAfee took a hit (5.5) on performance. McAfee let (1) 0 day attack thru and again had (1) False Positive. Kaspersky put up 0's across the board.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/

3. Microsoft's products get bashed and deservedly so for their performance over the years, but in recent times, they have actually done well. SE scored a 6/0 / 6.0 / 5.5 in February ... however in December, they also let thru (2) 0 day attacks, the real pain was the false positives where they scored a rather dismal 4.0 / 6.0... performace was OK at 5.5 / 6.0

4 As to the specific problem, it is important that whenever a AV suite is downloaded or installed, you also download the removal tool from the manufacturer's web site. You should get this from the manufacturer's own web site.

5. Finally, we have had too many support issues with users who have intsalled Chroime browser. For reasons i can not understand , identical machines, with identical OS and software and Chrome, one has memory issues and one doesn't. The more astute the user, the problems seem to arise more frequently. In your situation I would:

a) Uninstall the <MAfee Suite
b) Use the removal tool on McAfee web site after above
c) use a registry cleaner to find and remove any reference to anything McAfee

If you still have issues.

d) https://www.wintips.org/how-to-completely-uninstall-re-install-google-chrome/
e) Use registry cleaner to find and remove all things Google / Chrome

See if you can install AV of choice

 

[newtekie1]

5. Finally, we have had too many support issues with users who have intsalled Chroime browser. For reasons i can not understand , identical machines, with identical OS and software and Chrome, one has memory issues and one doesn't. The more astute the user, the problems seem to arise more frequently.

It wasn't really a chrome issue, as it was happening in Edge too.

In your situation I would:

a) Uninstall the <MAfee Suite
b) Use the removal tool on McAfee web site after above
c) use a registry cleaner to find and remove any reference to anything McAfee

If you still have issues.

d) https://www.wintips.org/how-to-completely-uninstall-re-install-google-chrome/
e) Use registry cleaner to find and remove all things Google / Chrome

See if you can install AV of choice

Luckily all of that wasn't necessary, just removing the McAfee WebAdviser through control panel was enough to fix the issue.

Though I do carry MCPRT on my flash drive just for times like this if I can't get McAfee uninstalled the normal way. But my flash drive was busy doing an Office install on another computer.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The problem is, those laboratory scores really don't mean a whole lot because regardless how realistic they report they are, they are still synthetic. They are synthetic in the way they set up the test computers, they are synthetic in the way they expose the computers to threats, and they are synthetic in the way the testers respond to threats, and they are synthetic in the threats they are exposed too.

Again, ask yourself, what incentive do 3rd party makers have to rid the world of malware? The answer is, NONE! If malware goes away, so do those businesses.

What incentive does Microsoft have for malware to go away? Lots. They will stop getting blamed for the actions of the bad guys.

What incentive do the 3rd party makers have to score well on those synthetic tests? Hopefully, users will buy their Pro versions or continue to use their free versions where the makers get ad money for ads or addons during install.

What incentive does Microsoft have to score well on those tests? None! They don't get any ad money from Windows Defender. They don't push a pro version.

So once again, Microsoft does not code to score well on synthetic tests. That is just a waste of their time and resources. Instead, the code to protect for today's threats. And it works or else there would be 100s of millions of infected systems out there. But their are not.

Sadly, I really don't know of any way to "test" these products, but in a synthetic laboratory environment. Or else I sure would be suggesting it. But it is important for everyone to understand these test must be taken with a grain of salt. For they are still synthetic.

 

[DRDNA]

I need some popcorn for the boxing match, good luck everyone with your AV choices.

 

[BiggieShady]

Try following the logic, I know it is hard, especially when you only read half a sentence. I'm saying Defender isn't really a good AV, your defense has been it doesn't really matter because people should be "trained" and just use "common sense" and not open viruses in the first place.(Side note: One has to wonder why something requires training if it is common sense, but whatever, just more illogical nonsense.)

I think you got triggered by my (not Bill's) unfounded faith in the certain amount of common sense humanity possess ... nevertheless, the argument wasn't that 'WD should be enough for everyone' ... argument is that only small percentage of people need something stronger than WD. That percentage as the focus of your business, can never be small from your point of view.

EDIT: I have just noticed the warning so let me expand a bit to be on topic

It's hard to believe that mcaffe is blocking download of another AV install package ... maybe blocking comes from some generic rule from the security suite, for example something silly like blocking a download as http request from the https page ...
When it comes to multiple anti virus suites being used, IMO every AV installer should warn you that you shouldn't install two AV suites, but the warning should come from the AV you are trying to install (not the active anti virus)

 

[Bill_Bright]

... argument is that only small percentage of people need something stronger than WD.

I agree, and I listed the criteria for that small percentage in Post #46.

I never said it wasn't good. Nor did I say it didn't matter if it wasn't good since people need to be trained or have common sense anyway. I said training was required, and that is a business management and business IT responsibility - just as it is a parent's for their children.

And note that is regardless the user's (or admin's) anti-malware solution of choice.

I have also said many times that, regardless the anti-malware solution of choice, it is also necessary to always have a secondary scanner on hand to verify the user (again, always the weakest link in security) or the primary solution did not let something slip by. I typically recommend Malwarebytes for that.

When it comes to multiple anti virus suites being used, IMO every AV installer should warn you that you shouldn't install two AV suites, but the warning should come from the AV you are trying to install (not the active anti virus)

A warning is one thing, blocking without the option to continue with the installation is another, and unacceptible issue completely. As I noted in my first post in this thread, I am certain this is a McAfee bug and will quickly be fixed - if it is not just a quirk for the notebook in question. Which brings me to these questions:

@newtekie1 - I see in your opening post you are preparing 2 Dell notebooks. But I don't see in your opening post that McAfee WebAdviser blocked the installation of Avast on both of those notebooks. It seems you only ran into this problem on the first notebook. Did the Avast install go smoothly on the second? Or did WebAdviser (1) not uninstall with the McAfee suite, and (2) did WebAdviser block Avast on the second notebook too?

Or did you just ensure WebAdviser was gone before attempting to install Avast on the second?

Just wondering if the problem was isolated to one notebook suggesting a quirk? Or both suggesting a trend/bug?

 

[DRDNA]

Outside of the Corporate arena all good Technicians know that in order to set up a PC for an end-user for Security purposes that you have to understand the level of skill and understanding of security that your PC users are capable of and then set up the PC accordingly. This is the beginning of good Technician skills .

 

[Bill_Bright]

That philosophy applies to the family and neighborhood "go-to" computer "expert" too - whether he or she really is an expert, or if they volunteered for that job or not. Sadly, because of the bad guys, all computer users must be aware there are computer risks and threats out there. Fortunately, this "awareness" is something that's been taught, or at least touched upon in schools for many years now. My kids got it, and now their kids are getting it.

And fortunately, OS and security program developers are pretty sharp too. It really is pretty hard for Windows 10 to get infected - as long as users don't dink with the defaults. In fact, that is one reason more and more bad guys are concentrating their efforts on corporate networks using Linux based systems, instead of Windows users these days

See: Top 22 Favourite Operating Systems of Hackers (2018 List). They are all flavors of Linux!

 

[newtekie1]

@newtekie1 - I see in your opening post you are preparing 2 Dell notebooks. But I don't see in your opening post that McAfee WebAdviser blocked the installation of Avast on both of those notebooks. It seems you only ran into this problem on the first notebook. Did the Avast install go smoothly on the second? Or did WebAdviser (1) not uninstall with the McAfee suite, and (2) did WebAdviser block Avast on the second notebook too?

Or did you just ensure WebAdviser was gone before attempting to install Avast on the second?

Just wondering if the problem was isolated to one notebook suggesting a quirk? Or both suggesting a trend/bug?

I didn't have time to mess with the second one, I made sure McAfee was gone before doing anything.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I don't blame you - that's probably what I would have done if they were client systems and I wanted them out the door and into "production". But it sure would have been interesting to see if it happened on the second too. But even then, it could have been Dell induced and not even McAfee's fault - since proprietary modifications are common with factory assembled computers - especially notebooks. Oh well.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Seems there remains a need to reply ban