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

[Bill_Bright]

But it annoys me that McAffee WebAdviser is blocking the downloads of competitor's Anti-Virus programs.

It makes me wonder if it is even legal for a bundled program to attempt to stop the use of a competitor's software, especially without even a warning message or anything.

That really annoys me too. As mentioned above, it is not just McAfee that has done this in the past. I have experienced before where Norton/Symantec, ZoneAlarm, Kaspersky, BitDefender, McAfee and others blocked installation of competing products, as well as their own uninstallation.

It is illegal in most jurisdictions - if intentional. These days, at least with the major players, it is not intentional. Anti-malware solutions must insert themselves very deep into the kernel to be effective. Any other attempt by another program is seen as suspicious activity. I often use the "two dogs guarding the same bone" analogy - each wondering what the other is up too.

In the case of anti-malware products, I am certain McAfee will soon be updated to correct the bug(?) and allow the other "known friendlies" through.

Install ClassicShell - Goes Smoothly

Do note the author stopped development last December. Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it. I realize it does not have all the extra features of ClassicShell, but for the expected primary core functions desired in these type programs, (bringing back familiar start menu and desktop) it works great.

 

[er557]

Dude, you are linking to an article from 2 years ago...

ESET isn't free from its problems either. I've experiences quite a few from it over the years. Example: For a while it had this nasty bug where whenever it couldn't update for whatever reason, it would just write a log file to a certain hidden directory under the Windows folder.(Why is it even writing logs to the Windows directory, that's a big no-no.) It would never delete these logs, so it would slowly fill up the drive. You can imagine this actually filled up pretty quickly in machines that only had 60-120GB SSD. I saw it write 1GB of log files in just an hour of the internet being down. And, of course, because it was under the Windows folder, most people were freaked out about deleting anything in there.

Plus, its not free. For a paid solution, there are definitely better options out there. But you're comparing it to Comodo, which is free, and today ESET isn't really any better than Comodo even though Comodo is free.

And the days of complaining about anti-viruses taking up resources should be dead. Unless the AV is particularly bad at it, computers now are powerful enough that the resources used by the AV isn't noticeable. So unless you are running some really old/weak hardware, the AV resource usage doesn't really matter. Anything with a decently modern dual-core and 4GB of RAM, won't really be affected by the load of any decent AV.

Look, comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do, and it's developers are a bit quircky, and odd, blocking complaining users on their forums. While eset products I have ran since xp and they generally run like a dream, and update frequently all while staying light and tight in footprint, I have upgraded windows versions many times with eset still installed and it never posed any problems during upgrade. It usually costs 2$ a month, and for me it caught many nasties from the web, It also filters web pages as you go. But to each his own.

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

The choice hasn't been taken away. That is false logic. I choose to use their products, that is the choice. If I didn't want them to profit from selling my information, I wouldn't use their products.

And there are plenty of other companies that do the same thing. I get so much spam from advertisers that "somehow" got my email address and even phone number it isn't fun. Every time you sign up for a website that is offering something for free, there is a good chance that website is making a profit by selling the information you give it. But at this point, the information they are asking is likely already public information anyway, so I don't care. If someone wants to know my address, my phone number, my email address, it is all already public information.

WE both know that is a naive approach to this. Its hardly false logic. Granted there are public aspects of ones information that cant truly be blocked or removed, thats not the only information being collected and sold. That doesnt mean you shouldnt give up trying to limit what is being traded about yourself and your family. The problem you are blind to is that all these free products dont just stop with collecting basic information, they would collect information on how many times a day you take a shit if you let them. But hey, I get you think you have a choice because chose to use thier free products. Let me know how that all works out when you or a family member has their identity stolen because they sold information to an unknown advertiser and figured out the name of your dog that you used on some security question.

You have your beliefs, I have mine and I have no faith in Google products, hell even their search engine has been tweaked so that their products populate the first few pages.
p.s. leave my tin hat right where it is !

 

[revin]

comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do

Well if you just install it and don't set it up then yes it's "Training", like I said there is a LOT of information on how to set it up to Not bother you with every file and it also will filter website's
I just change a few setting's after setup and it really protects me just fine even on warez and adult sites,
Not sure Eset even has a container or Virtual Desktop to use. And the Secure Shopping is awesome feature .
Any way not trying to convince you to use it, but Comodo is like any other protection s/w you gotta do a little more than just install it

https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture123610.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture122259.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture121890.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture120839.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture119721.jpg https://img.techpowerup.org/180524/capture118.jpg

EDIT :
@newtekie1 I feel like it's getting off track of your OP, I will be glad to delete any my post you like to unclutter. Again I apologize

EDIT 2. 5/25 Forgot to add There is also a "SilentMode" zero nag's

 

[newtekie1]

Do note the author stopped development last December. Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it. I realize it does not have all the extra features of ClassicShell, but for the expected primary core functions desired in these type programs, (bringing back familiar start menu and desktop) it works great.

Yeah, I saw that. It is definitely sad. I'll keep using it until a Windows update breaks the start menu function, which is all I use it for. After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu...

But I'm hoping that since he went open-source that someone will at least fork the Start Menu part of it. I don't care if the other parts are stripped away.

Look, comodo is one of the most nagging apps out there, it wants confirmation to almost anything you do, and it's developers are a bit quircky, and odd, blocking complaining users on their forums. While eset products I have ran since xp and they generally run like a dream, and update frequently all while staying light and tight in footprint, I have upgraded windows versions many times with eset still installed and it never posed any problems during upgrade. It usually costs 2$ a month, and for me it caught many nasties from the web, It also filters web pages as you go. But to each his own.

You are starting to sound like you work for ESET, but I get it, you use it so you want to defend your choice. Frankly, ESET isn't that great, I've used it, I've experienced it, and I'd take Comodo over it any day of the week. And, yes, any free program will be more naggy than a pay. But if someone wants to pay for an AV, they might as well pay for something that is better than ESET. Avira, Bitdefender, and Panda are all ones I'd pick before ESET. Heck, even paid Avast/AVG is a better option than ESET. And honestly, Avast in silent mode is the least naggy AV you'll ever experience.

You can go on and on about it all want, but it is obvious that you haven't actually used Comodo any time recently, so stop bashing it. And stop pushing ESET.

 

[er557]

I'll take a look into avira paid and bitdefender, if you say so, the interesting part is how compatible is their firewall and does it have an interactive mode

 

[biffzinker]

After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu

Startisback might be worth a shot. 30 day evaluation or $3.00 for a single lifetime license. Been using it myself since Windows 8.

 

[Athlonite]

@newtekie1 so if your running W10 on these laptops why bother with anything else other than Windows Defender

 

[rtwjunkie]

Start10 is still being updated as Windows 10 continues to evolve. For $5, it well worth it.

I can second this. It actually makes more improvements than just a start menu. I love it.

 

[newtekie1]

@newtekie1 so if your running W10 on these laptops why bother with anything else other than Windows Defender

Because it isn't that good.

 

[Athlonite]

Because it isn't that good.

Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

 

[las]

3rd party AV is doing more harm than good

 

[Bill_Bright]

Yeah, I saw that. It is definitely sad. I'll keep using it until a Windows update breaks the start menu function, which is all I use it for. After that, I might just have to get used to the Windows 10 start menu...

Or again, try Start10. It is much more like ClassicShell than Windows10 own UI. It has a 30 free trial period and unlike many free trial programs, it really does disable and uninstall cleanly if you don't like it. But IMO, if you like ClassicShell better than Windows 10 UI, you will like Start10 better too. In fact, except for the actual start button images (and maybe color schemes) each programs use, I doubt you could tell the different when looking at the start menus without careful examination.

I do use the default W10 UI on a couple other systems here and it really is not that hard to get used to. But for my two systems, including this one, I still love the old W7 style desktop better, in particular the venerable and irreplaceable Quick Launch tool bar - which fortunately is still available in W10, though hidden by default.

Because it isn't that good.

Yeah right. That's like saying the Honda Civic "isn't that good" simply because the Toyota Camry, BMW 5 and a couple others scored higher.

Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

Right! And don't forget to click on the Protection column header to sort on that critical field to see what really "isn't that good"! Note what crowd favorite isn't even listed! Then choose Windows 10 and sort again to see what really "isn't that good"!

Come folks! It is time to put past biases and prejudices away. You have to like it, but not liking it does not mean "it isn't that good".

3rd party AV is doing more harm than good

Like most blanket statements, this one too is wrong due to many exceptions making it untrue. Some products are very good and do good. Others are not, and some rogue products actually do cause harm - intentionally.

Let's not degrade this thread and drag it down with another pointless debate about Windows Defender. This thread is about McAfee blocking installation of other products.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

Mcafee and Norton just need to die off already.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Mcafee and Norton just need to die off already.

Not likely to happen since many ISPs have partnerships with them. My ISP, Cox Communications (forth largest in US), for example, provides McAfee for free to Cox Internet subscribers.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

So does my ISP Comcast, but that still doesnt mean these terrible AV's dont need to die.

 

[newtekie1]

Really then I wonder why AVTest give a Top product award to it then if it's not that good
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/real-world-protection-test-april-2018-factsheet/

It's detection rate is one of the worst in the industry, and has been for a while. And it somehow still managed to have an unacceptable number of false positives.

Or again, try Start10. It is much more like ClassicShell than Windows10 own UI. It has a 30 free trial period and unlike many free trial programs, it really does disable and uninstall cleanly if you don't like it. But IMO, if you like ClassicShell better than Windows 10 UI, you will like Start10 better too. In fact, except for the actual start button images (and maybe color schemes) each programs use, I doubt you could tell the different when looking at the start menus without careful examination.

I do use the default W10 UI on a couple other systems here and it really is not that hard to get used to. But for my two systems, including this one, I still love the old W7 style desktop better, in particular the venerable and irreplaceable Quick Launch tool bar - which fortunately is still available in W10, though hidden by default.

The main problem is it isn't just me, I actually don't mind the Windows 10 UI and can use it without a problem. But I install it on so many other's computers, if it comes down to it, I'll make them pay for Start10 if they really need to.

Yeah right. That's like saying the Honda Civic "isn't that good" simply because the Toyota Camry, BMW 5 and a couple others scored higher.

When the Honda Civic fails to get me to work sometimes, which is its only job, then I would say it isn't that good as well. The fact is, for a good long while, Windows Defender has had pretty shitty detection rates. And I've had to clean far too many computers that have been infected while Defender just hums happily along like nothings happening. It's better than nothing, but that's about it.

If you look at the detection rate on AV-Comparitives, Defender is regularly at the bottom for detection rates. This is last months results:

And this is March's results:

You can keep going back through the months, and the story doesn't really change.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If you look at the detection rate on AV-Comparitives, Defender is regularly at the bottom for detection rates. This is last months results:

I find this really hilarious - in a sad sort of way.

When a review site says something not liked is bad, that is the greatest review site ever and no other reviews count. When a review site says something not liked is good, that is the worst review site ever. FTR, there are several other recent reviews that rate WD highly too. Are they all wrong?

According to WindowsReport (which is NOT affiliated with MS) and Webroot, 18% of W7 and W8 users, and more than 50% of W10 users are using Windows Defender. That's 100s of millions of users - including enterprise/business users. Why would businesses risk so much if WD was so lousy as newtekie1 wants us to believe it is?

I'll say this once again - Microsoft does not code Windows Defender to score well on simulated tests. They don't have to. They don't use those scores to market Windows Defender like every other maker does with their products! MS is not trying to get you to pay for a subscription, an upgraded product, nor do they use embedded ads in WD for revenue - things ALL the other product makers do so they can stay in business.

MS codes WD to perform well in the real real-world. And if it didn't as folks like newtekie1 and others would like us to believe, then all of us Windows Defender users would be infected. But guess what? We aren't.

Have I seen computers with Windows Defender get infected? Yes. But I have also seen computers just as infected with ________________ (fill in the blank). Why? Because the users failed to keep Windows or their security current, or they were click-happy on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments, or popups, or they participated in illegal filesharing via P2P sites or Torrents, or they visited the seedy side of the Internet. Not because they used this security solution or that security solution.

****

Again I ask this thread not turn into yet another biased, opportunistic bash at WD. This thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.

 

[newtekie1]

According to WindowsReport (which is NOT affiliated with MS) and Webroot, 18% of W7 and W8 users, and more than 50% of W10 users are using Windows Defender. That's 100s of millions of users - including enterprise/business users. Why would businesses risk so much if WD was so lousy as newtekie1 wants us to believe it is?

For the same reason IE is still so widely used. It is bundled with the OS(for 8 and 10), and they perceive it as good enough. I bet if you looked at the adoption rate of Security Essentials on just Win 7, it is pretty bad.

I'll say this once again - Microsoft does not code Windows Defender to score well on simulated tests. They don't have to. They don't use those scores to market Windows Defender like every other maker does with their products! MS is not trying to get you to pay for a subscription, an upgraded product, nor do they use embedded ads in WD for revenue - things ALL the other product makers do so they can stay in busines

The detection rates I posted were with real world threats, active during the month of testing, not simulated.

MS codes WD to perform well in the real real-world. And if it didn't as folks like newtekie1 and others would like us to believe, then all of us Windows Defender users would be infected. But guess what? We aren't.

There is something you have to realize, I used to recommend Security Essentials/Defender. In fact, there are probably a bunch of posts on this forum of me saying it is good. But you should also realize I support computers for a living. I'm fighting viruses on a daily basis. And I have experienced Defender outright failing when other AVs haven't. I've been called into businesses that had ransomware sweep through their network, and seen first hand that every computer with Defender was infected and screwed, while computers running other free alternatives(mix of Avast and AVG and Comodo) detected the virus and stopped it before any damage was done to the computer. Sadly, I wasn't their full time IT person, they just called me after the virus hit. Because if I was, all their computers would be running a free alternative to Defender, and the virus very likely would have been stopped right at the email source in Outlook before the person even had a chance to open it. And this is the reason my go to free AV is Avast. It offers email scanning as part of the free product.

This is why I trust other free alternatives more than Defender, and this is why I say defender "isn't that good". If it works for you, and you trust it, great. But I don't. And I know no AV is going to be perfect, but I've personally see Security Essentials/Defender fail too many times now to recommend its use when there are other free alternatives out there that at worst are just as good but more likely are better. The question was asked why I don't use Defender, that this is my answer. If you don't agree with it, too bad.

 

[er557]

From further research I concluded avira only interacts with windows firewall, not a separate firewall solution, and bitdefender seems to have only rules or stealth and paranoid mode. What I'm after is a interactive firewall old school style that prompts if an unknown app wants inbound or outbound connection, and eset is one of the few that has such one integrated, and I didn't experience compatibility issues of it with the core windows firewall. The quest continues...

 

[Bill_Bright]

For the same reason IE is still so widely used. It is bundled with the OS(for 8 and 10), and they perceive it as good enough.

It is not about perception. It is about fact. They are not getting infected, so why change? There is no reason. The perception is introduced by the haters spreading falsehoods, just a s happened with IE6 by the Firefox fanboys who insisted IE was unsafe. It was not unsafe if users only kept Windows, their browser, and their security updated just as they had to do regardless their browser.

I could always stop those FF fanatics in their tracks with one simple question - "Did you stop getting infected just by switching to Firefox?" Not one could say yes. Either they never got infected, but switched because they believed the hype or hated Microsoft, of they didn't just switch to FF, they also changed their computing habits to stay updated, avoided risky behavior, and more.

The detection rates I posted were with real world threats, active during the month of testing, not simulated.

When done in a lab, the scenarios are created in the lab and designed to simulate real world.

But you should also realize I support computers for a living.

And you can see via the link in my signature that I have been supporting computers to support me and my family, quite successfully, for decades.

It really is not about the brand of the antimalware solution. It is about the user. The best solution out there will not stop an infection if the user lets the bad guy in. And that is how, by far, most infections happen - the user falls for a trick - socially engineered trick - to click on something. Or the user (or sadly, corporate IT) fails to apply a patch in a timely basis.

No security solution is immune. Windows Defender is very widely used. That suggests more users may be infected simply because of the numbers of users. It does NOT suggest percentage wise, more are. That is something WD bashers fail to see.

The Honda mechanic could easily be deceived into thinking Hondas are lousy cars because he see broken down Hondas all day. It does not work that way.

WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better. But like all solutions, it relies on the user keeping Windows current, and not being click-happy.

I am going to say this then move on, because once again, newtekie1 - while we all know you just love to bash WD and MS at every opportunity, this thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.

Windows Defender is probably not for you if any of the following apply:

• If you don't keep Windows updated,
• If you don't keep your security solution updated,
• If you are "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, popups, and attachments,
• If you visit illegal pornography or gambling sites,
• If you participate in illegal filesharing via Torrents and P2P sites,
• If you connect to public "hotspots" with admin level accounts,
• If you let undisciplined users use your computer with admin level accounts.

But if those scenarios don't apply to you, then Windows Defender is just fine.

Now let's move on.

 

[Athlonite]

I have to agree with @Bill_Bright every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC and nothing else I doesn't matter how secure and up to date you make a system it will always rely on the user to not be stupid and unfortunately it would seem that alot of users are just that Stupid and click on stuff they should not be clicking on

 

[BiggieShady]

every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC

Well those infections are the ones that matter, you know, the ones that actually do happen, and they indeed are because of PEBKAC so the antivirus with 100% detection rate here is exactly what's needed on that particular machine ... nevertheless I always advocate windows defender as good enough solution - it requires some minimal amount of common sense that most people thankfully have.

 

[newtekie1]

It is not about perception. It is about fact.

No it really isn't.

They are not getting infected, so why change? There is no reason.

This is entirely true, and the reason they don't change, all the way up until they do get infected that is. My 70 year old father doesn't wear a seatbelt. He's made it this far without it, why change, right? Clearly not wearing a seatbelt is just as good as wearing one.

When done in a lab, the scenarios are created in the lab and designed to simulate real world.

Hardly. The way these tests work is you have known infected files. You open said files on a sterile machine and see if the AV prevents the infection. It doesn't get much more real world than that, that's literally how infections happen in the real world.

It really is not about the brand of the antimalware solution. It is about the user. The best solution out there will not stop an infection if the user lets the bad guy in. And that is how, by far, most infections happen - the user falls for a trick - socially engineered trick - to click on something. Or the user (or sadly, corporate IT) fails to apply a patch in a timely basis.

No security solution is immune. Windows Defender is very widely used. That suggests more users may be infected simply because of the numbers of users. It does NOT suggest percentage wise, more are. That is something WD bashers fail to see.

The Honda mechanic could easily be deceived into thinking Hondas are lousy cars because he see broken down Hondas all day. It does not work that way.

WD is a very capable anti-malware solution that keeps getting better. But like all solutions, it relies on the user keeping Windows current, and not being click-happy.

I am going to say this then move on, because once again, newtekie1 - while we all know you just love to bash WD and MS at every opportunity, this thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.

Windows Defender is probably not for you if any of the following apply:

• If you don't keep Windows updated,
• If you don't keep your security solution updated,
• If you are "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, popups, and attachments,
• If you visit illegal pornography or gambling sites,
• If you participate in illegal filesharing via Torrents and P2P sites,
• If you connect to public "hotspots" with admin level accounts,
• If you let undisciplined users use your computer with admin level accounts.

But if those scenarios don't apply to you, then Windows Defender is just fine.

Now let's move on.

This whole thing is just...wow...I don't even know where to begin here...OK lets give it a shot...

The primary purpose of an AV solution is to stop an infection when the user makes the mistake. If it fails to do that, it is not a good AV solution. Period. And at the same time, virus producers are working day and night to figure out new ways to trick people into making the mistake. Social engineering has become a major part of a successful virus.

So it is completely inane to say "Defender is good as long as you don't do anything that would possibly give you a virus". Yeah, but by that logic, no antivirus is just as good of a solution too...

So, you've now gone full circle, and without even realizing it, have admitted how poor of a solution Windows Defender really is. If it requires the user never make a mistake and do anything that exposes the computer to a virus, then it actually isn't a good anti-virus.

So, yeah, we can move on now.

I am going to say this then move on, because once again, newtekie1 - while we all know you just love to bash WD and MS at every opportunity, this thread is about McAfee preventing the installation of a competing product.

Uuuhhhh...OK...yeah, try again there slick. Go look at my post history. I'm generally the one defending Microsoft, and until this thread I never really even talked about Defender. The most you'll find of my "bashing" Defender outside of this thread is when someone asks for a suggestion, I suggest Avast or AVG or Comodo. I guess if that is your definition of bashing, then...well get out of here with your fanboy bullshit.

I have to agree with @Bill_Bright every infection I've ever seen was because of PEBKAC and nothing else I doesn't matter how secure and up to date you make a system it will always rely on the user to not be stupid and unfortunately it would seem that alot of users are just that Stupid and click on stuff they should not be clicking on

Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error. That is the primary purpose of an anti-virus. If we could rely on people just never making an error, we wouldn't even have a need for Defender, and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.

it requires some minimal amount of common sense that most people thankfully have.

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

 

[Athlonite]

Yep, and a good AV will protect the user when they make the error. That is the primary purpose of an anti-virus. If we could rely on people just never making an error, we wouldn't even have a need for Defender, and Microsoft is just wasting their time even bothering to continue development on it.

not always the case I've seen antivirus programs get side stepped as soon as the virus runs which is what the first thing alot of them now try to do so it's still down to PEBKAC and teaching said problems how to be not so stupid