18 replies to this topic

[toyotomi]

I've been using AVG 8.5 for a while now and while I think their older version was better (didn't have nags for one), I've had no real problems with it. There were a number of problems when it first came out to replace the previous version though. I'm wondering, are the same concerns around for the 8/8.5-9 upgrade? Also, ever since the castlecops wiki went down I've been at a loss to find reliable comparisons between security softwares... So should I even still be using AVG anymore at this point? On that note, I've been using Comodo Firewall (I know their Anti-virus sucks compared to pretty much all other choices so won't bother there.), and would love to see a really good test comparison on firewalls if anyone knows of any. Basically, I just wanna make sure that the stuff I'm using is still adequate... and therefore worth upgrading to the latest version.

[Doug]

Hello Toyotomi,

Much of the answer to your question is in the realm of user preference.
All of the commonly recognized Free and Paid antivirus and antispyware utilities spend a good portion of their resources conducting research "in the wild" to discover new variants to either list them in their detection base or develop heuristic methods to identify patterned and behavioral characteristics to identify and stop the bad-guys.

As one company's research team identifies a new player, a flurry of news develops, extolling the virtues of that particular company. As a result of a "first discovery" one particular product may enjoy a moment in the limelight as a top rated product. Every six months or so, some editorial staff will tackle the task of comparative testing or description. How much "testing" and how much "editorializing" may depend upon the skills of the publication and the nature of their "business relationship" to the various utility developers. I do not allege foul play, but equally I cannot rule out bias.

Neither can most contributors such as myself rule out personal bias and we are all limited by the bounds of our experience.

More important than "selecting" from the range of legitimate products is the user's own practice and routine of actually establishing and running a disciplined routine of regular antivirus and antispyware scans on their own equipment. This is the "what good is it, if you never use it?" principle. I do not mean to imply that "you" don't, but rather I wish to elevate the importance of good user practices, including both regular scans and safe internet surfing.

I have previously used AVG products and recognize that they are ordinarily described in the top ten.
I discontinued use of AVG products on machines that I service because the AVG product has bloated use more resources than some other products, while other products have managed to move the opposite direction to be more resource friendly.

I presently like and install
Avira Antivir (free version)
or
Alwil Avast! (free versopm
(not both on the same machine, as 2 or more Antivirus products "will" conflict.)

I presently like and install
Malwarebytes (free) antispyware

I presently like and install
MVPS Hosts file to restrict advertisement and opportunistic bad-guy action
Sometimes disabling machine DNS services
Often installing Homer for acetic presentation and speed of browser loading.

I presently like and install
ATF-cleaner to remove junk files, temps and temporary internet files on a daily basis.

I presently like and install
Zone Alarm (free)

There are no "recent" comparative test presentations that I am aware of.

Here's an old one at PC Magazine:
http://www.pcmag.com...806,4796,00.asp
and one from a competators forum
http://www.techspot....opic125811.html

For what it's worth, I have used (free) utilities quite successfully on hundreds of machines over the past 10 years.

Note: The above represents my opinion, which is not intended to represent the opinion of WTT Forums, other Staff, or its owner.

[Jimbo1]

Doug you stated in your post this" I have previously used AVG products and recognize that they are ordinarily described in the top ten. I discontinued use of AVG products on machines that I service because the AVG product has bloated use more resources than some other products, while other products have managed to move the opposite direction to be more resource friendly. I presently like and install Avira Antivir (free version) or Alwil Avast! (free versopm (not both on the same machine, as 2 or more Antivirus products "will" conflict.) 2 Question I like to ask, of AVG you spoke of was it the paid version or free version thats bloated ? 2nd which do you feel does a better job of scanning and dectecting virus" AVG, Avira Antivir or Alwil Reason I ask is because on machines I service this is what I install on them: AVG 9.0 Free Spybot Search and Destory Malwarebytes Super AntiSpyware Spyware Blaster Never thought about using zonealarm but now I may, any input to what you think would be helpfull because I am always looking to see what is better and that uses less resource from slowing down the pc. Thanks.

[Doug]

AVG 9.0 Free
Spybot Search and Destory
Malwarebytes
Super AntiSpyware
Spyware Blaster

Avast!, Antivir, AVG 9 (free versions)
I favor Avast! for "thoroughness", but occasionally run into a "false positive"
In actual practice, I install Antivir on about as many XP machines, as I do Avast!
On Vista or Windows 7 I go with Avast!

Sad to say, but I think the usefulness of Spybot Search and Destroy has seen its last days.
I haven't installed it for a few years now.

If there was a choice between Malwarebytes and Super AntiSpyware, I don't really think there is a choice.
Malwarebytes all the way.
I have Super AntiSpyware on a few machines as a 2nd scanner.
Free version for both/either

Spyware Blaster is a fine utility, but I favor MVPS Hosts File, with Homer and HostsXpert
I like the ole' 127.0.0.1 seamlessly resolving the DNS before downloading a darn thing.
Spyware Blaster works with the browser and restricted zone.
Since I don't particularly trust browsers, I like the protection to be in place before the browser touches the internet. I might be splitting hairs or talking out the side of my mouth, but MVPS Hosts File works for me.

As for a software firewall, the major benefit comes into play when alerting the user to "outgoing" attempts. I like that.
Zone Alarm and Comobo (free versions) both have 'tricky" installation features that try to bluff you into accepting a trial version that later they can charge money for, and/or bundled downloads like yahoo or Ask BHOs. I don't like the practice, but do appreciate that both probably make some significant revenue through the practice. I simply uncheck the install options.
Since Zone Alarm has been reliable for me on lots of machines, I've stuck with it.

[Doug]

AVG and bloat. Yes I think AVG (free) has become bloated. I get a quicker response from either of the others, for instance when scanning email attachments. If you have a utility that you like to monitor running processes, I think you will find that AVG has more items than either of the other two, running from startup. It didn't used to be that way. Back in the day.... I would never have recommended Avast! because it was nearly as cumbersome as Symantec (IMO). But they've done wonders to improve their product.

[toyotomi]

I used to use Zone-Alarm. For some reason it would make my internet stall out and require either a reboot of the machine, or a restart of ZA. After posting about the issue here more than once (before I knew ZA was the cause), I eventually switched to Comodo. While I've found its performance as a Firewall to be as effective as ZA was for me (for what I'd ever noticed anyhow), what I really like about Comodo is that it also has the Behavior Blocker features with it. That affords me an extra layer of protection that I've felt has benefited me greatly. I still think highly of ZA as a firewall.. but for whatever reason it caused me no end of troubles. I've noticed Spybot S&D falling out of favor on these forums (haven't been here in a while honestly), and it's frankly news to me. I occasionally run scans with it, but mostly appreciate it for its Immunization feature. I run it along with Spyware Blaster in that regard. I particularly like that Spybot S&D adds the immunization to the HOSTS file. My question on this front is if the Spybot HOSTS modifications are on par with MVPS? Would it be feasible, or even any better than pointless to use both? Another program I don't see much mention of lately is Ad-Aware. Personally while I still have it installed, I haven't run a scan with it or even updated it in a very long time. Is it still worth having alongside programs like Malwarebytes (a program I've just started using)? I still use Windows Defender, though I'm not sure what good it does me anymore.. but it's light and I don't mind letting it run. I've had some problems with it, but I'll save that for another thread. This is currently the only program I allow to run scheduled scans. Partly because it's the only program that doesn't bring other programs, i.e. games, to a grinding halt. The other programs, I only run scans with manually when I feel the need arise (and try to remember to do so once in a while anyway). Back to the note of AV programs. AVG was, at least for a while, favored for the relatively light usage of resources for its resident shield, which is desirable with anyone into gaming or anything that requires the majority of your resources. How do Avast and Antivir perform in this regard? I expect when I do a full scan with any AV program to not be using the machine for a few hours (AVG's last full system scan with the "Scan infectable files only" option unticked. Took over 4 hours to complete, scanning over 1.5 million objects). Gone are the days of 15 or 30 minute scans now that we're in the realm of Terabytes of stored data. All I care about, resource wise, is how much do I have to feed it while it plays watchdog over my machine? That, next to thoroughness and reliability to detect genuine threats are the most important factors for deciding what AV to use. At least that's how I see it anyway. I'd think that currently, my preventative measures are the most effective they've ever been, evidenced by the fact that I've gone so long without infection ('til now). In addition to the programs I've already mentioned I also use CCleaner and ATF-Cleaner on a very frequent basis to keep the carp** files from piling up. In the past, I was foolish enough to think simply instructing the other users of this machine in safe usage would be enough, but I've since rectified my ways. I almost completely disallow the use of IE (only still installed for updates, and the rare site that's still badly coded enough to require it). On Firefox I have Adblock Plus, with subscriptions along with a long custom list of blocked ads and elements. I use NoScript and whitelist only sites I feel trustworthy. I use WOT as a general guideline to the other users to be weary of what they click. Tracking Cookie Opt-out and flash LSO removing addons also help to keep it clean. I feel that my measures with Firefox have been as big, if not bigger contributors to the general security of my machine this time around.

[Doug]

what I really like about Comodo is that it also has the Behavior Blocker features with it. That affords me an extra layer of protection that I've felt has benefited me greatly. I still think highly of ZA as a firewall.. but for whatever reason it caused me no end of troubles.

Both are good products IMO, it is down to "user preference"

I've noticed Spybot S&D falling out of favor on these forums (haven't been here in a while honestly), and it's frankly news to me. I occasionally run scans with it, but mostly appreciate it for its Immunization feature. I run it along with Spyware Blaster in that regard. I particularly like that Spybot S&D adds the immunization to the HOSTS file. My question on this front is if the Spybot HOSTS modifications are on par with MVPS? Would it be feasible, or even any better than pointless to use both?

It would not be recommended to "mix and match" entries to the Hosts File.
The problem is that Hosts File can actually get so large from duplications that it slows DNS resolution and therefore ease/speed of browsing.

Another program I don't see much mention of lately is Ad-Aware. Personally while I still have it installed, I haven't run a scan with it or even updated it in a very long time. Is it still worth having alongside programs like Malwarebytes (a program I've just started using)?

For me, it's an issue of what a utility detects in comparison to other utilities, AND what level of threats are detected. I stopped using Ad-Aware many years ago because it was primarily detecting cookies and not more serious Threats, plus it seemed to have a resource hogging impact on my machines. It is still well thought of by many. User-preference

I still use Windows Defender, though I'm not sure what good it does me anymore.. but it's light and I don't mind letting it run. I've had some problems with it, but I'll save that for another thread. This is currently the only program I allow to run scheduled scans. Partly because it's the only program that doesn't bring other programs, i.e. games, to a grinding halt. The other programs, I only run scans with manually when I feel the need arise (and try to remember to do so once in a while anyway).

Is it just me? I have yet to find "any" instance where Windows Defender actually detected and removed a threat. I'm a little more optimistic about Microsoft Security Essentials, but that will have to be seriously tested, and reviewed before I'd install and rely upon it for main machines, and any recommendation or installing onto other people's machines will have to wait for the final verdict.

Back to the note of AV programs. AVG was, at least for a while, favored for the relatively light usage of resources for its resident shield, which is desirable with anyone into gaming or anything that requires the majority of your resources. How do Avast and Antivir perform in this regard? I expect when I do a full scan with any AV program to not be using the machine for a few hours (AVG's last full system scan with the "Scan infectable files only" option unticked. Took over 4 hours to complete, scanning over 1.5 million objects). Gone are the days of 15 or 30 minute scans now that we're in the realm of Terabytes of stored data. All I care about, resource wise, is how much do I have to feed it while it plays watchdog over my machine? That, next to thoroughness and reliability to detect genuine threats are the most important factors for deciding what AV to use. At least that's how I see it anyway.

Both Antivir and Avast are thorough and lighter footprint.

I'd think that currently, my preventative measures are the most effective they've ever been, evidenced by the fact that I've gone so long without infection ('til now). In addition to the programs I've already mentioned I also use CCleaner and ATF-Cleaner on a very frequent basis to keep the carp** files from piling up. In the past, I was foolish enough to think simply instructing the other users of this machine in safe usage would be enough, but I've since rectified my ways. I almost completely disallow the use of IE (only still installed for updates, and the rare site that's still badly coded enough to require it). On Firefox I have Adblock Plus, with subscriptions along with a long custom list of blocked ads and elements. I use NoScript and whitelist only sites I feel trustworthy. I use WOT as a general guideline to the other users to be weary of what they click. Tracking Cookie Opt-out and flash LSO removing addons also help to keep it clean. I feel that my measures with Firefox have been as big, if not bigger contributors to the general security of my machine this time around.

Yes it appears that you've given good thought, and developed good self-discipline.

Thanks for your contribution of this thread.

[toyotomi]

It would not be recommended to "mix and match" entries to the Hosts File.
The problem is that Hosts File can actually get so large from duplications that it slows DNS resolution and therefore ease/speed of browsing.

With that in mind, would it be worth ditching Spybot's alterations in favor of MVPS? I used MVPS years ago before Spybot started Immunizing via HOSTS, but it's since been off my radar, so I honestly have no clue whatsoever how they compare. Basically, which is more complete in the protection afforded?

Thanks for the feedback thus far.

[Jimbo1]

Holy Cow, man a lot of good info to read here here.

I've noticed Spybot S&D falling out of favor on these forums (haven't been here in a while honestly), and it's frankly news to me. I occasionally run scans with it, but mostly appreciate it for its Immunization feature. I run it along with Spyware Blaster in that regard. I particularly like that Spybot S&D adds the immunization to the HOSTS file. My question on this front is if the Spybot HOSTS modifications are on par with MVPS? Would it be feasible, or even any better than pointless to use both?

It would not be recommended to "mix and match" entries to the Hosts File.
The problem is that Hosts File can actually get so large from duplications that it slows DNS resolution and therefore ease/speed of browsing.

Ok I missed something here, I guess when installing SB&D, I have always unchecked all it's features, mainly I use Sb&D to scan and clean, but never use it to run real time mode protection, it was use to scan and clean the machine only.

Another program I don't see much mention of lately is Ad-Aware. Personally while I still have it installed, I haven't run a scan with it or even updated it in a very long time. Is it still worth having alongside programs like Malwarebytes (a program I've just started using)?

For me, it's an issue of what a utility detects in comparison to other utilities, AND what level of threats are detected. I stopped using Ad-Aware many years ago because it was primarily detecting cookies and not more serious Threats, plus it seemed to have a resource hogging impact on my machines. It is still well thought of by many. User-preference

In the past I have used Ad-Aware and with all of it problems with 2008 and when they went to AE edition, which in my way of saying blew up the machines and hogged down the cpu was nothing more than trouble and now if you even read on their forums the new ver 2010 nothing but problems left and right. This is the main reason I switched to Super AntiSpyware now.

I still use Windows Defender, though I'm not sure what good it does me anymore.. but it's light and I don't mind letting it run. I've had some problems with it, but I'll save that for another thread. This is currently the only program I allow to run scheduled scans. Partly because it's the only program that doesn't bring other programs, i.e. games, to a grinding halt. The other programs, I only run scans with manually when I feel the need arise (and try to remember to do so once in a while anyway).

Is it just me? I have yet to find "any" instance where Windows Defender actually detected and removed a threat. I'm a little more optimistic about Microsoft Security Essentials, but that will have to be seriously tested, and reviewed before I'd install and rely upon it for main machines, and any recommendation or installing onto other people's machines will have to wait for the final verdict.

Very Good point in the past I have always disable it because I found it never did what it claimed to do and would cause problems.

Back to the note of AV programs. AVG was, at least for a while, favored for the relatively light usage of resources for its resident shield, which is desirable with anyone into gaming or anything that requires the majority of your resources. How do Avast and Antivir perform in this regard? I expect when I do a full scan with any AV program to not be using the machine for a few hours (AVG's last full system scan with the "Scan infectable files only" option unticked. Took over 4 hours to complete, scanning over 1.5 million objects). Gone are the days of 15 or 30 minute scans now that we're in the realm of Terabytes of stored data. All I care about, resource wise, is how much do I have to feed it while it plays watchdog over my machine? That, next to thoroughness and reliability to detect genuine threats are the most important factors for deciding what AV to use. At least that's how I see it anyway.

Both Antivir and Avast are thorough and lighter footprint.

I am always looking for something better and without causing the PC to be bloated, Now as for scan times, yes even on bigger drives these days does take a while to run, but as for me if AVG does a good job of dectecting then I am in favor for the long times, Its just I set the scan times to run when I am not using the pc.

But yes if their other AV's thats doing a better job with faster scan times then I may have to consider switching, like I said always looking for something better.

I'd think that currently, my preventative measures are the most effective they've ever been, evidenced by the fact that I've gone so long without infection ('til now). In addition to the programs I've already mentioned I also use CCleaner and ATF-Cleaner on a very frequent basis to keep the carp** files from piling up. In the past, I was foolish enough to think simply instructing the other users of this machine in safe usage would be enough, but I've since rectified my ways. I almost completely disallow the use of IE (only still installed for updates, and the rare site that's still badly coded enough to require it). On Firefox I have Adblock Plus, with subscriptions along with a long custom list of blocked ads and elements. I use NoScript and whitelist only sites I feel trustworthy. I use WOT as a general guideline to the other users to be weary of what they click. Tracking Cookie Opt-out and flash LSO removing addons also help to keep it clean. I feel that my measures with Firefox have been as big, if not bigger contributors to the general security of my machine this time around.

Yes it appears that you've given good thought, and developed good self-discipline. Yes in the past 2 years of Being a IT Tech telling other users of system I worked on taking preventative measures and running these scans each week as I listed above have at least cut down 98.9% of problems and infections on systems.

In the last 2 years of using programs such as these and getting people into the habit of running these scans, 4 systems came back to me that had to be reinstalled and most of the times it was them going somewhere and clicking on something they should not have clicked on in the first place.

Wow very good topic and a lot of good info here, Way to go Folks.

[toyotomi]

Ok I missed something here, I guess when installing SB&D, I have always unchecked all it's features, mainly I use Sb&D to scan and clean, but never use it to run real time mode protection, it was use to scan and clean the machine only.

Immunization is different from Spybot S&D's realtime protection, which is called TeaTimer (for system protection) and SDHelper (for IE blocking). I've never used TeaTimer or SDHelper honestly. The Immunization feature is rather nice though, and does the same sort of thing as programs like Spyware Blaster. Spyware Blaster though, doesn't effect the HOSTS file, where Spybot S&D does. A large portion of the immunization feature is blocking ActiveX controls, bad sites, cookies, images, and scripts. It's a good thing to have, but by no means absolute protection. I agree with Doug that having known bad sites redirected in your HOSTS file is far superior to browser-based blocking... but I like to use both.

I may end up ditching Spybot S&D's Immunization in favor of a combo of Spyware Blaster and MVPS, or something similar. I've yet to decide (and I'll be withholding that decision until after my system has been verified clean).

Edited by toyotomi, 04 November 2009 - 03:51 AM.

[Jimbo1]

Ok I missed something here, I guess when installing SB&D, I have always unchecked all it's features, mainly I use Sb&D to scan and clean, but never use it to run real time mode protection, it was use to scan and clean the machine only.

Immunization is different from Spybot S&D's realtime protection, which is called TeaTimer (for system protection) and SDHelper (for IE blocking). I've never used TeaTimer or SDHelper honestly. The Immunization feature is rather nice though, and does the same sort of thing as programs like Spyware Blaster. Spyware Blaster though, doesn't effect the HOSTS file, where Spybot S&D does. A large portion of the immunization feature is blocking ActiveX controls, bad sites, cookies, images, and scripts. It's a good thing to have, but by no means absolute protection. I agree with Doug that having known bad sites redirected in your HOSTS file is far superior to browser-based blocking... but I like to use both.

I may end up ditching Spybot S&D's Immunization in favor of a combo of Spyware Blaster and MVPS, or something similar. I've yet to decide (and I'll be withholding that decision until after my system has been verified clean).

Ahh I see, cool, just one thing here what is MVPS ? Not heard that phrase or program.

[Doug]

Ahh I see, cool, just one thing here what is MVPS ? Not heard that phrase or program.

MS places a default Hosts File (for instance with XP) C:\Windows\System32\Drivers\etc\
You can create or edit your own Hosts File using Notepad to block unwanted sites/sources.

I'm not sure when MVPS Hosts File came into existence, but it was contemporary to the work of Eric Howes when he was still a student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and before he eventually went to work for Sunbelt Software.

His work was titled: IE-SPYAD and accomplished about the same purpose of populating your native MS Hosts file. "Back in the day", I typically merged both into hosts file on machines I serviced. But then I also used Spyware Blaster.... And eventually found that an over-populated Hosts File and/or browser restricted zone could paradoxically slow down browsing experience. Stopping DNS Service on the local machine helped, but ultimately it became a matter of selecting a blocking routine that worked best for the individual owner/user.

MSVP Hosts File is a monitored and edited and updated list of potentially unwanted URLs. Again, "back in the day", the efforts gained significant momentum in efforts to block the, then menacing, CWS CoolWebSearch infection vectors. MVPS Hosts File is updated about monthly and is an excellent method to increase machine security.

It also causes your browser to not download and display tons of third-party advertisement, particularly Banner Ads, Spot Ads, mouse-over ads, and the annoying and sometimes dangerous ads by Google, Google Ads, Ad Words, and related.

I use it........... except I have to disable it when I wish to view a favorite episode of NCIS or similar on CBS Video, who is the only site I've encountered that "require" that your machine download ads by double-click and others in order to gain access to first-party content.
No problem, I simply restore my Hosts file after my "TV break".

[toyotomi]

I seem to recall using IE-SPYAD at somepoint. Since I have this topic still open and we're talking about various security measures and softwares... Is A-squared still worth using? I read a rather negative review of their bundled AV+Antimalware program (Think it was a PCmag article). But is their regular old freeware scanner worthwhile nowadays? Particularly in comparison to programs like Malwarebytes.

[Doug]

I do not include A2 in my routine recommendations.
I don't have any further comment about it.

Consider the recommendations in Security Best Practices, here:
http://forums.whatth...ing_t98700.html
(though I may be dropping AVG from the recommendation soon)

[Jimbo1]

I do not include A2 in my routine recommendations.
I don't have any further comment about it.

Consider the recommendations in Security Best Practices, here:
http://forums.whatth...ing_t98700.html
(though I may be dropping AVG from the recommendation soon)

Wow kinda hearing the sound of Taps for AVG, but have to agree, in the past months of doing clean installs, once I installed AVG notice a bit slow downs, never had a good review of asking which is consider a better AV software to use, meaning:

1. How well does it do and picking up the threats
2. How bad it loads down the system
3. Time of scan without comprising dectecting virus.

Reason I asked its because the sellers of their product will paint a good picture, but the best source are users and even IT Tech's.