# How sure are you about your AV ?



## DeathtoGnomes (May 18, 2017)

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 (May 18, 2017)

I find that I am my own best AV system


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 18, 2017)

me and Mbytes cant agree more.


----------



## jboydgolfer (May 18, 2017)

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


----------



## Ferrum Master (May 18, 2017)

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 (May 18, 2017)

MSE, malwarebytes, and common sense


----------



## Solaris17 (May 18, 2017)

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 (May 18, 2017)

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 (May 18, 2017)

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. 


ERazer said:


> MSE, malwarebytes, and common sense


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


----------



## dirtyferret (May 18, 2017)

anyone use malwarebytes ransom ware beta?


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 18, 2017)

> 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 (May 19, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

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.



DeathtoGnomes said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

64K said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2017)

dirtyferret said:


> 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.



Jetster said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

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 (May 19, 2017)

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


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 19, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> 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 (May 19, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> 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*.
> 
> ...



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 (May 20, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> 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.



R-T-B said:


> 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 (May 20, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> 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...


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

avast! (and AVG)
AVIRA
Kaspersky
Bitdefender

These companies employ some of the most talented security engineers. I would and I do leave my systems secured by any of these listed companies.


----------



## NationsAnarchy (May 20, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> avast! (and AVG)
> AVIRA
> Kaspersky
> Bitdefender
> ...



This. 
End of story. 

Plus the link from OP's first post seems a bit "fishy".


----------



## Ebo (May 20, 2017)

I use F-secure  full internet security and have done it for years, it works and gets the job done, Im happy.


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> 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/



The "only 3 AV's were able to protect" statement is incorrect. What MRG's document is stating is specific blocking of the exploit component.

AV-Comparatives did the comparison on the binary side and the results there were basically "only 3 AV's didn't detect it (on binary level)". Out of which I know for ESET that it missed the binary but did detect the exploit mechanism. Haven't checked the others.

This is where I can point out the general hatred or dislike of cloud functionality, but it was exactly what made early protection possible.

Back in February 2017, early variants of WannaCry were spreading around. Cloud systems picked them up and processed them through similarity search algorithms. Fast forward to the recent incident and most of companies already had "white cells" ready in ther protection systems to combat all new variant which had similar ancestor in the past.

I think the fatal flaw of WannaCry was that they used a known variant and just modified it. It's why binary was so widely detected by pretty much everyone.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> 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.


It sounds to me like they tested the worm and the payload.  The worm creates a kernel-level vulnerability which, if remains open, means any future virus could exploit it.  Some antiviruses protect against the current known worms but that doesn't mean a future virus won't exploit it far more effectively than the current flavor they're protecting against.  The tunnel, fundamentally, has to be closed.

I haven't read up much on it but if we're talking about NSA-level worms, they create new holes the moment the infection takes hold.  Patching the original vulnerability will not plug all the other holes the worm created.  NSA even used compromised Verisign security certificates to authenticate itself so not even security certificates can be trusted.


I think the only way to truly secure a system is to get adopt a complete deny-all policy with allow exceptions.  Problem is that has to happen not only in firewalls, but in software, kernel, and firmware too.  Truly makes me wish Microsoft finished Singularity.  A completely managed environment is about the only way to almost eliminate malware.


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

Default deny doesn't work. Reason, when something isn't known, it's assumed it's bad (but isn't necessarily actually bad). But user needs to run it. Who is the authority to define if it's really bad or not? The user. And we know how that goes...


----------



## cornemuse (May 20, 2017)

"how-sure-are-you-about-your-av"

Well, given that it is in the best interests of ALL av companies that hackers/who-ever continue to come up with newer & more insidious virus'/malware progs, I am a bit suspicious of all of them, , , ,

-c-


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

If you're trying to bring up the "AV companies are doing it" conspiracy theories, I can tell you, with the amount of baddies out there, they have their hands so full with work they don't have time to make things like this themselves.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> 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.


Being less adept at computers is acceptable and understandable - not everyone wants to be computer/networking/security experts, nor should they have to be.

But there are many, including regulars on this site and other tech support sites who should know better, but blame Microsoft anyway, just because they are biased against the company, or Bill Gates, "corporate greed" or even the US.

And security is a primary example. The bad guys put us here, not Microsoft. And users failing to keep their systems updated and then were click happy were at fault, not Microsoft. But who relentlessly gets blamed?

RAM fails and creates a BSOD - it must be Windows' fault. 

My email is missing. Windows did it. My 15 year old laser printer doesn't work with W10. It is Microsoft's fault! No it isn't! The printer maker failed to provide current drivers. 

There's a regular poster at another site right now who blames W10 for the decline in sales of VR headsets. He claimed, "_So much for Creators' Update of the much hyped Hololens and VR technology. This is what happens when Microsoft introduces new features in Windows without improving what's already there_". 

Huh???

I mean, go ahead and blame Microsoft when due. There's lots of legitimate fodder for that. But get real! 



RejZoR said:


> If you're trying to bring up the "AV companies are doing it" conspiracy theories, I can tell you, with the amount of baddies out there, they have their hands so full with work they don't have time to make things like this themselves.
> 
> avast! (and AVG)
> AVIRA
> ...


I agree 100% when talking about the grunt labor in those companies - that is, the hard working developers doing the actual work.

But the fact is, only Microsoft as the real incentive to stop the bad guys. Why? Because Microsoft will be blamed anyway! That's why MSE/WD are free! Microsoft makes no money off those products but has every incentive for them to work - to avoid misguided bad publicity by all those biased MS bashers. 

But the executives and shareholders at Avast!, AVG, AVIRA, Kaspersky, Bitdefenders and the others have zero incentive to stop the bad guys. None at all! If they stopped the bad guys, that would put them out of business and they know it.

So do you put your trust in a company that really does want to stop the bad guys? Or do you put your trust in a company that thrives when the bad guys thrives and depends on the bad guys thriving? I vote for the former.


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

If you seriously believe that any company can stop ALL criminals who are writing scams, malicious software, exploits etc, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
It's all about 2 things. Money and market share/monopoly.

Malware is huge business. So, there won't be any shortage of people eager to earn some money. And monopoly position, when company achieves that, they'll have problem with targeting. If you have a monopoly in one country, baddies will only target your product, if you share the market with others, they have harder time penetrating that and in the end, users are actually more protected.

So, everyone saying uh oh Windows Defender is awesome, everyone use it. That'll collapse the herd immunity so to speak. It's literally NOT a good thing. Despite all capability and tech, Windows Defender is incredibly primitive program. It's way too passive and it kinda works well with signatures for known stuff, but for outbreaks like the last one WannaCry and similar, you need reactive system, the ones that protect you from unpredictable things. And all the companies/products I've mentioned above have this. They have highly reactive products and that's what I prefer to rely on.

Only way Microsoft could for the most part eliminate malware is totally lock down the system to their stupid UWE or whatever they call Win10 apps and go the way of MacOS/iOS. I've heard glimpses of MS heading that way, but frankly, it's the future I don't like or want. The charm of Windows is that it's a closed sourced system that is hugely open to the users. When you close the thing down it'll become some limited capability launcher for apps and that'll just be total crap. I don't want it and even if that means I'm "forced" to use antiviruses or care about security myself.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> If you seriously believe that any company can stop ALL criminals who are writing scams, malicious software, exploits etc, you couldn't possibly be more wrong.
> It's all about 2 things. Money and market share/monopoly.


Who the heck suggested that? I sure didn't. Please don't twist what people say. That's just not cool.

I NEVER said any company, or even suggested Microsoft "can" stop anything. I said they are the only company that truly has the incentive to "want" to stop the bad guys. Microsoft is the only company that develops anti-malware solutions for home consumers that benefits by ridding the world of malware. They don't make any money on MSE/WD and they don't use the free MSE/WD to promote any pro/paid versions like all your favorites do. They are not in the anti-malware software business to make money.

None of the other companies benefit or have the true incentive to stop the bad guys for that will put them out of business.


RejZoR said:


> So, everyone saying uh oh Windows Defender is awesome, everyone use it.


Come on! There you go again. No body said that. If you want to debate maturely, stop with the "alternative facts" please!

Who said WD was awesome? Not me. Never. I have said it is a "decent" solution, "more than adequate", "capable". I even agreed with others that it is the "baseline" solution. But guess what? Baseline does not mean bad. You don't need to drive around in an Abrams tank to be safe. You do need a properly maintained and updated car, and most importantly, you need to drive defensively.  


			
				RejZor said:
			
		

> It's way too passive and it kinda works well with signatures for known stuff, but for outbreaks like the last one WannaCry and similar, you need reactive system, the ones that protect you from unpredictable things. And all the companies/products I've mentioned above have this. They have highly reactive products and that's what I prefer to rely on.


Demonstrating it is clear you don't know how WD works, or even your own suggested products.  Yes, WD uses signature files, but it also uses behavior analysis. And BTW, both techniques (signature files and behavior analysis) are "reactive" technologies but the fact they know what to look for also makes them "proactive" - a good thing. And exactly what your programs do too. 

And for the record, Windows Defender detects and removes WannaCrypt which you would know if you did just a tiny bit of homework before bashing. 



RejZoR said:


> I've heard glimpses of MS heading that way


And again, it is clear you don't know how things are. Homework!!! While not expected soon, it is very likely Windows will go open source in the not too distant future.

Let me Google that for you. 

Frankly, your rant just illustrated my point about some folks being biased against Microsoft. Others in this thread have made a point about not using an anti-malware solution at all. Do you pounce on them? No - even though their admission is actually a testament to how secure Windows by itself is. And how they don't need your fancy, profit seeking solutions.


----------



## Beastie (May 20, 2017)

Frankly, I'm not over confident of any line of defence.

 So I use Avira, Malwarebytes, always update Windows security updates and have Adblock and Noscript on by default.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2017)

Beastie said:


> Frankly, I'm not over confident of any line of defence.


A wise precaution, IMO. And definitely not a paranoid one either. It would be unwise to assume any of us are smarter than the bad guys.


----------



## Dethroy (May 20, 2017)

Might be worth a read...

http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/01/disable-your-antivirus-software-except.html?m=1


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

Oh my god dude, Bill, you're reading into things that aren't there and twisting it through some sort of your alternate reality. If you really understood any of this, you'd know that even if any company had the incentive to stop it all (and trust me, they do), they cannot EVER achieve that even with best efforts. Bloody Linux is crowdsource developed by basically entire world and it can still be exploited and hacked. But, be my guest saying AV companies just "aren't trying hard enough".

Stop quoting and interpreting individual sentences and read the whole damn paragraph. You're again reading into things that aren't even there. For god sake, I can't even respond to this horrible mess.

And about the Microsoft's direction, I have my very insider sources that told me what direction MS is heading. Making Windows open source will fix exactly absolutely nothing. But if you believe something being open source miraculously solves everything, you're even more delusional than I thought you are.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 20, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Default deny doesn't work. Reason, when something isn't known, it's assumed it's bad (but isn't necessarily actually bad). But user needs to run it. Who is the authority to define if it's really bad or not? The user. And we know how that goes...


Which is why I said a completely managed computer is really the only solution.  Everything is walled off (no cross-memory nor cross-thread access), everything has to be signed twice (once by the publisher/manufacturer and once by Microsoft), the hardware firewall only lets through traffic from sources that have both valid certificates, and so on.  The problem is that doing it would be so restrictive that no one would want to use it.  Where performance is more important than security, it wouldn't be a good idea to use at all because managed platforms have a significant performance penalty.



Dethroy said:


> Might be worth a read...
> 
> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/01/disable-your-antivirus-software-except.html?m=1


So true.  Microsoft should have gotten into the anti-malware business the moment it became a thing.  They waited too long.  Relying on third party software to secure an operating system is asinine.


----------



## RejZoR (May 20, 2017)

Oh boy, I guess my part about antimalware monopoly flew over everyone's heads because being outraged over me supposedly implying something was more offensive than what I was explaining with that sentence...


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 20, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Oh my god dude, Bill, you're reading into things that aren't there


No. I quoted you. You said it. Nothing twisted, unlike you when you replied to me with this comment:





			
				RejZor said:
			
		

> If you seriously believe that any company can stop ALL criminals who are writing scam


So no use trying to pretend you said something that flew over everyone's head. You are not that clever. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> Microsoft should have gotten into the anti-malware business the moment it became a thing.


They wanted to. They tried! They had planned to put AV code in XP 16 years ago - before the explosion of malware on the Internet.

But Norton, McAfee, TrendMicro, CA and the others whined and cried "Monopoly" to Congress and the EU claiming it was their job to rid the world of viruses (we see how well that worked!). And they cried that Microsoft was trying to rule the world - they were, but not the point.

Congress and the EU heard "monopoly" and that was it. They threatened to break up Microsoft if MS didn't stop their plans. This is when MS was ordered to allow alternative browsers too. But again, there was no incentive for those companies to rid the world of malware so the bad guys proliferated unabated.  

And all our elected officials refused to fund law enforcement the essential resources to counter the bad guys too. Neither did the UN. 

Microsoft actually might have had a chance to nip it in the bud back then - if allowed. Now it is too late.

Notice how Congress and the EU have been mum about WD in W8 and W10? That's because they know they mess up before.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

How the fricking hell am i even suppose to reply to your quoting clusterfuck? Quote on quote on quote blaming me for making shit up even though it's you who said it initially. I'm not playing this stupid game.

I'll just say it again in one sentence. You got it wrong and you got it wrong on so many levels it's not even possible to reply back.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 21, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> No. I quoted you. You said it. Nothing twisted, unlike you when you replied to me with this comment:So no use trying to pretend you said something that flew over everyone's head. You are not that clever.
> 
> They wanted to. They tried! They had planned to put AV code in XP 16 years ago - before the explosion of malware on the Internet.
> 
> ...


 Wow, there was so much more to that anti-trust cry then just the anti virus part. m$ blocked other programs from running and/or from running correctly, Netscape ring a bell?. There was so much more than just the "issue" with internet explorer, m$ is still adding programs that users dont want and preventing users from uninstalling them.  OneDrive ( and its iterations) is the most recent prime example, go ahead try to uninstall it like any other program. You had/have to edit the registry to disable it. To me, this puts that in the malware category.   The bottom line is that B.Gates did not want to play with others, look what he did to his "friends" at Apple.

And please stop mixing bashing m$ with complaining about them. Its a fine line and hard to stay on the right side. 




Dethroy said:


> Might be worth a read...
> 
> http://robert.ocallahan.org/2017/01/disable-your-antivirus-software-except.html?m=1


a few decades ago, the popular opinion and a few facts, was that A/v was doing more harm than good and usually was to blame for win95/98 constant breaking. No one listened. And here we are, very few A/V are worth their salt, hoping M$ will "fix their holes" faster than we can complain about them.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2017)

Havent used an a/v for at least 10 years. More hassle the they' re worth.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> OneDrive ( and its iterations) is the most recent prime example, go ahead try to uninstall it like any other program.


You can easily uninstall it in Creators Update via Programs and Features.  It only installs from that specific user though.

What I hate is how Windows 10 adds shortcuts to your start menu for Windows Store software (Candy Crush, Facebook, some racing game, don't remember the others) and then, within an hour, it starts downloading them regardless if you unpinned them from the start menu.  It's Microsoft pushing the bloat now instead of OEMs.  That said, once they start downloading, you can uninstall them.  Waste of bandwidth and pisses me off.



erocker said:


> Havent used an a/v for at least 10 years. More hassle the they' re worth.


I'm in the same boat.


----------



## Final_Fighter (May 21, 2017)

erocker said:


> Havent used an a/v for at least 10 years. More hassle the they' re worth.



i found that some AVs are almost like a virus themselves. annoying and always asking me for something thats not important. some free solutions are even like ransomware.

i've gone on now ~5 years just using MSRT, browser pugins ghostery and ADP. sometimes use ADWCleaner from malwarebytes. reading threw everything i am about to install and monitoring my network connections.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

erocker said:


> Havent used an a/v for at least 10 years. More hassle the they' re worth.



WannaCry sure showed how that "I'm Mr. Smart Guy, I don't click things I don't know" has worked out... And what is that hassle? A false positive every few years?


----------



## Kursah (May 21, 2017)

Not sure if anyone read *this*, but Windows 7 accounted for the most affected OS from the WannaCry outbreak. Windows 7 x64 being the bulk of Windows 7 versions that was hit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2017)

Yup, because a lot of people don't update it and refuse to switch to Windows 10.  Also a lot of businesses are still installing Windows 7 on new systems (even Windows 10) because they want one platform for everyone.


----------



## Dethroy (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> WannaCry sure showed how that "I'm Mr. Smart Guy, I don't click things I don't know" has worked out... And what is that hassle? A false positive every few years?


Most AVs did not prevent machines from WannaCry, though. You come off as unnecessary arrogant and almost sound like a salesman for AV software. If machines were simply kept up to date, instead of "Mr. Smart Guy" thinking he knows better, using third party tools or messing with the registry to postpone security updates, foolishly assuming that his snake-oil software will actually protect against already known backdoors instead of adding more layers of potential attack surfaces for malicious threats, WannaCry would have done no damage at all.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 21, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> Most AVs did not prevent machines from WannaCry, though. You come off as unnecessary arrogant and almost sound like a salesman for AV software. If machines were simply kept up to date, instead of "Mr. Smart Guy" thinking he knows better, using third party tools or messing with the registry to postpone security updates, foolishly assuming that his snake-oil software will actually protect against already known backdoors instead of adding more layers of potential attack surfaces for malicious threats, WannaCry would have done no damage at all.


No, it's the "Mr. Smart Guy" people who come off as arrogant. @RejZoR is absolutely correct. When you encounter actual security experts, you'll find they all use AV (as I said earlier, more properly called anti-malware now).

You are right that patched systems were protected, but it's also true that the major AV players like BitDefender, Kaspersky, and Avast! had this covered from the beginning as well with their web-filtering software.  Why is that important? Look at the number of people on this very forum who proudly proclaim they don't update Windows, whether it be 7, 8.1 or 10.

Just adding more food for thought, not hostility.


----------



## Caring1 (May 21, 2017)

Kursah said:


> Not sure if anyone read *this*, but Windows 7 accounted for the most affected OS from the WannaCry outbreak. Windows 7 x64 being the bulk of Windows 7 versions that was hit.


That just proves W7 x64 is still the most widely used O.S. not that it is any more vulnerable.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2017)

91% of infections were on Windows 7.  Windows 7 does not have 91% marketshare.  And yes, that is proof Windows 7 is more vulnerable, at least to that attack.  Or rather, more people using Windows 7 are careless with updates and security.  Just look around this forum in Windows 10 threads about people protesting leaving Windows 7.   I ran into one of these people myself outside of TPU.  All I can do is shake my head and scoff at them.  Welcome to the 21st century where the internet is a never ending warzone.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

Dethroy said:


> Most AVs did not prevent machines from WannaCry, though. You come off as unnecessary arrogant and almost sound like a salesman for AV software. If machines were simply kept up to date, instead of "Mr. Smart Guy" thinking he knows better, using third party tools or messing with the registry to postpone security updates, foolishly assuming that his snake-oil software will actually protect against already known backdoors instead of adding more layers of potential attack surfaces for malicious threats, WannaCry would have done no damage at all.



They have prevented. If you're detecting binaries, how is it then suppose to "infect" anything? And that's exactly what they were doing. If you think I'm here as an AV "salesman", I couldn't care any less. Just don't come crying back here when you'll lose all your data to ransomware (not that I'm expecting any, because I know people who are the loudest now will be quiet as a mouse when they'll be nailed by ransomware).

I still preferred Windows 7 way of updating things because I had a complete control when and how I update. I've always updated as soon as updates were available, but on my own terms and not like Win10 does by just updating it and then you restart because you need to while i hurry and the damn thing begins updating (during which time you can't do anything). People who don't update for weeks and months, those are special class of idiots.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 21, 2017)

Which is why Microsoft adapted the strict policy it did with Windows 10.  The best way to stop a small problem from becoming a big problem is to fix it and push the fix out to everyone.  48 hours, every running system is no longer vulnerable versus sometime never.  Yeah, people get annoyed by the inconvenience and that is Microsoft's fault: not for doing it but not explaining the risks clearly and concisely what the potential consequences are of failing to update (e.g. ransomware).  I think if people saw a message saying "your computer needs to restart to protect against ransomware," they'd restart immediately without fuss.  Microsoft only conveys the seriousness of the situation through buried technical bulletins.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (May 21, 2017)

I'm gonna guess that win7 has more victims because of the refusal to have the upgrade to Win10 shoved down their throats. The sole reason for win7 users to disable windows update. I dont think its about stupidity, but there is some of that involved too. Small business might have a more legitimate excuse not to upgrade due to costs, while a (work at home) neighbor didnt want to upgrade from XP because his programming software didnt work in win 7 and it wasnt updated. I shook my head at the latter thought train.


----------



## Dethroy (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> They have prevented.


Very few actually did.


RejZoR said:


> If you think I'm here as an AV "salesman", I couldn't care any less.


Neither could I. I simply don't like your tone at times. I don't mind people voicing their opinions, but I can't stand it when people fail to accept that opinions may differ. And none of us is knowledgeable enough (not just years of experience in IT, but actual facts on the matter; but reliable data on this very topic is somewhere between scarce to nonexistant) to have anything more than an educated opinion on the topic at hand.


RejZoR said:


> Just don't come crying back here when you'll lose all your data to ransomware (not that I'm expecting any, because I know people who are the loudest now will be quiet as a mouse when they'll be nailed by ransomware).


Good backup practice makes sure there is no reason to cry. And there are other means to protect your network/machine(s) than AV software, too.


RejZoR said:


> People who don't update for weeks and months, those are special class of idiots.


I guess you just called lots of users here on TPU idiots. But I kinda agree, it is not the best practice and not necessarily very clever.



rtwjunkie said:


> No, it's the "Mr. Smart Guy" people who come off as arrogant. @RejZoR is absolutely correct. When you encounter actual security experts, you'll find they all use AV (as I said earlier, more properly called anti-malware now).


I've been working with quite a few in recent years. None of 'em was very fond of AV/anti-malware.


rtwjunkie said:


> You are right that patched systems were protected, but it's also true that the major AV players like BitDefender, Kaspersky, and Avast! had this covered from the beginning as well with their web-filtering software.  Why is that important? Look at the number of people on this very forum who proudly proclaim they don't update Windows, whether it be 7, 8.1 or 10.
> 
> Just adding more food for thought, not hostility.


No offense taken. And there's nothing to argue in this paragraph.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> Wow, there was so much more to that anti-trust cry then just the anti virus part. m$ blocked other programs from running and/or from running correctly, Netscape ring a bell?.


As I said, Microsoft was trying to rule the world - but that was not the point. The point was, they wanted to put AV code in XP from the beginning, but Congress and the EU shot them down - and for the wrong reasons and that was a huge mistake. And the politicians know that now which is why they are not threatening to break up MS anymore.

And note Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky, Norton, McAfee, etc. aren't whining and crying monopoly anymore either - because they are getting filthy rich milking unsuspecting consumers who believe all their (and the Microsoft bashers) hype that WD is not good enough.


Dethroy said:


> Most AVs did not prevent machines from WannaCry


True. But as you, me and others correctly noted several times, it would not have mattered if those users _simply_ allowed Windows Update on those systems to update the systems.

*IF* Microsoft failed to patch that vulnerability in a timely manner, or the patch failed, then I think it fair to praise those products that covered the vulnerability. Otherwise, meh!



DeathtoGnomes said:


> I'm gonna guess that win7 has more victims because of the refusal to have the upgrade to Win10 shoved down their throats. The sole reason for win7 users to disable windows update.


The sole reason? No way! Folks have been disabling WU ever since WU was introduced in Vista. And with W7, long before W*8* came about. The W10 upgrade was just one reason for those people who felt they had to have total control.

But that was almost 2 years ago and almost a year since the nagging update icon was disabled when the free update period ended. And of course, there were tutorials everywhere on how to get rid of the Get Windows 10 icon anyway. So disabling WU for that reason was no excuse. And certainly no excuse to keep it disabled.

For the "Mr Smart Guy" who disables Windows Updates or runs without an anti-malware solution because he truly believes his experience, a degree or two, or some certs makes him smarter than the Microsoft developers and the bad guys, then he is more arrogant than smart - and likely graced with dumb luck too.

But for the "Mr Smart Guy" who really is smart and disciplined he (or she) can greatly minimize (but not totally prevent) the risk of infection when not using an anti-malware solution - but as noted way back in post #19, that still requires keeping Windows updated in a timely fashion, staying away from illegal activity, and avoid being click-happy. But only if he or she is the only user of that computer and on their network. And they still need a bit of luck too.

I can understand some folks "delaying" installing updates for a few days while they "listen for fallout" in the oft chance an update starts breaking things. But 2 months? Or indefinitely? That's just not smart.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Yeah, people get annoyed by the inconvenience and that is Microsoft's fault: not for doing it but not explaining the risks clearly and concisely what the potential consequences are of failing to update (e.g. ransomware).


And Microsoft is listening. It is simple to schedule reboots during your own "off hours" - like 3:30AM. I never get interrupted with update notifications or requests to reboot. And after you install the new Creators Update in W10, you can delay installing updates for up to 35 days if you really want. You can also tighten even more "privacy" settings - such as location settings and more.

But people really do need to understand and accept the difference between privacy and security. The difference is huge! Microsoft protects our security and is no where near the biggest threat to our privacy. Now that our illustrious leaders in Congress have rolled back the FCC's regulations protecting our privacy by allowing ISPs to sell information about our online habits, we have no privacy any more. For privacy fanatics, Microsoft is not your enemy. Your ISP, Google and Facebook are. And maybe your elected representatives too.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> WannaCry sure showed how that "I'm Mr. Smart Guy, I don't click things I don't know" has worked out... And what is that hassle? A false positive every few years?


I'm sorry, should I be "Mr. Smart Guy" that installs crap on their machine? Over 10 years.... No issues. Not going to change now. Even if I got some crippling virus, so what. Wipe clean, start new. Smart people keep their PC's up to date and don't bother with A/V's that are worthless and just there to make money. Seems dumb for a gaming PC.

At work, I use a bunch of A/V's not for protection but for an outlet to complain to when their software doesn't work and I need to hold someone liable.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

erocker said:


> Smart people keep their PC's up to date and don't bother with A/V's that are worthless and just there to make money. Seems dumb for a gaming PC.


I think smart people still use A/V programs - just not the worthless ones there to make money. And of course, smart people keep current backups.

I don't see how a gaming PC makes any difference - assuming it still connects to the Internet, and downloads updates for the games. Gaming sites can be hijacked and turned malicious too.

It's not the function of computer that matters. It's if it connects to a network that has Internet access.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2017)

I could get hit by a truck but I don't go around wearing protective gear. If you or anyone else feel safer using one, by all means use one. There's other ways of protection in terms of financials and identity that work very well that I use. Well.. that I've paid for, never had to use yet.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

I want to back up a tiny bit to clarify what I said in my last reply. 

After thinking about this further, I don't want it to appear as though I am saying smart people don't use the expensive anti-malware solutions. Or that only those not-so smart do. 

You can be extremely smart/intelligent but know nothing about computer security or the threats out there. Also, there are some extremely smart and very clever people in marketing working for these expensive anti-malware providers intent on getting you to subscribe to their products with those recurring annual money making fees. 

A person does not have to be dumb to be duped by a clever marketing scam... err... scheme. 

And the expensive solutions do work - an important fact not to be dismissed. 

That said, it would be "ignorant" to not use an anti-malware solution if you did not consider and prepare for the risks. Ignorance does not imply stupidity - just a lack of knowledge of the facts. If you do your homework, keep your systems updated, keep current backups (and know how to restore from them), then running without anti-malware may be fine for you. 

I would and do still advise using at least a basic anti-malware solution like MSE/WD and Windows Firewall -  especially if you are not the only user of your computer, or there are other users on your network - unless you know for a fact those other users are more knowledgeable, experienced and disciplined than you.


----------



## erocker (May 21, 2017)

Good advice.


----------



## natr0n (May 21, 2017)

Learn to use/configure ublock origin. If you are intelligent enough you can get away without any AV software.

I dont use AV anymore. If there is an emergency malwarebytes.

I'm sure Bill_B will blow a gasket.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

Not blow a gasket, but I think it ill-advised to think uBlock Origin is all you need. Malware can enter your computer via other means besides your browser - as an email attachment for example. Or via downloads. 

I don't use uBlock Origin. I use Adblock Latitude with Pale Moon, my default browser. And Adblock Plus with IE and Chrome but I can't remember the last time I called Chrome up. As noted before,  Google is too big a privacy abuser. Well, I have uBlock Origin with Edge, but I don't use that either.


----------



## natr0n (May 21, 2017)

Used to be a palemoon user it got so far behind and had issues with html5 so bailed on it. I use FF 64 now you can disable telemetry in the options.

Email and downloading you eventually know/learn whats legit and where to go to download.

This is good too.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

rtwjunkie said:


> No, it's the "Mr. Smart Guy" people who come off as arrogant. @RejZoR is absolutely correct. When you encounter actual security experts, you'll find they all use AV (as I said earlier, more properly called anti-malware now).
> 
> You are right that patched systems were protected, but it's also true that the major AV players like BitDefender, Kaspersky, and Avast! had this covered from the beginning as well with their web-filtering software.  Why is that important? Look at the number of people on this very forum who proudly proclaim they don't update Windows, whether it be 7, 8.1 or 10.
> 
> Just adding more food for thought, not hostility.



I think the only arrogance here is those saying their way is the highway, and that's certainly not me.  My way works for me, but it's certainly not for mainstream or unstudied people in this subject matter.  I'm not claiming anything else.

At the moment rtwjunkie (and let me preface this by saying that I have nothing but respect for you) the only ones I see selling their way as the "only" way is the antimalware crowd.


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 21, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> At the moment rtwjunkie (and let me preface this by saying that I have nothing but respect for you) the only ones I see selling their way as the "only" way is the antimalware crowd


I understand your view and respect it.   It's not a my way or the highway mentality, but a self preservation mentality.  It's the people who think they are smarter than the bad guys, and are basically lucky, who will eventually get infected. Maybe before they know they are and take their reinstall steps, they can potentially spread that infection around. I just see it as a little selfish.  We are part of a worldwide web, and I feel have a responsibility to keep others safe.

It's also why I am against people continuing with XP, unless they are completely offline.  So yeah, those that don't use any protection are welcome to follow their procedures. Invariably, the tone of many (not you) comes accross as haughty as they join  various threads and pronounce how awesome and careful they are, and imply that those of us who use protection are stupid. Hell, one said it in this very thread.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

erocker said:


> I'm sorry, should I be "Mr. Smart Guy" that installs crap on their machine? Over 10 years.... No issues. Not going to change now. Even if I got some crippling virus, so what. Wipe clean, start new. Smart people keep their PC's up to date and don't bother with A/V's that are worthless and just there to make money. Seems dumb for a gaming PC.
> 
> At work, I use a bunch of A/V's not for protection but for an outlet to complain to when their software doesn't work and I need to hold someone liable.



Ransomware aren't dumb worms and trojans where you just start with clean Windows. When it screws your data it screws it for good. Not all have fatal design flaws where you can decrypt it easily or shut it down. Some are irrecoverable. There is no "wipe, start clean".

AV's worthless and just there for money. Ok mr smarty pants, how is for example avast! there only for money when it's free? It LITERALLY costs you NOTHING. Same for AVG, AVIRA, Panda Free, Bitdefender Free. Pairing any of these with extra RansomFree which is, you haven't guessed it yet, also free and literally costs you nothing. Efficiency, VERY HIGH.

Think whatever you want, but your fully updated system is like car with really good brakes. Mine with good AV also has lane assist, 8 airbags, emergency auto braking and all sorts of sensors to detect threatening situations. Yup, car analogy still works.


----------



## Dethroy (May 21, 2017)

FYI
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...ven-nsa-hacking-tools-wannacry-used-just-two/


----------



## Red_Machine (May 21, 2017)

I use Norton Antivirus Basic, and I got a popup a few days ago saying that I didn't have to worry about WannaCry because Norton was on top of it and had been extensively testing and patching the software to make sure it couldn't get through.  I'm not particularly worried.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Ransomware aren't dumb worms and trojans where you just start with clean Windows. When it screws your data it screws it for good. Not all have fatal design flaws where you can decrypt it easily or shut it down. Some are irrecoverable. There is no "wipe, start clean".



There always is if you have offline backups.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> There always is if you have offline backups.



And when you hook that drive up it encrypts it. Not something most even more advanced uses take into account. Let alone casual normies.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> And when you hook that drive up it encrypts it. Not something most even more advanced uses take into account. Let alone casual normies.



And what kind of idiot would hook up an offline backup drive to a live, running, compromised PC?

It's "offline" for a reason.  We're not talking "internet" offline you realize.  We're talking the media doesn't touch anything unless it's an offline restore/backup op (in my case, Clonezilla).  That's the whole idea.

The people who do this are not "casual normies" but I never pretended I was, or advised it for them.  I'm pointing out we do exist.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

Because there has never ever been any kind of malware that stayed dormant and attacked when user wasn't expecting. Right? Doing offline backups like Clonezilla is so impractical no one but the most paranoid people do it. Next excuse plz.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

> Because there has never ever been any kind of malware that stayed dormant and attacked when user wasn't expecting.



Through a cold boot?  No.  3D Xpoint and NVRam might change that, but to date, no.



RejZoR said:


> Doing offline backups like Clonezilla is so impractical no one but the most paranoid people do it. Next excuse plz.



So you just dismissed my entire use case with "you're paranoid?"

Ok I guess... (Are all security experts paranoid then?  I'd wager so).  But guess what?  It still works.  My entire family has a weekly backup routine via this method.  It really isn't that harsh.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> Ok mr smarty pants


Pretty sure that's the "unnecessary arrogance" Dethroy was referring to earlier. You don't like what others have to say so you lash out with uncalled for, puerile personal comments, you misquote, and post inaccurate information because you don't do your homework first. It's sad.



RejZoR said:


> how is for example avast! there only for money when it's free? It LITERALLY costs you NOTHING. Same for AVG, AVIRA, Panda Free, Bitdefender Free.


They are in it for the money! Yes, they have free versions, but they are limited versions of their paid products they promote and want you to buy. Paid products that typically have way more than needed. And they jam the full versions down on to your systems as "free trial versions" first - with the idea of coercing you to pay out the nose for the full versions. And you see ads for their paid products (and some times other ads too) when you use the programs. 

For example,
Your obvious favorite Avast wants you to buy Pro Antivirus for 1 device for $50 per year.
AVG Internet Security is for $70 per year but at least you can use it on all your devices.
Avira Internet Security  44,95 € for 1 device per year.
Panda Internet Security for $35 for 1 device per year.
Bitdefender Internet Security is $45 per year for 3 devices.

So, your Avast at $50 for 1 device is the most expensive per device! But they are not in it for the money, right?

Windows Defender is not only completely free, you can use it on all your Windows 8.1 and W10 computers (MSE for W7) and there are no ads for anything that costs you money. But it can also be used for free for commercial use in SOHOs too. 



RejZoR said:


> Some are irrecoverable. There is no "wipe, start clean".


Sure there is - if you have a current backup.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> Sure there is - if you have a current backup.



He seems convinced a proper offline backup is only something "paranoid" people do.

If this is your mindset, then yes, antimalware is definitely for you.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

Bill_Bright said:


> Pretty sure that's the "unnecessary arrogance" Dethroy was referring to earlier. You don't like what others have to say so you lash out with uncalled for, puerile personal comments, you misquote, and post inaccurate information because you don't do your homework first. It's sad.
> 
> They are in it for the money! Yes, they have free versions, but they are limited versions of their paid products they promote and want you to buy. Paid products that typically have way more than needed. And they jam the full versions down on to your systems as "free trial versions" first - with the idea of coercing you to pay out the nose for the full versions. And you see ads for their paid products (and some times other ads too) when you use the programs.
> 
> ...



avast! is *FREE*. ZERO. NADA. NULL. IT COSTS NOTHING. Core protection of Free and paid is IDENTICAL. Please, do try dragging more BS out here. I got more ammo against it. Why are you behaving stupid by listing prices of FREE programs IF you upgrade? And then you have the nerve to call me arrogant. Give me a break dude. No one forces you to upgrade and apart from an ad or two here and there, you're at no loss. But you gain a powerful protection from things no human, even so god damn clever can protect. Unless you can inspect the code and behavior of any program in 2-3 seconds.

Also, calling AV companies "for profit". That's a rich one. But Microsoft is a charity, right? They give away Windows Defender for free so you're willing to buy their whole OS because with it, it's somewhat sufficiently secure. I'd call that "for business" behavior...


----------



## rtwjunkie (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> avast! is *FREE*. ZERO. NADA. NULL. IT COSTS NOTHING. Core protection of Free and paid is IDENTICAL. Please, do try dragging more BS out here. I got more ammo against it. Why are you behaving stupid by listing prices of FREE programs IF you upgrade? And then you have the nerve to call me arrogant. Give me a break dude. No one forces you to upgrade and apart from an ad or two here and there, you're at no loss. But you gain a powerful protection from things no human, even so god damn clever can protect. Unless you can inspect the code and behavior of any program in 2-3 seconds.
> 
> Also, calling AV companies "for profit". That's a rich one. But Microsoft is a charity, right? They give away Windows Defender for free so you're willing to buy their whole OS because with it, it's somewhat sufficiently secure. I'd call that "for business" behavior...


Um, look, all the big makers provide free versions.  And they are just good enough that a great many people DO want more and pay for full protection. Enough that these companies all make a good profit.  That is why Bill listed prices. Defender isn't great, but under safe, rational use it is actually good enough.


----------



## Bill_Bright (May 21, 2017)

RejZoR said:


> They give away Windows Defender for free so you're willing to buy their whole OS because with it


Yeah right. RejZor has it all figured out. People are buying Windows so they can get the free Windows Defender. 

I give. You win.


----------



## RejZoR (May 21, 2017)

@rtwjunkie 
There is NO difference in core protection between free and paid version. This applies to all AV's I've listed. The extra features may provide additional protection, but doesn't necessarily mean it will beyond its core protection. In avast!'s particular case is secure DNS, Sandbox and firewall. It can elevate protection, but it's the core feature shared between both which is identical and does basically all the protection heavy lifting.

@Bill_Bright 
I think you should stop twisting words and talking about things you clearly don't understand or comprehend. I NEVER said people buy Windows to get free Windows Defender. What I DID say is that people buy Windows because Windows Defender is there to reassure (certain degree of) Windows's security. Why else would Microsoft incorporate Windows Defender into Windows? Out of sheer kindness? You should give up, you have no clue what you're talking about.


----------



## R-T-B (May 21, 2017)

I think this thread has run it's course.


----------



## bogmali (May 21, 2017)

R-T-B said:


> I think this thread has run it's course.



It has


----------

