finally got rid of the virus known as Norton

[nathmatt]

so my Norton has expired so i trying 30day trial of Kaspersky so far i like it better than Norton the virtual keyboard is a nice extra feature

[ForeverZer0]

ESET Smart Security 4 is the way to go, by far, hands down.  I've tested all the major ones, and it has the highest detection rate, least amount of false positives, and the lowest use of resources across the board.

PM me and I can upload you some files for "obtaining" it.  I found a hidden little gem that is not offered at the usual places these things are found.

[Ryex]

I use Avast free edition, and it's fine for me.  you should consider this, the free editions of most of the brands are just as good as the paid editions you just lose most of the advanced features. but you still keep the detection rate ect. and they usually have lower profiles. so unless your going to be "taking risks" so to speak there is really no reason to get a big virus program.

I should get back to writing "The internet Your Computer and how not to be Stupid" ...

[ForeverZer0]

True, 90% of anti-virus is the user, not the program, but I like when that 10% does its job well.  I used to believe Avast free edition was pretty good, but after some testing, I found that it wasn't so great.  I usually create a partition, install an AV, then let loose some viruses to see what happens.  I benchmark the resources used by the AV as well, which I believe this to be a pretty good test.  If I remember correctly, Avast failed on even the most simple of things, like the EICAR test.

You can do this yourself by simply opening a new text document, add the following line...

X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*

...and pressing "Save".  It is not actual virus of course, it just has similar heuristics, so no harm will come to your PC.  There are plenty of actual "tests" out there you can do, but I personally prefer to do my own against actual malicious software, I think it is a little more accurate. 

[Ryex]

really? what was it failing at?

[Power Hungry Midget]

I would recommend Microsoft Security Essentials if you want the best from free antivirus. It actually does a really nice job. If it detects something it tells you. You click on it and virus is gone. Simple/

[nathmatt]

ESET Smart Security 4 is the way to go, by far, hands down.  I've tested all the major ones, and it has the highest detection rate, least amount of false positives, and the lowest use of resources across the board.

PM me and I can upload you some files for "obtaining" it.  I found a hidden little gem that is not offered at the usual places these things are found.

i might try the 30day trial to see how i like it only thing is i really don't like buying things online but if its that good i guess i could get some kind of money card and buy it

still have almost a month on this 1 tho so will wait for this 1 to run out

[Blizzard]

I would recommend Microsoft Security Essentials if you want the best from free antivirus. It actually does a really nice job. If it detects something it tells you. You click on it and virus is gone. Simple/

Actually that's an actual good free alternative. I'm not a fan of Avast and AVG either.

[Subsonic_Noise]

Oh man if this would be a place where noone knows me I'd start trolling about having a mac.
Since I can't do that, Bitdefender worked perfectly for me, and I remember that a licence isn't as pricey.

[Blizzard]

Don't. I have the perfect reply for that.
"Of course there are no viruses for the Mac. Nobody bothers writing one to mess with one of the 10 users they have."

I tried Kaspersky and Bitdefender, but I went back to NOD 32.

[nathmatt]

"Of course there are no viruses for the Mac. Nobody bothers writing one to mess with one of the 10 users they have"

exactly what i was thinking on the mac commercials when they say they have no viruses

[Spaceman McConaughey]

No, there's a whole lot of Mac users, just not much are into the whole "fuck your shit up" thing, or are not motivated enough to cook something up.


Now, tell me this:

How is Linux so safe, when it's open source? Linux-based operating systems should be the most infectious ones around, but they're surprisingly not.

[ForeverZer0]

One reason is Unix systems don't install and use files from all over the whole f-ing machine.  Things run more in their own little "groups" by default, unlike Windows who enjoys placing files in 85 different directories for one program.

[Spaceman McConaughey]

Good point.

[Ryex]

put it this way

Market share of OS's

http://www.statowl.com/operating_system_market_share.php

windows hold 86% of the market. that means that 86% of all the user end computers in the world are running windows. mac only holds 12%.

so if you were to create a virus to say... steal personal information so you can steal identities will you dispatch it to 86% of the world or only 12% of the world? that's the main reason that mac has so few viruses created for it. not because it had better security, don't believe that for a second. it simply because it is impractical at this time to create a virus for mac because the target pool is minuscule.
Linux only holds 0.71% of the market meaning the target pool for linux users is even smaller. that and the fact that linux users tend to be highly tech savy and could probably remove a virus before it did any harm what so ever means that creating a virus for linux would be down right stupid.

linux is heavily used in servers. as such security threats aimed at linux systems are usually intended to hack a server and get targeted information and are usually written as a one time use designed for one target. not a mass dispersed virus intended to fish information form the masses.

windows is heavily used on the user end and linux is heavily used on the server end. as such both OS's have a long history of combating security breaches Mac on the other had has rarely had to deal with security so i wouldn't be surprised if a mac was cake to hack compared to the wall safe that is windows and the bank vault that is linux (provided all systems are set up with the highest security in mind)

[Blizzard]

so i wouldn't be surprised if a mac was cake to hack compared to the wall safe that is windows and the bank vault that is linux

This. The main problem is that most Mac users are very smug about their OS security. Just because nobody targets them, they believe that they are safe and that their OS is secure. This is an assumption based on nothing and it will hammer Mac OS into the ground when somebody makes a harmful virus for the Mac OS. I think that probably at least 99% of the Macs will come to serious harm, be it just loss of vital information or even hardware damage.

[Ryex]

Windows had the blue screen of death. Mac has the white screen of "OH SH.............!"