Best Spyware, Malware Recommendation

powderman426 wrote:
I don't find any need for anti virus software. All it does is slow the system down. It's been probably ten years without a problem

You must be using a protected environment(sandboxed)? Otherwise, I'll just let David Hannum's famous quote speak for itself?

OK, if I recall correctly, you may be using Linux? And its fairly safe to say users believe that they don't need anti-virus/malware software? Just the type of thinking that allowed Ebury SSH Rootkit to be embedded into over 25,000 Linux servers for over two years, feeding spam, malware, and keyloggers to Windows users?

No vulnerabilities in Linux was used in this compromise as it is fairly bulletproof. But then how was this malware able to exist in so many Linux servers without detection for so long? Could it be that Linux is so bulletproof that users don't see any benefit from using anti-malware software? Which could have detected this rootkit and isolated it, so these infected Linux servers would not have ended up being used as zombie machines? :h

another vote with fishinghat.

All three are free and work well for me.

Also would recommend slim drivers. It is free and helps keep all your drivers up to date.

One caution about BitDefender: buy it ONLY from the original site. There are a bunch of resellers offering it, and they will invariably upcheat you to something else.

LetsRV wrote:
Also would recommend slim drivers. It is free and helps keep all your drivers up to date.

Why in the world would I allow some program to mess with my drivers? As long as they work, I'm leaving them alone. When they don't, I'll go to the original provider for an update.

obgraham wrote:
One caution about BitDefender: buy it ONLY from the original site. There are a bunch of resellers offering it, and they will invariably upcheat you to something else.

Actually, I wouldn't even recommend the paid versions. The free version is more than adequate, along with Malwarebytes Free as a secondary on-demand scanner if ever needed.

Still using XP on an '06 Gateway laptop with a single core Celeron M 430 w/ 1GB RAM and only 60 GB hard drive (half full). Stayed w/ MSE and it is doing its daily definition update and quickscan. Sometimes let MSE do a full scan, but mostly rely on Malwarebytes for biweekly (2 weeks) full scans which very rarely finds anything.

The following quote is from MS speaking about MSE a year ago>

"With Microsoft Security Essentials, you get high-quality protection against viruses and spyware, including Trojans, worms and other malicious software. Security Essentials is easy to install and easy to use. Updates and upgrades are automatic, so there's no need to worry about having the latest protection. It's easy to tell if you're protected - when the Security Essentials icon is green, your status is good. It's as simple as that."

When you're busy using your PC, you don't want to be bothered by needless alerts. Security Essentials runs quietly in the background, only alerting you if there's something you need to do. And it doesn't use a lot of system resources, so it won't get in the way of your work or fun."


MSE is doing as good a job w/ XP as it has for many years, so the quote above still holds, except since April 8 and MS's end-of-XP-support, "when the Security Essentials icon is green, your status is good. It's as simple as that" no longer holds for XP. Instead, for XP users only, a red X shows after a scan, even though the scan almost always reports no threats were detected. For other Windows OSs that are using MSE, the green checkmark still shows. This redX for XPers is to remind that MS no longer patches XP for new-found bugs. I can live w/ it as long as this ole PC runs.

In many ways, I have a MS Chromebook, only instead of Chrome and Chrome OS, I have Firefox and Windows XP. The reinstalled XP OS is pretty clean of bloat and takes 12 GB hard drive storage, with another 9 GB for programs and some data files. Sure hope Firefox comes ot w/ a Mozillabook one day for when my sized-right-for-me laptop fails.

mikeleblanc413 wrote:


I am using Windows 8.

I see you've edited your post to specify WIN 8. In which case, Bitdefender Free still outperforms both Avast and AVG, and also uses less resources than even Windows Defender. Though both Avast and AVG are very similar in performance and resources usage.

Panda still performed near tops in protection, but appears more resource heavy than either Avast or AVG.

Test results from AV-Test.org.

the problem as I see it is that none of us know what we don't know. in other words thinking we have a clean system is not the same as actually having a clean system. no single A/V, A/S or anti-malware package can truly protect anyone cuz you simply don't know what it can't detect.

as far as i'm concerned the best protection is two-fold. first, don't go into bad neighborhoods. don't click on links or photos in unsolicited/unexpected e-mail or in sketchy websites. second, use a layered defense. we use Zone Alarm Pro firewall, SpywareBlaster (resides in memory), SuperAntiSpyware, MalwareBytes and NOD32 A/V but there are many others, some better, some not so much. the point is not to rely on a single package to do the job for you. and be sure to keep the signature files updated.

powderman426 wrote:
I don't find any need for anti virus software. All it does is slow the system down. It's been probably ten years without a problem

Just curious as to how you know for sure you don't have a problem if you don't use Anti Virus software. The experienced malware writers of late have learned to keep their infections as quiet as possible.

Peg Leg wrote:
Cnet is a good place to search for freeware and they have safe download sites as well.

Be careful with CNET's downloads...I picked up the very nasty malware Sality from one of their downloads. It took months to clean my system of that bug, it was very persistent.