Best Spyware, Malware Recommendation

1492

We seem to look at this AV stuff from different angles. I really respect your expertise in this tech area and totally admit to being an amateur. You appear to be the goto guy for security in your workplace, where people get sloppy and tighter controls are warranted. But at home with their own PC, typical users will maybe take some precautions and not have to worry over malware/virus stuff very much - they want simplicity, and I think MS's new Defender for W8 and beyond is meant for us avg users.

In the vid below, a guy tests W8 Defender and gives a positive showing.

Demo of W8.1 Windows Defender built-in AV program

Certainly not bottom-line proof of anything. But notice the point he makes about trying to stop all possibilities of unwanted internet. At the browser level, I could turn on one or more extensions/add-ons to do ad block, flash block, script block, etc. What results is a degraded browsing experience (almost no websites will show properly). And similar effects are seen on overall computer performance/experience when running stricter AV apps.

I don't know about anyone else but I have about had it with all the Avast pop ups trying to sell you their other products. I am switching to bitdefender.

I like Malware Bytes and Windows defender

Avast Free and Malaware Bytes Free (used regularly on demand) make a good combination on my desktop. These plus Comodo Firewall and all is covered.

SCR wrote:

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.

I may be wrong, but I believe the reference was indirectly for Linux? Though it is highly resistant to exploits, you can never take out the human element. That's how much of system compromises happen on Windows machines through social engineering malware. Basically, allowing something you may believe safe to install and run, when it's in fact nefarious. Especially, true of any type of keylogger/capture malware. Which also exists for Linux.

IMO, the problem is in a culture that believes it's immune, not resistant to such malware. And sees no value in AV software. So malware could be allowed to exist without detection. Which is basically what happened with the Ebury SSH Rootkit. But in all fairness, not all Linux AV would have detected it. Which is common with all AV software in general. And so a layered security approach is still advisable.

burlmart wrote:
Mike (OP)

Most of what I gather is that MS would prefer that you just stick w/ what they already include in W8. I think these articles suggest as much.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/how-protect-pc-from-viruses

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/antivirus-partners#AVtabs=xp

Keep in mind that they do not want to shut out 3rd party AV Developers, but that said, they are pretty non-commital in tone w/r needing any other AV than that already in W8, and they seem to be giving a nod to the exclusive use of W8's builtin AV apps.

If you do the research, I don't believe that is the case at all. The question is whether you want basic, adequate protection according to MS, or the best you can get for FREE? Any malware that's not natively detected by your AV represents a threat. Especially damaging rootkits, such as keyloggers that are designed to evade detection, and are very difficult to find even by most AV software.

If MSE and Defender(WIN 8) are that good, why does the three major independent security testing organizations rate it at or near the bottom for protection(detection)? Just look for yourself at AV-Comparatives: Real World Protection Test-May 2014. The white line represents how MSE/Defender performed in protection testing compared to other AV software rated? Notice that only AhnLab AV scored worse than MSE/Defender. All other FREE AV packages scored significantly better, with Bitdefender and Panda at the top. Both offer FREE versions.

If I was still using WIN XP, I wouldn't want to consciously enhance an already bad situation with no future security patches/updates, by utilizing weaker AV security?

Question is what incentive is there for Microsoft to expend additional resources for creating a top FREE AV package, when they have no paid consumer version? Especially, when FREE AV is already available from companies that specialize in only net security, and have paid versions that make it possible?

MS has already indicated that they cooperate with third party AV companies to provide updated security threat data.

IMO, what Microsoft is providing is a basic AV package out of the box. So a user is initially protected until they can install another more effective AV. Or better yet, utilized a layered security approach? Personally, I think EMET is a more useful FREE security app than either MSE/Defender, and doesn't interfere with other third party AV packages.

obgraham wrote:

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.

Part of the info that has come up concerns speed and efficiency.
Using old drivers that you don't know if they've been updated and don't care until they break is not the best use of computer resources if new faster and efficient drivers are available.

You don't have to let slim drivers mess with anything. You do a scan it tells you if there are updated drivers available. If you want slim driver to fix your drivers it will download the updated drivers or when it tells you what's available you can go get the update from the original provider if you want.

JMHO (and this is just my opinion), I just use the paid version of Malwarebytes because of its IP address blocking. I'm sure other utilities are just as good if not better, but I've found that over the past couple years, Malwarebytes has been at least in the middle of the pack come tests.

Where you need the true front-line defense is in your Web browser, so consider using an extension like FlashBlock in Firefox or turn on the "click to play" option in Chrome. Ad-blocking additions don't hurt either, since it has been started in other places that a large portion of drive-by malware infections come from ad servers.

It can't hurt to use a mail program like Thunderbird instead of a Web browser to read E-mail. Thunderbird and Outlook tend to be well secured, so a virus sent by E-mail won't be an issue unless someone explicitly detaches the attachment and runs it.

Mike (OP)

Most of what I gather is that MS would prefer that you just stick w/ what they already include in W8. I think these articles suggest as much.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/how-protect-pc-from-viruses

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/antivirus-partners#AVtabs=xp

Keep in mind that they do not want to shut out 3rd party AV Developers, but that said, they are pretty non-commital in tone w/r needing any other AV than that already in W8, and they seem to be giving a nod to the exclusive use of W8's builtin AV apps.

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.