What's everyone using to remove mal ware?

ralphnjoann wrote:

strollin wrote:
Yes, the free versions of things work pretty well and are an attempt to get you to like that company's product so you will spring for their paid version. The paid version is not necessarily better though.

I used the free version of BitDefender and it was an OK AV, seemed to do the job. BitDefender had a sale on their paid version, $29 for 3 computers for 1 year. I thought that seemed like a good deal so purchased it and installed it on 3 computers. The full version of BitDefender is the most obnoxious piece of software I have ever used. It's intrusive, constantly bugs you to add additional services, blocks execution of software it doesn't like (but doesn't tell you it is blocking it). I've already removed the BitDefender "virus" from one of my computers and will probably remove it from the other 2 two as well.

I tried the free version of BitDefender and wound up uninstalling it. In addition to the above, when it won't let you install a program that it doesn't like, you are not given the option of overriding that decision. A major flaw IMHO.

The free and paid versions use the same detection engine, so not worth purchasing in my opinion. In fact, I've only used Free AV for twelve years with no issues.

BitDefender Free appears to be less configurable than other packages such as AVG Free, and appears designed for those who just want to set it and forget it.

You can turn off real-time virus shield when installing software, though haven't found it necessary. If it does erroneously detect a suspicious file and quarantines it, which it did for one well known legitimate graphics program, it has an option to approve the file, so have not experienced any issue of not being able to install or run any software.

strollin wrote:
Yes, the free versions of things work pretty well and are an attempt to get you to like that company's product so you will spring for their paid version. The paid version is not necessarily better though.

I used the free version of BitDefender and it was an OK AV, seemed to do the job. BitDefender had a sale on their paid version, $29 for 3 computers for 1 year. I thought that seemed like a good deal so purchased it and installed it on 3 computers. The full version of BitDefender is the most obnoxious piece of software I have ever used. It's intrusive, constantly bugs you to add additional services, blocks execution of software it doesn't like (but doesn't tell you it is blocking it). I've already removed the BitDefender "virus" from one of my computers and will probably remove it from the other 2 two as well.

I tried the free version of BitDefender and wound up uninstalling it. In addition to the above, when it won't let you install a program that it doesn't like, you are not given the option of overriding that decision. A major flaw IMHO.

mikestock wrote:
I had a bout with SweetPacks and, for some reason, Malwarebytes didn't remove it. I finally ran Spyhunter in safe mode to get rid of it. It wouldn't do it in standard run mode.

likely because MalwareBytes either didn't "see" SweetPacks because your signature file hadn't been updated, the updated signature file didn't have the signature or 'fingerprint' of SweetPacks or, if it had been detected, the MalwareBytes engine is not engineered to remove that particular nasty. not every A/V, A/S and A/M software package will see all of the current crop of nasties.

this is why a layered approach works best. while running more than one A/V program may cause performace programs the same is generally not true for A/S and A/M software. couple that with a decent software AND hardware firewall and good internet habits and you'd have a decent defense.

I had a bout with SweetPacks and, for some reason, Malwarebytes didn't remove it. I finally ran Spyhunter in safe mode to get rid of it. It wouldn't do it in standard run mode.

drsteve wrote:

5er4evr wrote:
AVG or MSE read 2011

Not picking sides just reading and sharing.

That review is over three years old. MSE really is a poor choice for protection.

And that's the issue. Back in 2009, MSE received top reviews from a number of sources. In the last two years, MSE protection capabilities has dropped drastically. Though its still rated high on its malware repair capabilities. Which may be a moot point if an AV package is unable to detect that it has been exploited by malware in the first place. Which can lead a user into a false sense of security?

What's apparently clear is that Microsoft is no longer developing MSE to compete with other free AV packages. True, MSE is better than having nothing. But with superior AV detection software available for free, one must also ask why take the risk of relying on MSE, which could allow malware to slip by into one's system, that would be detected by most other AV?

Malwarebytes
CCleaner
Spybot - Search and Destroy.

All free products.

It is worth noting too that all malware is not equally dangerous. Ad-ware tracking cookies? A minor, and very common, nuisance. Keyloggers and trojans that could potentially send your Visa card number and bank account passwords to some server in Russia? Not so minor. So when these programs find--as they often do--a bunch of supposed threats, it's usually nothing to get too excited over.

5er4evr wrote:
AVG or MSE read 2011

Not picking sides just reading and sharing.

That review is over three years old. MSE really is a poor choice for protection.

1492 wrote:

steelpony5555 wrote:
Hmmmm pretty much a matter of opinion. It all depends on who you're talking too if it is good or not. There are just as many sites saying it is good as there are bad just like any of these programs. I have use MSE on previous computers and now Windows Defender with my windows 8.1.

Is that include Microsoft themselves? When Dennis Protection Labs posed the question of why MSE scored so poorly in their AV test, "Holly Stewart, the senior program manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, said that Microsoft Security Essentials was just a “baseline” that’s designed to “always be on the bottom” of antivirus tests. She said Microsoft sees MSE as a first layer of protection and advises Windows users to use a third-party antivirus instead."

Please feel free to link to any AV review from reputable sites that claim MSE to be even comparable to other free AV software in terms of protection?

AVG or MSE read 2011

Not picking sides just reading and sharing.

I have 2 computers with AVG and 5 with MSE.

My browsing habits are such that I don't expose them to a lot of risk.

Now one of them puppys I use to throw a lot at and nothing can seem to protect it. It sees all the stuff that looks interesting (software downloads) but am too cautious to try on other machines.

I just find that it is almost impossible to get honest unbiased reviews (like everything else - car magazines 4 one).

Everyone needs protection of some sort.

On that we agree.

steelpony5555 wrote:
Hmmmm pretty much a matter of opinion. It all depends on who you're talking too if it is good or not. There are just as many sites saying it is good as there are bad just like any of these programs. I have use MSE on previous computers and now Windows Defender with my windows 8.1.

Is that include Microsoft themselves? When Dennis Protection Labs posed the question of why MSE scored so poorly in their AV test, "Holly Stewart, the senior program manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, said that Microsoft Security Essentials was just a “baseline” that’s designed to “always be on the bottom” of antivirus tests. She said Microsoft sees MSE as a first layer of protection and advises Windows users to use a third-party antivirus instead."

Please feel free to link to any AV review from reputable sites that claim MSE to be even comparable to other free AV software in terms of protection?