Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 03:36:57 GMT, somekiss <somekiss RemoveThis @somekiss.com> wrote:

> How on earth can Ad-Aware find anything when every definition update file
> is smaller than the previous one? This means they're eliminating spyware
> which has a statistical sampling of lower infections, although there's
> still a chance you can dl it.

Downloading "updates" is not the same as downloading the complete definition
database. The "updates" should only include newly detected spyware, and/or
corrections to existing definitions. It should not be deleting existing spyware
detection signatures from the database, unless they were false positives.

In the years I used adaware, I never saw an update result in a decrease in the
number of items in the database.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

--
Change nomail.afraid.org to rogers.com to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specfically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

Jeffrey A. Setaro coughed up:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 18:24:25 GMT, "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower RemoveThis @replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> skydiver coughed up:
>>> "Thomas G. Marshall" wrote
>>>
>>>> "Which is best?"
>>>
>>> Avast gets my nod. [...]
>>
>>
>> Ok, wait a sec. I'm reading over and over the following:
>>
>> Avast is great
>>
>> and now I'm also reading in this thread
>>
>> Kaperksy is great
>>
>> *How are these two compared to NAV and McAfee* ?
>>
>> And do either Kapersky or Avast have reasonable anti-spyware?
>>
>
> Kaspersky has the ability to detect spyware... It's not enabled by
> default though. I memory serves there's an option in the updater to
> include the spyware detection information in the updates.

Ah, but that would be detection /after/ the fact, no? Don't most ASW's
/prevent/ the spy implant, or hijack, etc., before it happens?

I really wish there were a more definitive metric on AV and ASW quality. A
rating system, or somesuch. But unfortunately, part of what I've discovered
is that even if you have an outstanding virus scanner, if the database
hasn't caught up with what's out there then the point is moot.

Given that, it seems there are two distinct metrics:

1. scanning ability
2. viral database

Which really, IMO, just boils down to the following metric:

1. number of times it misses a major virus

....which is nearly impossible to gauge.




--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

Roger Wilco coughed up:
> "Thomas G. Marshall"
> <tgm2tothe10thpower DeleteThis @replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:04%Jd.24986$rs2.2122@trndny07...
>>
>> Sigh. Once again.
>>
>> "Which is best?" is a question that gets asked a great many times in
>> this group, and I've been following the trends for a while, but am
>> lost as to what the /current/ opinions are. So hopefully, this post
>> isn't a simple rehash of all the others in the last couple weeks.
>
> "Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a sign of
> insanity"

Which explains why I'm going to post this question again next week



>
>> Used to be it was McAfee vs. Norton for AV, and that was all there
>> was worth mentioning in the AV universe. The others were piddling
>> nothingness.
>
> Maybe they had the advertising capital that others did not. They are
> both good, but they are not the only good ones.
>
>> Now it seems that there are a lot of accolades for other apps in the
>> AV arena. Basically I run both Norton and AVG (Norton full time,
>> and avg "once in a while").
>
> Sounds good.
>
>> I am mostly concerned with bandwidth impact of my continually
>> running 2003 NAV auto-protect.
>
> Yep, it's a hog.
>
>> 1. What is the best AV considered to be these days?
>
> IMO Kapersky, F-prot, and Sophos (and maybe Norman's sandbox too). I
> base my opinion on the lack of problems reported in the virus related
> newsgroups, and from good detection rates as reported also. McAfee and
> Norton have added too much fluff which bogs down the systems for some
> peeps, but they have good detection.
>
>> 2. Which AV has the least impact on the system (perhaps this need
>> not be a separate question).
>
> Almost any on-demand AV.
>
>> 3. Is McAfee considered to be a bigger hog of cpu bandwidth?
>
> Depends on how much stuff (fluff) you have it doing.
>
>> 4. What is everyone's favorite anti-spyware?
>
> Prevention - safe hex.
> Clean-up if prevention fails - both Ad-Aware and Spybot S&D
> (CWShredder if CWS is what gotcha).

Tried CWShredder, and it didn't remove the CWS hijack that a friend of mine
got.



>> I am using AdAware, but am
>> intrigued by McAfee's new app.
>
> Hmmm, never looked into it myself.
>
>> *And the whopper spyware question* :
>>
>> 5. Is microsoft's new and free anti-spyware application any good?
>
> Probably, but with any MS product (even one bought from another
> company) it is best to let others test it for you. It wouldn't
> suprise me much if that app had vulnerabilities or trapdoors.



--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

Melissa coughed up:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Beauregard,
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:03:39 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> There is no one-does-everything application. Practicing safe hex is
>> the best "program" though.
>
> Well said. I run a fast and effective AV (NOD32), and even a nifty
> little AT (BOClean), but these programs have never had to "save" my
> machine from anything, because I'm just too careful to begin with.


Well, a couple of things wrong with this.

1. I am trying to save a friend of mine from this hell, and she and her
husband don't know hardly anything about computer systems. Furthermore,
they have 3 kids plonking on the thing.

The point is this: it takes /time/ to learn how to be careful and how to
judge whether or not clicking on something is dangerous. "this warning
about spyware is itself spyware, but this one isn't". That alone gets
confusing.

2. I am a software engineer and know fully well how sneaky some of these
things can be, am very careful, and /still/ I clicked on something by
accident that resulted in a /painful/ hijack. Don't remember fully, but I
seem to remember it was an about:blank/cws variant.


....[rip]...


--
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous RemoveThis @example.invalid> wrote

| Practicing safe hex is
| the best "program" though.

What is "safe hex"?

Thanks,
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

Alias wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.TakeThisOut@example.invalid> wrote
>
> | Practicing safe hex is the best "program" though.
>
> What is "safe hex"?

You go to the local pharmacy and buy an extra large condom ... and ...
slip it on over your computer ... you don't want to have unprotected
communications with the Internet.

Heehee. As Melissa said, safe practices. if you weren't aware, "hex"
is short for, and a play on the word, hexadecimal, the base 16 number
system.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

"Thomas G. Marshall" <tgm2tothe10thpower.TakeThisOut@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:JujKd.55$vY.15@trndny05...
>
> I really wish there were a more definitive metric on AV and ASW quality.
A
> rating system, or somesuch. But unfortunately, part of what I've
discovered
> is that even if you have an outstanding virus scanner, if the database
> hasn't caught up with what's out there then the point is moot.
>
> Given that, it seems there are two distinct metrics:
>
> 1. scanning ability
> 2. viral database
>

My AVG Anti-Virus program also has heueristics--the ability to detect
certain suspicious types of code, even though there is no virus signature
that would identify it as a known virus.

Admittedly, this is not foolproof, and it might result in an occasional
false positive, but AVG estimates that it can detect about 50% of new
viruses that have not yet been officially identified.

But you are correct when you say that no antivirus application is perfect.
It's the new viruses that cause all the problems, because until someone
takes the hit and it is identified as a virus, (and is downloaded into our
antivirus updates) we are all vulnerable. I believe this is why email-borne
viruses are so devastating. They circulate faster than the ability of the
antivirus peoples' ability to distribute their signatures to users.






> Which really, IMO, just boils down to the following metric:
>
> 1. number of times it misses a major virus
>
> ...which is nearly impossible to gauge.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.TakeThisOut@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:35us33F4qreu7U1@individual.net...
| Alias wrote:
| > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.TakeThisOut@example.invalid> wrote
| >
| > | Practicing safe hex is the best "program" though.
| >
| > What is "safe hex"?
|
| You go to the local pharmacy and buy an extra large condom ... and ...
| slip it on over your computer ... you don't want to have unprotected
| communications with the Internet.
|
| Heehee. As Melissa said, safe practices. if you weren't aware, "hex"
| is short for, and a play on the word, hexadecimal, the base 16 number
| system.
|
| --
| -bts

I was wondering about the "hex" part. Thanks.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions 

Alias wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous.DeleteThis@example.invalid> wrote in message
> | Alias wrote:
[snip]
> | > What is "safe hex"?
> |
> | You go to the local pharmacy and buy an extra large condom ... and ...
> | slip it on over your computer ... you don't want to have unprotected
> | communications with the Internet.
> |
> | Heehee. As Melissa said, safe practices. if you weren't aware, "hex"
> | is short for, and a play on the word, hexadecimal, the base 16 number
> | system.
>
> I was wondering about the "hex" part. Thanks.

it's a contraction of the word "hexadecimal"... it doesn't really
pertain to any particular activity, but long ago it was a common enough
term in computer related circles... especially with regards to
programs, as one could translate hexadecimal op codes to their assembly
language equivalents if you wanted to see what a program did or how it
worked... theoretically you can still do that now, but programs are
several orders of magnitude larger now and there are much better tools
for that so "hex" doesn't get the same attention that it used to...

--
"we are the revenants
and we will rise up from the dead
we become the living
we've come back to reclaim our stolen breath"
 >> Stay informed about: Anti-virus + Anti-spyware: Latest software opinions