Looking for a decent AV product - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

"Dustin"  wrote in message  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
Thanks, Dustin.
Either you computer clock is off , or mine might be, but I just checked it.
--  
Buffalo  


Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:27:38 -0600

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It's the third choice most likely - off by 7 or 8 minutes.

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

"FromTheRafters"  wrote in message  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
My computer clock was off by 37 sec.
Anyhow, I just uninstalled MSE and installed the free Avast
Updated and scanned (Full) with no hits.
Time will tell if it uses more computer resources than MSE. esp while online  
gaming.
--  
Buffalo


Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 17:29:25 -0600

Quoted text here. Click to load it

My clock is correct, and yet it will post eight minutes off. It is now 8:21

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Dustin do AVAST and Malwarebytes detect Irok? Just wondering!  :)

--  
Jax    

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

127.0.0.1:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Why would Malwarebytes detect Irok?

Do you understand what Malwarebytes is for? Do you understand why I  
suggested both?  

Oh,

Just Shut Up, Meg.

  



--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Dustin you recently suggested in ACF that Irok was too old for modern AV
products to bother with..... but Avast can detect it! Did you know that?  

--  
Jax  :)

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

127.0.0.1:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I thought it might be old enough that it's definitions would be ignored by  
now. However, as I've already stated, I sent a sample to virustotal and 34  
products flagged it. 32 correctly. You could avoid asking stupid questions  
if you bothered to read what I write. OTW, I know Avast detects it.

Malwarebytes isn't AV software. So again, My question stands. Why would  
Malwarebytes detect Irok, Meg?

  



--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On 2013-08-11 8:08 PM, Dustin wrote:
[...]
Quoted text here. Click to load it
[...]

Oh give us a break. True, technically, a virus is one type of malware.  
But in current speech/writing, a virus is any kind of malware. You can  
insist on technical correctness if it makes you happy, but there's no  
point being snarky about it.

Have a good day.

--  
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Wolf... you're right. I'm getting used to Dustin trolling me by
interpreting words in a very specific and uncommon way!

--  
Jax  :)

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:22:01 +0100

Quoted text here. Click to load it

It is not uncommon to be specific about the difference between viruses and other malware types when having a technical discussion (which this is) about a particular virus' detectability.
  
You should make a list of *viruses* that MBAM doesn't detect and ask them why they don't detect them. Maybe you could then explain to us why there *is* (not just technically) a difference between viruses and other kinds of malware - and why it matters when comparing "antimalware" with "antivirus" programs or when discussing the detection of a particular "virus".

When discussing the detection of a particular virus (a *real* virus, not a common vernacular 'sitting around the dinner table' *misnomer* virus) then you shouldn't be at all concerned with whether or not an "antimalware" program like MBAM detects it - if it were designed to handle 'viruses' it would be MBAV not MBAM.

Like it or not, the difference matters.

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On 2013-08-12 3:19 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Agreed, there is a time and place for technical details.

--  
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Yep.


--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

A virus replicates intentionally, it is NOT any kind of malware. It never has  
been "any kind of malware". They are not trojans; which is what the majority  
of the crap you find on systems today. You cannot deal with a virus in the  
same way you deal with a trojan.

Right identification and tools get you clean. Calling a virus "malware" or a  
trojan a virus, is just going to get you into trouble. And let you think such  
and such product helps when it has nothing to do with it.

Malwarebytes is antimalware. it is not antivirus.
  


--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:37:54 AM UTC+8, Dustin wrote:
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
That's bullshit and you don't even know it.  Pathetic.

RL

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

What is bullshit, Ray? Malwarebytes is not designed for viruses. It doesn't  
deal with viruses. Viruses are not your typical trojan. Which is what malware  
these days primarily, actually is. Spyware, adware, ransomware, cute names,  
but technically; just trojans.



--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On 2013-08-14 1:37 PM, Dustin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Malware = evil ware, from Latin base "mal-" = "evil" (as in mal-icious);  
and Anglo-Saxon "waru" = "merchandise", as in "ware-house". A virus is a  
type of evil ware. QED

Now that most computer users are aware of evil stuff that could mess up  
their computers, they have naturally adopted a term to refer to it. They  
use "(computer) virus" for any and all such evil stuff. I know it drives  
certain people crazy, but there's nothing yo be done about it.

Arguing about whether it's the technically correct term is pointless. If  
you are making a distinction with a difference, your context will make  
that clear enough. In fact, context will usually make it clear enough  
what people are actually asking about; and if not, you can always ask  
for clarification.

That being said, I always recommend Malwarebytes, and sometimes even  
explain why, making careful distinctions between "true" viruses and  
other kinds of malware. But most of the time, their eyes glaze over.

Have a good one.

--  
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

Re: Looking for a decent AV product


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Malware is a generic term. A virus is a virus. It's a program which  
replicates it's own code (and/or variants) into other programs. It MUST DO  
THIS intentionally, or it is NOT a virus. A worm is similar, but it does  
NOT require a host in the sense a virus does. A worm is self contained.

Spyware, Adware, ransomware, whatever are all just trojans. They do  
something the user doesn't want, mislead, whatever, but they are not  
replicating on their own. They're technically, just trojans.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

I still make an effort to educate or otherwise retrain people when their  
misusing terminology, whenever possible. I realize it's a waste of time  
with some people. Some people don't care what's on the machine, they just  
want it fixed. I'm fine by that. The only real time I take issue is with  
someone who is a "tech" and should know better.

A few shops here advertise "trojan virus removal". It's entirely, not  
correct and I think, makes techs and shops in general look bad/stupid when  
they do that. They are technicians/shops; they should use the proper  
terminology for their own field. IMO.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

When you are discussing something or recommending something, you should  
always state why. That's what I did. Malwarebytes is not suitable for a  
virus issue. Computers are technical devices. granted, some people don't  
realize that or would prefer to ignore it, but it is what it is. When  
discussing them and issues which can arrise, the only correct way is to use  
the right terminology. Not some made up horseshit that's popular.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

There is no such thing as a true virus. It either replicates, or it  
doesn't. Malware is a buzzword. They are trojans! They've been here for  
years prior to the web.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You too.
  



--  
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/cacti.jpg

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On 2013-08-15 1:01 AM, Dustin wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Technically, it's a class identifier.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

One member of the class "malware" is "virus." Another is "trojan". Etc.

If you maintain that a virus is not malware, then you need a class that  
includes "malware" and "virus" as two of its members. Go ahead, give it  
a name. ;-)

Sidebar:
Good classification is not easy, but it's essential. It's the reason  
Linnaeus is revered in biology.

Bad classification habits have given us the ambiguities of "folder =  
pointer list" (Windows libraries) , "folder = aggregate file" email,  
client mailbox), "folder" = directory = file list" (miscellaneous OSs).  
And look at the mess around "drive, volume, partition". Now we have a  
mess around "virus" and "malware", as this dialogue demonstrates. ;-)

Have a good day,


--
Best,
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.ca

Re: Looking for a decent AV product

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 11:14:04 -0400

Quoted text here. Click to load it
Readers interested might like to read this:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=len+adleman+toxonomy#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&ei=ePMMUviMIoW64AOBjoHQDw&fp=9f0eebf7be540f41&q=len+adleman+virus+papers&sa=N&start=10

My point being that many toxonmies exist, yet none are universally accepted. One (By Len Adleman IIRC) even has "virus" as the uppermost (umbrella) term. My first understanding of "computer virus" came as a result of something totally outside the scope of "malware" and I still stand by the idea that "virus" is no more malevolent than "loop" or any other simple programming feature.

Of course, I understand that "virus" in the context of "malware" necessarily precludes beneficial viruses because it is assumed the virus always modifies code without the users desire for it to do so.

Site Timeline