The best free security software

NONE,

you should get.

Setup3
-Microsoft Security Essential
-Windows Firewall

optional:
-Spybot Search & Destroy
-SpywareBlaster

 

Setup3 is what I use also.

 

me too!

its simple, very light on system resource. and very secure.

i think all that port-forward filtering is a tactic used by the security software because they know they are dying.

i get so many false alarm and pop ups on 3rd party software, this one, no problem so far (tested for 3 months)

 

I vote for setup number 2 with Windows firewall enabled ( I don't think you need Comodo or any other third-party firewall if you're behind a router and don't do really stupid things with your computer).

 

Okay, so I've Windows 7 Pro and am using Avast 5 with PC Tools Firewall and Malware Bytes Real Time Protection.

Do I really need to use Avast 5 with Malware Bytes Real Time protection???

Also, should I just get rid of PC Tools firewall and use Windows Firewall and replace Avast with MSE? Or can I just run Windows Firewall with Malware Bytes (Real Time Protection) and get rid of everything else? Would have still be safe?

 

You never should run more than one AV software at a time.

 

That would be my choice, but other people might think differently. In the end you have to choose.

 

This is not fair. The on-demand detection rate showing here is OneCare's, not MSE's. A-V tested this in 8/2009, when MSE was still beta. MSE was big improvement of OneCare!

 

Well, complain to AV-Comparatives.
Better yet, why don't you contact Andreas Clementi directly and tell him he's not fair.
Or perhaps it's not fair that you, apparantly, didn't read the full reports.

Their "proactive on-demand test" ( PDF) states that MSE 1.0 scored exactly the same as Live OneCare 2.5.2900.28, (bottom page 3).
And what was used to test in the previous on-demand test ( PDF)?
You probably guessed it; Live OneCare 2.5.2900.28

That's why I didn't use the old OneCare name but it's new incarnation called MSE.
Whether that is fair is up to you.

 

I complain about on-demand test, not pro-active test. Did you read my post properly?

The on-demand detection rate showing here is OneCare's, not MSE's. A-V tested this in 8/2009, when MSE was still beta.

That's it:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report23.pdf

I read here that MSE scored 98,xx% on-demand test. Much better than OneCare.

The first post of this thread was updated at 3/4/2010, so I feel that fair enough to quote it and complain about low rate detection of MSE. It's OneCare, not MSE.

 

I think I did.

I know, I acknowledged it, didn't I?
I also explained that MSE scored exactly the same as Live OneCare.
So, Live OneCare would have scored exactly the same as MSE.
Did you read my post properly?

Apples≠oranges, that's a score from AV-Test.org.
Not from AV-Comparatives, is it?
Different test methods+different sample sets=different results; not so difficult to understand right?

The bold part is the statement I refuted.
AV-Comparatives clearly stated that MSE1.0 scored exactly the same as Live OneCare...
You want me te repeat that in another post?

 

We're different point of view. OK, let start again

Your post said that:
MSE................................antispyware and antirootkit protection included, 90%-56%

here, that's what I said unfair.

The test in Nov -2009 was pro-active test. With an outdated malware definition, A-V tested how the AV handled malwares. MSE scored 56%.

In the report summay, A-V said that "MSE scores the same as OneCare". It means OneCare would score 56% with this test.

What's about 90% on-demand test?

That's was a test in Aug -2009, AVs was tested which fully updated malware definition. They tested Onecare. MSE was still beta. Did I say that?

The comment "MSE scores the same as OneCare" was about pro-active test result. No way it meant about on-demand, fully updated test, which was tested in Aug 2009 (and once again, that's was OneCare, not MSE).

That's why I called it unfair. MSE would have a chance to prove itself.

 

OK, I think I understand.

You think that when testing products A and B without any signature updates, like in the pro-active on-demand test, where the result is largely defined by heuristic engines/detection engines shared by both products A and B and those two products score the same result, product B would still have scored better in an on-demand test if it had the same signature updates as product A in that test.

Is that what you mean?

 

Yep. Why not?

Please look again in two reports:

McAfee scored 98.7% in on-demand test, but only 47% on pro-active test
while
Kaspersky scored 64% in pro-active test, but only 94.7% in on-demand test.

A great performer in on-demand test could be bad on pro-active test, and vice-versa.

I believed that OneCare and MSE share same heuristic engine, but it doesn't mean that they're exactly the same. What the hell Microsoft has done with MSE with it's just a re-GUI, free version of OneCare?

I'm using MSE, and completely satisfied. That why I want a fair competition for it.

 

I'm using Windows 7 32bit and currently using Microsoft Security Essentials. I just read on PC World that MSSE doesn't do well with malware and rootkits. So I want a better antivirus program. I used to have NOD32 and I was thinking about going back to it. Help?

 

What PC World MSE article/review was that Calvin? Could you post a link?
I can't recall having read any recent info on MSE, stating that it has 'poor' malware detection.

If you're unhappy with MSE, I'd look at Avira or Avast for free AV's.
Eset's NOD32 is still a strong contender (one of the best) among paid-for solutions so it remains a recommended buy (like NortonAV or Avira AntiVir Premium).

 

PC Magazine is the author, my mistake. Article. I'm happy with what I have but if I'm not being properly protected then I want to switch to something better.

 

I have to mention IObit system care. Took care of a c door Trojan that was plaguing me for weeks. The only product that was able to rid me of it. It was only picked up by the CA scan on YahooTB which could not get rid of it

Went through,malwarebytes,SAS,Asquare,Avast and a few others.

 

Hi Baserk & Team,

Baserk, on your 1st page you are still showing Comodo Firewall Pro v3 ... I happen to update last week to Comodo v4 ... and I was all excited ... well the version 4 now has it's own SandieBox application ... it was working OK till I tried using my favorite Transcoder (dvd-shr....) and it was not running ... so, I uninstalled the Comodo FP v4 and went back to version 3 ...

I posted a Thread in Comodo Forums and they told me that I could get around the problem by making my dvd-shr application ... ID it as one of my own ... or trusted ...

Q1: Any reason that you are still showing only Comodo v3? And not the v4? Like may be is too new and NOT proved itself yet?

Q2: Since Comodo has come out with v4 ... I wonder if they would Bother to update v3? So is this going to be a problem for die-hard Comodo Firewall users? No updates ... therefore possibly potential problems!!!

Q3: Do you or anybody else on this Forum when they install Comodo ... do you say YES to the Joining the "Threat Community"? If so, your Feelings about this Service? Like it or what ... or may be too Intrusive & Nosey?

Q4: Anybody using Comodo v4? If so, how do you like it? And do ALL of your Programs run with this version?

Thanks,

G!

 

Hi gonwk, just an omission on my part.

As is often the case (or at least has been), new versions of ComodoFW require a new install and to be honest, I haven't had the time yet to fully play with v.4. I'll change it on page one though.

As for your other question, I seldomly join "Threat Communities" as it's called by Comodo.
It really depends on the company behind it.
Tall Emu, the company behind my favourite Online Armor (where is my Win7-64 bit version? grrr), is a company that is completely different from Comodo.
While they have a different strategy with offering a bare free version instead of the full Comodo offering, I do trust (to a certain extend) those guys.
And Comodo...well, their software is very good but their management (Melih) and their overall tone-of-voice doesn't make them as trustworthy to me.
But maybe that's just me.

 

NO it's not just you , re comodo . I feel the same way you do , though I use outpost not online armour

 

Hi Baserk,

Sorry I have not posted back for a while ... I have been out of pocket for the last couple of weeks ...

Thanks for Your Response.

G!

 

On page 1, I've changed the %-scores for the listed firewalls according to the most recent Matousec test results.

Some might wonder what the heck has happened now that, for instance, PC Tools Firewall Plus v.6 has dropped in score from an excellent 100% to a (seemingly!) abysmal 51%.

Simply put, Matousec has changed their testing. (Matousec testing levels link)
Geared towards pure HIPS testing, they now also test products like Malware Defender. (screenshots link)

An excellent product but not a software firewall (or firewall+HIPS) but a HIPS with a firewall.
So the scores I use on page 1 are becoming increasingly difficult to justify now that Matousec changes it's testing more and more.

The free firewalls I've listed (except maybe for Comodo) are all pretty much user-friendly.
Now that Matousec is changing it's testing progressively towards hardcore HIPS products, the test results are becoming less relevant for the thread.

I'll keep using them for now until I figure out how to get other, somewhat comparable, independant firewall test results but now you know why your favourite software firewall seems to score so bad.

 

Hi folks,

Baserk & Team ...

Q1: Has anyone used or messed around with "Spyware Terminator" Spyware Terminator a freeware program? Is it any good?

Q2: What category would "Spyware Terminator" would fall under? And what could it replace ... for example ... could this do something like "SpywareBlaster" ... or ...?

Thanks,

G!

 

I've used it years and years ago and found it much too resource heavy and less effective then the alternatives (SAS, MBAM).
SpywareBlaster works differently and can't be compared.

 

Matousec, the security software testing company, which test scores I use(d) on page 1, has published a subtly titled report;
" KHOBE – 8.0 earthquake for Windows desktop security software".

Summary; All Windows desktop security software programs are vulnerable.

Fact or fiction? Should we tremble in fear?
Well, it's a fact. But an old fact. And partially fictional.

Here's why;
This report refers to Matousec's research from 2007 which showed that there is a vulnerability (which goes back to *nix) in Windows, related to how the OS works, that can be used to bypass all security software.

However, first of all, (theoretical) research on this bug; TOCTOU (Time-Of-Check-to-Time-Of-Use) has already been published in 1996.
Further publications on TOCTOU have been made by Andrey Kolishak (Geswall dev.) in 2003.
So, it's old news. 14 year old news. And discovered by someone else.
Second, it's hard to accomplish outside of a 'laboratory/test setup'.
Third, many security programs actually do protect against this bug/flaw/vector.

The hard boiled titled publication ( link) with the sky-is-falling, end-is-nigh content is being actively discussed on Wilderssecurity forum here.

Because of this report and the previously made changes in testing procedures (as I've previously posted), I've now decided to remove the Matousec scores entirely.
So, just a heads up on why the firewall scores have been removed on page 1.
Cheers.

 

I'm concerned more with system impact rather than protection levels. i want good protection but with minimal impact on system performance. mainly processor time. im going to have 8 gigs of ram so that wont be a problem. I've been looking at avast, avir and avg. does anyone know which one off these programs take the least processor time? also boot time is a big factor also. i have avg right now on a old xp thinkpad (back when IBM still made them) and avg takes a while to start up and allow the computer to access the wireless network... it bothers me... a lot.

 

Based on my personal experience with the three programs you mention, I would say that Avira would have the least negative impact on your system's performance.

 

Hi Baserk,

I was wrong impression then ... I thought Spyware Terminator would work like SpywareBlaster ...

THANKS!

G!

 

Have had McAfee free after purchasing a new laptop. Time has run out.
I want to install this stuff-
Microsoft Security Essential
Windows Firewall
Spybot Search & Destroy

Do I uninstall McAfee first?

 

Absolutely.
Download MSE and Spybot S&D first, then head over to the McAfee site in order to download the McAfee Consumer Products Removal tool (MCPR.exe).

Make sure to read the instructions on how to use MCPR.exe on this McAfee webpage, only then start uninstalling.
Cheers.

 

Danka Shane.

 

Please do not use another language without an English translation. It is against the forum rules.

And it's "danke schön" which means "thank you".

 

Apologies. I know the proper spelling. Nothing intentional.

MSE directions want you to uninstall any antivirus software before installing theirs.

 

Tried installing MSE w/o unstalling AVG and went through with the installation. Better yet uninstall any AV softaware....

 

Uninsulated McAfee (thanks Beserk) and installed MSE with no problems. Just was a little worried about the time frame of zero protection between programs. Paranoid!

 

I use MSE and I love it. Detects very well and light on resources. I never notice it when its scanning or updating. (Only full system scans will slow down the computer, but not much)

 

Hello,

I am running out of my subscription to McAffee security system, but I don't want to renew it, because during the past year my computer contracted a virus which MA didn't detect and wasn't able to get rid of. I used free programs I found online in order to clean the computer of the virus (luckily I was able to). I am now looking for a good free protection system, I see recommendations on the first page of this forum but they are from 2007 so I was wondering if those are still valid or else what are the current recommended programs?

Thank you,
Iris

 

The recommendations on the first page have been regularly updated by Baserk, so, yes they're current.

 

Thank you, Arjunned!
Iris

 

I just picked up a new laptop. Outside of Windows MSE and Windows Firewall (I use a router and don't feel a "better" firewall is necessary), would people recommend any other protection?

Thanks!

 

pbc ... no ...
I personally use MSE and Windows native Firewall for protection and it's running just fine for some time now (then again I also use x64 Win 7 Ultimate -so it's possible I'm not experiencing issues due to the fact I don't use x86 OS code in a native capacity).
No slowdowns, no viral infections (in fact MSE catches them every time I stumble onto one - which is rare).

The ADSL router is the best hardware firewall, and as far as software goes, MSE and Windows Firewall are more than enough.
No need to spend money on av programs.

 

Thanks, sorry, I wasn't planing on purchasing any av programs. Guess I shoudl have made my Q a bit clearer! Was curious more as to whether a spyware program was required? Noticed a few pages back someone posted "MSE + Windows Firewall" and as "optional" Search and Destroy and SuperSpyware or something like that.

Wasn't sure a) whether anti-spyware was recco'd and b) whether I needed both Search and Destroy + another?

 

Hi pbc,

If you are talking about "SuperAntiSpyware" (SAS) ... there is "Freeware" version available ... and it is a Good "On-Demand" spyware Scanner.

I use it weekly just for my peace of mind ...

Also MBAM is another Excellent On-Demand Scanner ... which is way Faster than the SAS.

G!

 

Superantyspyware or Malwarebytes are good to use if you end up with malware the av cannot remove (which can happen to ANY av).

 

Ah, for some reason I thought the anti-spyware stuff was an "always on" scanner similar to the AV, not something that had to be run weekly (or whenever). Now I get it .... thanks guys.

 

Not even necessary to be run weekly.
Perhaps once in 3 to 6 months.
Your antivirus is the only software that I recommend you keep running at all times with active protection.

MBAM and SAS are unnecessary to be always on.

 

As to keep the list short and limited to 'the best', I've removed AVG in the Antivirus list.
With free Avast, Avira and MSE, there are 3 better alternatives.
If AVG shows improvement in footprint and/or detection and beats one of the 3, I'll put it back up but as for now, I see no reason to recommend it anymore.

Also, I've added links to the user guides of all the FW+HIPS.
There is no official user guide for the free version of Outpost Firewall, so I've linked the Pro version guide (which includes an anti-spyware module, not available in the free version).
cheers

 

I use MSSE and it keeps on detecting exploits in Java and Java development kit. I was thinking about either uninstalling both (Java) applications or scanning with other AV's so that I can make sure it's not a false positive. What do you think?

 

^That doesn't sound too good, have you done any secondary scans with MBAM or Hitman Pro?
And/or perhaps uploaded the flagged file to VirusTotal ?