The best free security software

Avast has so many "Shields" it doesn't seem nearly as user friendly as MSE.

 

Hi Hungry Man,

Q1: Flash ... doesn't IE need Flash ... also doesn't some websites use it to deliver contents!?!?

Q2: What do you use instead Windows Office?

Thanks,

G!

 

i would never use alternatives for flash or office, hungry man. staying up to date, yes. but staying out of line, no.

 

Why? Alternative to flash being Chrome's flash, which is more often updated and automatically sandboxed/ run in the renderer. Alternative to Office being google docs.

It's virtually impossible to get a virus from GDocs unless the site is hacked. Flash is also going to be much tougher to get through.

Flash and office are two hugely targeted programs, removing them from the equation entirely is easily the best way to protect yourself from targeted attacks.

edit: If you use a browser like IE9 (very secure, I'd suggest it over firefox/ opera) you will need flash.

 

Hi folks,

@ Davepermen - Thanks for your input. And I do update on regular basis.

@ Hungryman - I am still on IE7 ... I think I tried IE8 and was not happy with it so I rolled back ... and that is what my Gateway laptop came with ... plus I am Not sure if I go to IE9 ... I can still use my "Downloader" ... I think I read somewhere that IE9 Limits your download capability ... so!

Thanks,

G!

 

IE9 has a security option to disable downloads/ ask before downloading. It's great. I would definitely recommend it over IE7, which lacks the security features of IE9.

 

and chrome's flash is what? exactly: adobe flash. and it's not more often updated than the one from adobe (they get it from there). it's just most users don't update it themselves so they make sure every chrome user has an uptodate version. only once this wasn't true where they quick-patched a pseudo-fix while adobe was preparing the real fix.
google docs is nothing compared to office. for the small letter or the small sheet, it might be enough. but nothing for me (excel with formulas, references and all, word documents that are huge, merge projects of different subdocuments, with notes on and correction-readings etc, databases in access, etc.. there's nothing comparing to office in terms of functionality)

you talk about "the cloud" here. do not, ever, at all, trust in ANY form the cloud. there are much bigger problems than "getting a virus" in the cloud. a file you have on your pc you know will stay there until you mess up. there is ZERO such guarantee in the cloud. there are tons of ways in which the connection to google could get lost, tons of ways in which google could mess up and lose your data (lose or get it stolen). see ps3 network currently, tons of other such leaks happened everywhere. providers and companies go down, take all their data with them, etc.

the cloud is the biggest industry joke EVER.

flash is in every case the major security thread to enter your system. that's why most browsers by now try to sandbox it.

the best way is to not use your computer. as computers are the hugely targeted system. you castrate yourself massively by not using those products (except if you have no use for them, but then you don't need an alternative just as well). so to have or not to have is not an option of security.
and google is one of the most interesting hacking targets in the world. and that can even happen while your computer is OFF.

which you need and have in chrome, too. get your facts straight. (not that you don't have most of your facts straight. but there are some holes in there, or some believes which are too 'bona fide'/'credulous' (translated with dict.leo.org, no clue ).

 

Yes it is. They get developer builds from adobe and then finish the builds themselves. They also have developed a new API for adobe that is more secure.
Google patches Flash bug before Adobe ? The Register
There's one example.

That's just like

your opinion man

When you use the cloud you put trust in google's insanely huge server farms and their backups. GMail at one point got messed up... nothing was lost because they back everything up.

Just as when you download Office you are putting your trust in the program to not get infected I put my trust in google that they put their site together well.

a) Yes, that's what I just said. Flash is a huge security vulnerability.
b) Do they? Last I checked (10 seconds ago) it was just chrome.

I hate to sound rude but please gets yours straight. Chrome does have flash but it is sandboxed. Newer versions of Chrome use a new API for flash and in fact run flash in the Chrome renderer (more secure and better performing.) A simple google search would probably have told you most of what my post contains.

 

there are so far SEVERAL (including big name) data losses and thefts that happened in the cloud. there is no 100% guarantee, ever with those things.

and btw, imagine living in egypt, a nice peaceful country, and having all your google docs in the cloud. then the revolution starts, internet is cut, and all your data is lost for weeks. the servers are not the cloud. everything till your laptop is the cloud. your router might fail => no data anymore. you onboardnetwork might fail => no data anymore. someone digs up your wire while repairing a street => no data anymore. etc etc. your provider might mess up. google might. your government might. googles government might (i'm in a different country than google).

etc etc. tons of failure points. office on my laptop? only office, my laptop, and me. 3 failure points.

that's called risk management. the fact that in one case, i have constant need for a huge serverfarm, and the massive international network in between, + my own stuff, while in the other case nothing but my own stuff matters defines exactly what is more risky.

once i've installed office, i don't have to rely on ANYONE else anymore to be able to do my work. HUGE IMPORTANT GAIN.


and yes, google works closely with adobe. and they sandbox (as i said, others do so, too. ie does "On Windows Vista, Internet Explorer operates in a special "Protected Mode", that runs the browser in a security sandbox that has no WRITE access to the rest .." so it does today, too).

the important thing is, flash is flash. no matter how much you wrap it, so the vulnerabilities are there (and the version doesn't matter much, so far every version in years was a massive risk, why should exactly the newest not be?).

browsers try to handle plugins in a save way, wrapping them and securing them, hoping it never breaks out. who says those sandboxes are perfect? hint: they aren't. much saver than without? indeed. perfectly save? NEVER.

i know my facts. sandboxing is nothing new.

 

And there aren't several macro infections of Word?

There's no reason that you have to be 100% in the cloud. I use google docs but I have a computer that has all of my files backed up. It would be irresponsible not to.

If you live somewhere where you don't feel you'll always have access... don't use cloud. It's not a 100% answer to every security question and it has its issues.

FYI google docs will have an offline mode at some point, it used to but they took it out for some reason. So even if you don't have internet access you can use it as a standalone, it just won't have sync features. So no, you would have no one to rely on.

IE9's security does not sandbox flash from what I know. It sandboxes tabs and the javasrcipt renderer. If you've found that it uses a sandbox OTHER THAN THE STANDARD ONE (the one included with flash that is and has always been vulnerably) please provide a source.

Google's sandbox is also stricter than IE9's in that it doesn't allow unelevated reads. That's not that big of a deal but I thought I'd point that out. Google's also hasn't been beaten in 3 years, IE9's is fairly new. AGain, I'd trust IE9 over FF or Opera in terms of security.

Flash is flash but it is important how you wrap it. You're much safer with the sandbox and that's just a fact.

Is Chrome's sandbox perfect? Impossible to say one way or the other. I can tell you that no one's won the 20k prize for breaking out of it and that's enough for me to trust it.

Sandboxing is nothing new but Chrome's hasn't been broken once. Flash's has.

 

WARNING on Latest Version of COMODO FireWall 5.4.189068.1354

Hi folks,

As soon as you find a decent software, the Author goes and screws it up ...

I received an Update notice today on Comodo Firewall asking me to upgrade ... like idiot that I am I went for it ... DON'T DO IT.

My latest version was "COMODO Firewall 5.3.181415.1237" and it got upgraded to "COMODO Firewall 5.4.189068.1354" ... immediately Screwed Up my access to MegaUpload page ... could not access that page and when I searched others are complaining about accesssing Rapidshare and other similar sites.

I tried to locate a copy of the earlier version for X64 and I ca NOT locate one ... and all the Comodo's Links point to the same Crappy New Version.

Q1: Can somebody PM me with a link to A download "COMODO Firewall 5.3.181415.1237" for or post it here please?

Q2: Is anyone else experiencing the same problem?

Thanks,

G!

 

Megaupload was infected yesterday or a tleast its ads were. So, perhaps that has something to do with it. I know there was "an outbreak" over it.

 

Hi Hungry Man,

Thanks for the tip.

BTW, I went to the Comodo Forums and they are having some issues with this Newest version ... they are having some Work-Around ...

And here is the rub ... you can't find the older version to go back to ... that is kind of Screwey of a Software comapny ... why not let me go back to an older version!?!?

Thanks again!

G!

 

Yeah I can see why they do it but it's a pain.

It should get sorted soon.

 

i just use AVG, and it hasnt wronged me once. i love it, its free, and it works great.

 

Try Online Armor and you will forget all about Comodo firewall.

 

I am using McAfee and it is working fine.

 

What do you personally use Baserk? Last I remember (haven't talked to you in months/years) you use Avast. I'm using MSE right now but I'm considering switching to Avast or Antivir because of the detection from of either of them are better than MSE. I may be conscious about security and may try my best but that doesn't mean I'm impervious to infection.

 

Antivirus with HIPS is a great start.

 

When using something like Comodo's firewall will it conflict with Win7's at all or will Windows 7 default to it?

Also if I install the firewall will it include the HIPS?

 

On different computers/notebooks; (XP, Vista and 7), I use Avast and Avira, Online Armor is my choice for software firewall+HIPS, I use Sandboxie for internet facing apps and either Malwarebytes'Antimalware or HitmanPro3 as an on-demand scanner.

Mind you, I like to try out different setups, f.i. test if an AV+OA+SBIE doesn't slow down one of the boxes too much, so my setups aren't exactly 'common'.
(I've got licenses for several different programs not mentioned in my list, like f.i. Emsisoft's behavioural blocker Mamutu, also installed for testing).
On Vista/Win7, I also like to use EMET to force OS mitigation techniques like ASLR.

For those looking for a stronger setup besides an AV+MS Vista/Win7 FW, I'd recommend an AV of choice, combined with either Online Armor or Sandboxie.
Depending on the need/urge to have an extra on-demand scanner; MBAM or HMP3.
And I always use a LUA/SUA for daily work.

Win7 will recognize Comodo automatically.
When installing Comodo, you're able to select the different options on what you want to install, either the full package or f.i. everything but their AV.
CIS/Comodo Internet Security is not an install and forget program though. It requires some effort.
Make sure you know how it works; whitelist, their 'sandbox' functionality, the HIPS 'Defense+' etc.
If you'd like to try Comodo, on their forum they have got an offer for a free 1-year license for 'CIS Pro'. link

 

my laptop is with cpu intel atom 450,, hard disk 320,, memory 2gb.. os is windows xp professional 5.1 version pack 3,, internet explorer is 8.. so which is the BEST FREE anti virus should i use?? thanks

 

Update to IE9 and use something lightweight like microsoft security essentials.

 

Like many people have recommended before: Microsoft Security Essentials with the on-demand scanner Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware

Also, if you are using a web browser such as Internet Explorer I recommend you switch to either chrome, firefox, or opera as they are faster and safer. Also look into extensions for the web browsers listed above. Extensions you should look out for: Ad-Block Plus and Web of Trust

 

Firefox and Opera are not safer than IE9.

 

Combining them with Ad-Block Plus and Web of Trust make them safer. However, I'm unsure if you are able to add these extensions to IE9. If you can though, than I'm wrong. And why wouldn't you want to customize your web browser with these essential add-ons?

 

If you're goin to use firefox/opera you should definitely use addons.

IE9 has a really high detection rate of malicious sites so WOT isn't really that helpful for malicious sites.

IE9 can disable javascript too I believe. Not as nice as noscript but it's still very secure.

IE9 uses low integrity and sandboxing (as does chrome) to provide serious security to your system in a way that neither firefox nor opera do.

 

He's running Windows XP. You can't install IE9 on XP.

Depends, really. Each browser ultimately has its vulnerabilities. As an IE9 and Opera 11 user, I'd say they're close enough security-wise that you can't really go wrong either way. Opera has a very useful run-plugins-on-demand feature as of version 11, though.

 

I missed that he's running XP.

I don't know a lot about Opera security but I'm fairly certain it's a whole different scheme than IE9.

What security features does Opera implement?

 

can i install anti virus example like aavira or avast together with spyware like malwarebytes or other types??? my laptop is windows xp with intel atom 450 and internet browser ie 8,, memory 2gb,, hard disk 320.. thanks

 

You don't want to install avira AND avast together. Two realtime antiviruses are worse than a single antivirus but you can have a realtime antivirus and an on-demand scanner.

So avira + avast = no
Avira + malwarebytes = fine
Avast + malwarebytes = fine

Just as long as you're not using the realtime (paid version) of malwarebytes.

 

from what ive read from baserk you can also have a realtime antivirus and antimalware running on the same system

 

It depends. Malware encompasses all things bad basically. So viruses fall under malware. Having an anti-malware and anti-virus at the same time could be a bad idea.

 

yes, but following this threads catagories (in page 1), antivruses are grouped seperately from antimalware/spyware.
many have said that it is ok to use realtime versions of both as there will be no conflict.
hopefully baserk can chime in to give his opinion.

 

I used to run Avast 6 and Malwarebyte's and it was a fine setup which will not slow down your system due to Malwarebyte's being an on-demand scanner and not containing any real-time shields. However, as stated above, Avast+Avira will cause problems.

 

Yes, you can install Avast/Avira/MSE and combine this with a program like Malwarebytes'Antimalware (or SUPERAntispyware).
Mind you, the free versions I have listed, only offer on-demand scanning, not real-time protection.
So when you download a file, your AV will scan it in real-time but to scan it with MBAM, you'll have to right-click the file and select 'Scan with MBAM'.

Correct.
Programs like MBAM/SAS have been made specifically to run alongside an AV.
The paid versions which offer real-time protection, do not interfere with the real-time protection from an AV.

 

NOD32 or/and comodo = the best anti-virus ever!!!

 

Yes I'm really enjoying Comodo. It's working really well.

 

Most people say it has a lot of configuration options and it notifies you a lot but once you set it up properly and let it run for about a day, it's very useful and not as obtrusive as people say.

 

Configuration options are a good thing in my opinion. And yes, I agree, when I first started it was giving me lots of notifications but now that it's set up rules it's barely telling me anything and I have it set to the highest notification level.

 

New Setup (please rate and add suggestions)
System Specs in Signature
Web Browser: Google Chrome
AV: MSE
Browser Protection: Sandboxie
On-demand Scanners:
MBA
Hitman Pro

 

Well, I personally use MSE for active protection and MBAM for on-demand scanning.
Nothing else is needed.
Aside from that I'm using latest ChromePlus (that lacks google infamous tracking) with inbuilt Adblock (no need for an extension) which I find superior in several ways.

As for you 'EvenlikeSteven' (there was no malicious intent behind how I phrased this ), your setup seems pretty good in terms of software protection.
Though I doubt you need Hitman Pro. MBAM is usually enough if MSE misses something.

 

If you want to turn off google's "tracking" you can do so very easily in Chrome. I don't like most Chromium builds because they don't get updated as often and they usually don't include Flash, which means you have a huge security vulnerability by installing it yourself.

 

Whats the difference between Chrome and Chrome Plus?

 

Chrome plus is a Chromium based browser that adds a few features. Personally I think that if you're going to use Chromium just use Chromium or Chrome. The rest usually aren't updated as often.

A lot of them say they offer enhanced privacy but if you read up on what Chrome reports to google it's very plain to see that your privacy is intact.

 

Nothing else is needed?

You are missing out on zero day protection i.e HIPS. Any malware that is not recognised through signature based detection methods are a risk as are malware that modifies registry run areas.

 

Antiviruses are a pretty outdated security measure outside of heuristics. But they're enough for most people.

 

All of which also depends on one's internet browsing habits, general prone to panicking, and to be quite honest with you, a lot of individuals don't have 0 day exploit problems.

Chances of getting infected even without an AV (depending on how your individual system is setup) are actually low, provided you don't click on every single thing on the net.
With an adblocker in place you already prevent most problems from creeping up onto your system, but it's up to the user for the most part to take responsibility.

 

Yup. Adblocker/host file will probably do more for you than an antivirus.

 

Wow ... I just noticed on Baserk's 1st page Avast has taken the First place from Avira now. But with more False Positives.

I have been using Avira for the last 3 years ... gotten used to it ... now what do I do!?!? Hmmm!

G!