quote:

Originally posted by KMitch200:

quote:

Originally posted by sig226fan:
I have been using Bitdefender for a couple or three years now.

Me too.
Not thrilled that the last couple of versions don't have the modules that 2014-15 did without upgrading to a higher priced version but it seems to work OK now that the bug is fixed.
(Win 7 and AV Plus 2018 didn't play nice together at first)

x3

I love bitdefender.

I have Malwarebytes on my Mac – the free version. It doesn't provide real-time protection, so doesn't steal my CPU cycles. But I manually command a scan (takes 20 seconds) before I command a backup, so I know that all of my backups are clean. Malwarebytes has never reported any malware.

Norton.

I've used the free versions of both Avast and AVG in the past, they work all right but I got annoyed at their constant badgering to upgrade to the non-free versions. Norton and McAfee are uber resource hogs, they'll bring a decent machine to its knees. Now I use Microsoft Security Essentials along with MalwareBytes. So far so good...

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Linux Mint.

Not too many viruses out there for Linux...

This ^^^^^

Microsoft Defender Antivirus.

ESET for about 10 years. Also run Malewarebytes.

Avast free version

Desktop - Avast

Surface - Windows Defender

Work - McAffee

They all work fine.

Uninstalled Avast tonight and turned on Windows Defender and download Malwarebytes.
Machine is running so much faster.

I like Windows Defender on my AIO, seems to do the job just fine. Admittedly though, I do not go to porn sites.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Linux Mint.

Not too many viruses out there for Linux...

This ^^^^^

If you are sensible about your online habits there are not many in any other OS either.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by tigereye313:
Linux Mint.

Not too many viruses out there for Linux...

This ^^^^^

If you are sensible about your online habits there are not many in any other OS either.

Isn't that a bit like saying you're less likely to get in an automobile accident if you forgo travelling by automobile?

There are many articles discussing this issue, and many different perspectives, but it boils down to

quote:

"There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows, 40 or so for the Macintosh, about 5 for commercial Unix versions, and perhaps 40 for Linux. Most of the Windows viruses are not important, but many hundreds have caused widespread damage. Two or three of the Macintosh viruses were widespread enough to be of importance. None of the Unix or Linux viruses became widespread - most were confined to the laboratory."

Ref: Linux vs. Windows Viruses

Admittedly: That article is 14 years old. But, while the numbers have changed, the relative ratios remain pretty much the same.

The only virus ever to have had any significant impact on *nix systems of any flavour was the Morris worm, back in 1988.

In my own +25 years of administering *nix and MS-Windows systems, the only Linux compromise of which I know personally was an Internet-facing server compromised via a well-known vulnerability, where the SysAdmin failed to patch it in a timely manner. (As in: Not at all.) (Wasn't me or at any of my sites.) During those 25 years MS-DOS/-Windows compromises were a fairly regular occurrence, despite my and colleagues' best efforts to prevent them.

I finally, one day, told my wife I was no longer confident I could keep her MS-Windows PC safe to use, and to please use her login on my Linux box for sensitive work. (E.g.: Banking, bill-paying, etc.) You may, probably do, regard that as an "extreme" or "alarmist" view, but it is, in my opinion, the wisest course of action. Put bluntly: I would never consider using any Microsoft Windows PC for anything sensitive.

It would not be too far a stretch to say I regard using MS-Windows for anything sensitive as verging on foolhardy.

The Android platform is now the second most-exploited OS platform in current use. I now feel the same about the Android platform as I do MS-Windows.

quote:

Isn't that a bit like saying you're less likely to get in an automobile accident if you forgo travelling by automobile?

No more like > you will likely have less accidents if you don't drive like shit.

I get it that there are more problems in total with MS but the answer is not limited to JUST the OS is bad. A much more complicated
explanation is required.

quote:

The Android platform is now the second most-exploited OS platform in current use.
I now feel the same about the Android platform as I do MS-Windows.

I don't disagree but isn't kinda odd that the sibling of Linux is being attacked so much?

Which is to say, it's mostly between your ears.

I use whatever is free and unobtrusive.

And I very, very, very rarely have even a single issue to contend with, on several devices using everything from Win7 to *nix to iOS and the rest.

I also have no kids, visit no sketchy porn sites, play no online browser based games, never Facebook on any of those machines except one phone, or ever open a sketchy email, and so on.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

The Android platform is now the second most-exploited OS platform in current use.
I now feel the same about the Android platform as I do MS-Windows.

I don't disagree but isn't kinda odd that the sibling of Linux is being attacked so much?

Not at all. There's nothing magical about the Linux kernel. Alphabet essentially replicated much of the MS-Windows model for its mobile OS. The results were pretty much predictable.

I was willing to chance it as long as I could trust the Play Store. When the Play Store proved to be untrustworthy for about the second or third time: That was it for me: No more Android.

(In the interim: No, I did not fail to note the irony in my using a mobile OS that more-or-less necessitated employing resident AV software.)

What's truly ironic is Microsoft learned from Alphabet's mobile platform mistakes, and, I guess, from Apple's having got it right, and locked their most recent mobile system down tightly. That wasn't the sole determinant in its failure to gain traction, but certainly contributed to it. iOS would likewise fail, were it new, today, I expect.

People want cheap & easy. They don't want to be bothered with correct, secure, trustworthy, etc. Of course: Then they get 0wn3d. Then, of course, it's the maker's fault for giving them what they demanded. Much like bemoaning the loss of small, local stores after having shopped at nothing but the big-box stores for years.

quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
Mac, reasonably good surfing habits and I don't bring mail to my computer (webmail vs. local client).

I realize and agree that Macs are not immune to all malware. But in my experience, AV has been nothing but problematic on the Mac and malware is much less a risk than on PC.

That said, I'll probably take another swing at something soon. As typing this makes me feel like I'm flipping the middle finger to fate. hehe

I'm a Mac guy at home too. On my 5.5 year old iMac I've been using Sophos for years.

When I purchased a MacBook Pro, Sophos wanted my e-mail address to register their free software, but their system was too jacked up to send me the confirmation link back so I could actually install it. I said screw it, I'm going to look for a new AV software program for OSX and then I came across this article which said 2 key things:

A report from Malwarebytes in August 2017 shows that Mac malware has increased 230% since July 2016.

Only 4 AV software package found 100% of all malware thrown against it, and AVG was the only free one.

I installed AVG on my MacBook Pro and it went seamless as did the initial scan. However, something interesting happpened on my first scan on my iMac - it found 4 vulnerabilities Sophos had missed and every one of them was embedded within a Mozilla Firefox extension. AVG put them in quarantine and I'm GTG.