Anti-virus software review

Electronics & Technology
21

I think that they should be looking for (and hopefully not finding) very different things. Avast is looking for viruses, and Malwarebytes looks for malware, such as phishing, ad trackers, etc.

2 Likes
22

Another fan of Malwarebytes (free) here.
As for anti-virus, I stick with the free option included in Windows and haven’t had a problem for a very long time. Avoiding dodgy sites and using a non-Admin account may also help.

2 Likes
23

Three nights ago (April 14 -2017 ) had a problem with my gaming laptop . I run Avast Free on it and Malwarebytes Free . They have both served me well . I knew there was something going amiss when I was still connected to my network but websites through Google Chrome and Edge kept coming up as not being able to connect . Rebooted a couple of times . No luck .

Ran an Avast Scan , found nothing ,ran the full Malwarebytes configured scan , nothing again . rebooted computer , still acting up . I then remembered my old standby ADWcleaner . I ran it , it found 3 files , deleted them , I rebbooted the computer and all is now good . ADWcleaner is now in the Malwarebytes family . I really hope they keep their autonomy as it is an excellent free product . Second time this year found nasties the others missed .

2 Likes
24

Malwarebytes looks for viruses. It is either a full fledged AV/Malware product if you use Real Time protection (paid version) or it is a second line defence by manually scanning in the free version.

It is effective in most cases when others fail to root out malware on your computer. If you find you can’t get it to clean out a stubborn item use it’s chameleon mode,this is found in the Malwarebytes program directory and don’t let the names found in the chameleon directory confuse you start at the first one and keep going until one of them works to do the job or try scanning while in safe mode.

Another useful tool is Superantispyware which really isn’t an AV product but is more about cleaning out Trojans, data mining cookies and similar.

1 Like
25

Actually not. It is “full fledged” but not a replacement for an AV, even according to them.

https://support.malwarebytes.com/customer/portal/articles/1834872-does-malwarebytes-anti-malware-replace-antivirus-software-?b_id=6438

26

I stand corrected @PhilT Phil Thank you.

1 Like
27

YVW :slight_smile: + some characters


28

When I saw the 100% detection rate, I actually thought that you may have used av-test.org, because their tests also show 100% detection rates.

I think having some sort of evaluation of the apps is better than nothing. If you don’t test them, the consumer would not know if the apps are even doing anything. I would install an app with a “100%” detection rate over something with “90%” or “95%”

But me being a application security consultant, testing mobile apps most of the days for my day job, it’s a bit hard for me to accept the 100% detection rate for mobile AVs.

Here’s a good example. The mobile AVs can only scan downloads only if they are downloaded though the standard downloaded app and copied to a location on the disk such as the download folder of the mobile. If an app decided to download something an copy it into a a folder that only that app has access to, then the AV is simply ineffective. There’s no way for the AV to intercept the connections that the app is making.

There was a web site called jailbreakme.com. Before a certain iOS version it was possible for anyone to visit that website using the mobile safari web browser and get their iPhone jailbroken. This was possible because of a vulnerability in the browser. If a malware exploited this vulnerability, it could have got root privileges (the highest level of privileges). Unfortunately, no mobile AV can stop these types of exploits.

The only way for the AVs to even have a decent level of detection rate is if it’s shipped as part of the OS. In iPhones case, apple has to develop it. In Android’s case, either Google or the OEM vendor (Samsung, HTC, etc) has to ship it.

So, I’m still very skeptical about the thoroughness of Av-test.org’s tests.

3 Likes
29

Great explanation. Thanks @dds.

1 Like
30

Thanks @dds, appreciate the insight you’ve shared here. I’ll be sure to pass this on to my colleagues as well.

1 Like
31

I used too use Free Avast and Malwarebytes and ended up buying a 2 year subscription too Avast and have found it okay and it has blocked certain websites and screens before they load.

I ended up deleting Free Malwarbytes after a computer guy I know said I didn’t need it and the Antivirus I had shoudl be doing everything including blocking malware. I have had a hacking problem twice in the past don’t really know how and have had to pay someone too fix the computer the last time was after the Windows 10 update when Microsoft actually had too take over my computer as the update for Windows 10 didn’t download properly.

Don’t really know if I shoudl have left the Malwarbytes on the computer either as there are so many computer guys out there with their own opinions.

I also use free Avast on all my mobiles and tablets without any problems. I don’t do any online banking only shopping on the Desktop.

2 Likes
32

@dds - a healthy amount of skepticism is a good thing. More is better :wink:

at-test looks interesting. 100% of ‘what they test for’ is different to 100% outright of course. I like that they are independent, but at a quick glance I couldn’t see where their money came from specifically. They are German - surely that counts for something? :wink:

Their partners are interesting: https://www.av-test.org/en/about-the-institute/partners/

There’s these guys as well - https://www.av-comparatives.org/ - between them and av-test they seem to be the two so-called allegedly independent testers people turn to.

A couple of other articles that might be of interest re Android:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256481961_On_the_Effectiveness_of_Malware_Protection_on_Android_An_Evaluation_of_Android_Antivirus_Apps

and

and


 might surprise some people :wink: though comments above have covered some of this already.

2 Likes
33

Yes, In my opinion, mobile AVs are limited in what they can do. So why bother have one just to drain your battery. :slight_smile:.

I also could not any information online to support that av-test.org is somehow linked to any AV vendor. So I dont have any reason to question their claim that they are intendant.

As you said, it may be 100% of what they test for. The next question is from where did they get the samples? If it came from the AV vendors or websites like Virustotal, then there’s no doubt that AV vendors already know about them and know how to detect them.

I also dont think the AV vendors are doing a bad job (well at least the major vendors). They have brilliant security researchers working for them. The mobile OSs do not allow AV apps to intercept traffic, hook into system calls, etc. to scan for malware. This is done for a good reason - to reduce the attack surface.

So IMO, mobile AVs are unnecessary (So are many other things such as third-party task killing apps (which is another topic :slight_smile: )

If you want to keep your mobile device safe:

  • Dont install dodgy apps - make sure that all the apps are downloaded from trusted app stores (Apple store or Google play)
  • Check if the app developer is legit (use star rating, number of apps in the app store and google)
  • Pay careful attention to the permission that the app is requesting when installing the app. (There is no reason for a weather app to request access to your contacts, SMS or calls)
  • Do not go to dodgy web sites using your mobile phone
  • Do not root or jailbreak the phone
  • Use at lease a 6-digit PIN; a long password is better
  • Do not use face unlock (can be tricked with a photo)
  • Do not enable USB debugging on Android phones and plug them into unknown devices (such as at Airports) for charging
  • Keep the OS software and apps up-to-date (well Samsung users are not so lucky here)
  • Use encryption to keep your phones content secure
  • Do not install unknown configuration profiles on iPhones / iPads
  • Do not install/trust unknown certificates
2 Likes
34

Pay for the full version work’s great

1 Like
35

Never! I have been riding the wave since the web first burst onto the world stage (and in fact used the Internet before that), but have always been cautious. That said, I am beginning to think it is time to reconsider whether to use AV.

A computer’s anti-virus program has to do some ‘undocumented’ things in order to get its work done. Windows does not have application interfaces for AV, and so the AV software (with the exception of Microsoft’s) has to ‘break a few windows’ in order to get deep inside the operating system and protect it from that low level. As soon as it does this, it creates a new ‘attack surface’ for Joe’s Malware to examine and start trying to break - and these new attack surfaces do not have the years of constant hole-plugging behind them that Windows has. They may have been around for years, but they have not been examined or threatened until recently.

My current AV wants to break the Internet’s security model so it can read all my traffic. I have already said no to that (once I figured out how). Other than that, the biggest risks to me are normally identified by my browser rather than the AV, while the AV has a range of other ‘unintended consequences’ (I suspect it is to blame for my inability to download from Windows Store).

In summary, if you are careful out there on the web, you should be safe. You will need an ad-blocker, though - ads are yet another means of infecting your computer. Get rid of Flash, Adobe Reader, and a bunch of other stuff that makes life ‘convenient’.

Vigilance is key.

1 Like
36

My statement was general, not limited to the effects of malicious code, in the context of the value of a backup regime 
 :wink:

37

Similarly, I have never lost data, whether through a drive failure, losing a USB key, any of that - and I must admit to some surprise that this is the case, given my lengthy history with IT.

The closest I have come was when I had an SSD that decided it wasn’t compatible with my motherboard. Even in that instance, I changed the boot disc and had access to everything on the SSD. The one item of data I needed from that SSD was for Bejeweled 3 - a score that had taken months in the gaining, and is continuing to grow as I write.

Again - I have never lost data, or needed to rely on a backup to recover data. That said, I think I now go a bit overboard with my backup regime. Hopefully everyone here knows about 3,2,1, but I’ll repeat it. This is the strategy for ensuring that when you do lose data (and yes, I continue to see it as ‘when’ rather than ‘if’), you will be able to recover it. The strategy requires:

3 backups, using at least
2 different media (e.g. hard disc drive vs. solid state drive vs. USB storage
),
1 of which is offsite (so it won’t be caught in the fire that burns down your house).

I currently have:

  1. an offsite plan that backs up nightly
  2. a local storage plan that backs up nightly to HDD
  3. a local storage plan that backs up continuously
  4. two 256gb USBs, to which I copy all of my data once a fortnight in rotation (so I have all my data in my pocket)
  5. Dropbox and Google Drive for my mobile devices and their photos, as well as some space with Microsoft OneDrive.

I deleted one of my backup options (not listed above) a few months ago, as overkill.

So again, draughtrider, I repeat my original statement that I have never lost data due to any cause. Having said that, I attribute my fortune to dumb luck - the backup plans listed above have only been put into place in the last five to ten years - until the early part of this millennium I had no backup. Again, though - dumb luck. Nobody should rely upon my record as some sort of proof of safety.

38

I heard in the news a few days ago that Australian government agencies are being warned not to use Kaspersky AV. This is an issue that has been brewing in the US for a while, but I wonder whether it is simply window dressing.

  • Yes, Kaspersky is Russian.
  • Yes, an outside auditor checked the code and found nothing untoward.
  • Yes, we can’t trust them because they’re Russian.

If we are worried that Kaspersky might exfiltrate state secrets, then why on Earth would anyone trust a US AV provider? I know which country has the history of overthrowing popularly elected governments and tampering with business secrets, and the Russians are still way behind the self-admitted leaders in this game.

Oh, wait - they’re friends, and friends don’t spy on


P.S. Anyone silly enough to claim that Edward Snowden is a Russian spy in their response is not simply ignoring all the evidence of US misbehaviour, but is totally deserving of the scorn they will receive from me for not bothering to even read the news at the time - when the US was breaking international laws left and right to keep the guy in Russia.

3 Likes
39

He wasn’t a whistle-blower either :slight_smile:

2 Likes
40

Kaspersky have also in recent months made the decision to release a totally free version of their AV product which is using the same engine and definitions in their paid for versions. See the following page

https://www.kaspersky.com.au/free-antivirus

I know that the above is not addressing your post but I felt it was still a useful point to make.

Kaspersky up until now have always been a paid for version of AV product on PCs. In the past you could run certain of their tools to try to repair & un-infect your devices for free but if you wanted around the clock protection you had to shell out some clams (I see sea food everywhere). During all this time there has been no criticism by the US or Aust Governments of their products, and many industry experts rely on and test Kaspersky’s products all the time. AV testing companies always rate these products either as the top choice or very near the top.

Without the Governments showing why these products are dangerous they are simply causing concern with no basis, and from the amount of third party testing you would think these supposed transmissions/hacks/leaks/vulnerabilities would have been obvious by now. Maybe and it likely is that this is just another bashing attack to make people scared of something that the Governments want us scared of rather than any real threat to our security. I don’t trust McAfee, I don’t trust MS Defender (the amount of info it sends back is scary), and there are other products that shuffle information back to base that you never knew was being sent (some of it encrypted so that you can’t even see the detail if you did capture it)

3 Likes