AOL AVS much better than AVG Anti-Malware

I thought the CHKDSK-thing had been resolved I've had AVS on 2 pc's without incident and haven't heard about that "issue" since before the holidays...

 

Try to be more open-minded.

 

Hello,

Have been using AVG / in parallel - INCLUDING PCs without AV - downloading porn and whatnot for many many years without the slightest of slightest incidents. Virii party will happe when I decide to host it, not because I live in shadowy fear of some semi-dubious exploit concept.

Lastly, virii party don't dance well to the tune of nix-based music.

Mrk

 

For all I know the CHKDSK problem may have well ben resolved that's why I said I'm still a little leery about it. I really liked AVS and if it is resolved would certainly considrer using it again. I do want to aks though, if the updates are now coming from AOL Servers instead of the Kaspersky ones? As far as AVG it is improving and Grisoft informed me to keep watching their website for the AS to have Heuristics and other improvements soon.

 

i think you should wait for avs for vista, that should be built upon the mp2 of kav 6, (and might work on xp just like kav 6 mp2)

 

I can show you screenshots of AVG picking up trojans that Dr Web missed, too. Pardon my saying this, but what's your point?

 

avg free is not an AV for high risk surfer since you can only update it like once a day. also its detection rate isnt as high as some others.
i would only really reccomend kav or nod32 for high risk surfers if they insist on being a highrisk surfer.
due to higher detection rate and more updates
lodore

 

Hello,
Sorry mate, but what you said, lodore, is completely baseless.
Daily or bi-daily updates mean nothing...
Mrk

 

Yes, but there are two things in contrast to this:

1) Many products will detect certain adware/spyware components as Trojans or vice-versa.
2) Any AV will always miss some samples from time to time. In the samples I get, Dr.Web almost competes with Rising AV for the lowest detection rate of the products I've put them up against (BitDefender, AVG Anti-Malware, NOD32). But I cannot, and will not, say that Dr.Web is bad because it doesn't detect a lot of my samples.

 

My thoughts exactly.
Would those daredevils insist on using avg free.....well...

 

Hello,

Being a high risk surfer has nothing to do with what AV use. Nothing at all. When you surf with Firefox the number of AV prompts you will ever receive from your AV is ZERO.

Second, even if you download files, there is no reason to get any red flags. Furthermore, relying on AV to tell you whether a file is ok or not is foolish. So if Kaspersky tells you the file is clean, then it is? Oh really.

Third, smart use of computers, for everything, including surfing, downloads, p2p, or anything else, is a superb and complete substitute to any software. Smart use means that a file called screensaver.exe is not a screensaver.

Fourth, updates to AV are nice but not really important. Signatures include a small percentage of all samples out there, those that you are most likely to encounter. But there are thousands and tens of thousands of custom-tailored thingies that no anti-whatever detects, effectively rendering any signature-based product useless, especially those using blacklisting.

Heuristics are nice but more likely to cause lots of FP - and for those who do not know how to interpret them - totally useless results. If you can interpret them, then you do not need heuristics as you can do your own behavioral forensics. Furthermore, heuristics do not need updates, making the entire issue of how many daily updates even more useless.

AVG / Avast / Dr. Web / Kaspersky - just a matter of convenience. You can use any or all or none and it won't make the slightest difference. In fact, in my experience with AV in the last decade or so, I have encountered about 10-15 times more FP than any actual malware and they have caused far more damage by crippling legit apps, mainly due to heuristics, than any real virus or such.

The few infections that I did encounter were deliberate mistakes of the persons who installed the wrong codec packs, cracks for games or such. Regarding people who I helped disinfect their computers, it's hard to tell what their machines had, with hundreds of entries of all kinds, but in their case, it was a hopeless battle, not the question of catching or not some doomsday virus that will kill your computer.

--> Such things don't happen. Usually people inflict damage to themselves.

Mrk

 

correction: those naive avg free users..

 

Fair enough. To each his own. But then again, I'd... well, you know, prefer to take my advice from someone who is at least smart enough to read notices on websites that explicitly inform users that product X does not detect a specific type of malware.

 

the main point was that these teeenagers that are highrisk surfers which there are a few of them on my course in college only use avg free and run a scan once in a while. they have no concept of whats safe and whats not.
they will click any random link they will open any email attachment and visit anywebsite.
so if you smart and a high risk surfer there is no problem but as i stated the high risk surfers i know have no sence on the internet and click on any link.
anyway since when has firefox been a way of protecting yourself?
this has been discussed before mozilla has had to fix quite aloit of holes in firefox. so that means you cant count on a browser to save you from the nasties. i know that firefox with no script does help but again it can be got past by a uneducated user by allowing all scripts on all pages because they find it annoying that they have to click allow on the new website they visit.
you said yourself with vista its just two clicks to execute malware rather than one.
i just hope that those computers that are used by high risk surfers who are teenagers arent used by there parents for internet banking....
i know you are a highrisk surfer but you know what to look out for and wont get caught out by the nasties because your smarter than to click on a random link or exeute a dodgy file.
lodore

 

Mrkvonic. So if what you are saying is based on facts, and I have no reason to believe they are not, does this then mean that it is impossible to be infected in any way by using Firefox, unless you do it to yourself? The reason I ask is that like many others in this forum, I have an obsession to install and try many different security softwares, and have recently even been thinking of replacing my AVG AV with AOL AVS and using Cyberhawk again. I am done with Firewalls at least, as I think a router SPI firewall and windows XP is good enough, but I still like the idea of having other security software. So I guess what I'm really asking here is this. In case there ever is a some new or unknown malware that does infiltrate Firefox, what would be the best RealTime Protection Software for this besides common sense, a HIPS of some sort?

 

Hello,

Simple answer: You will not get infected when surfing using Firefox, even without Noscript. HOWEVER, if you download a file (through FF or any browser) and then execute it on your desktop, well... that's another story.

Let's clarify it: Surfing is one thing. Opening files like a maniac is another. But there's no such thing: you visit site with FF, you exit, you scan your drive and detect problems. That won't happen.

OF COURSE there are vulnerabilities. But they are fixed within days. And I have yet to be given a proof / example of anything that can trigger a drive-by in FF and execute a file. Potentially, it could happen. Any real exploit exists? No.

And if you use Noscript, then you're even one step further from the remote chance of a potential problem.

AV and all other tools in regard to browsing have a meaning when you use the IE crapolla. But when you switch to non-IE browser, things become oh-so placid. A real disappointment for people looking for action.

Most people have a hard time accepting this. FF (and I'll club in Opera too) is different from IE. If you needed AV / AT / AS / AM / AA / bumbleweenies to protect your non-IE browser, then what's the point? Or uniqueness?

This is even more emphasized when you compare Windows to Linux.

So I'll ask again, the seventh time in my time since I joined Wilders: if anyone can point to a working drive-by for FF, I'll send him a box of best beer via FedEx. And I'm not talking PoC that some unviersity geek wrote for his Master.

Mrk

 

Thanks and good enough then, but I think I see that you do use Norton Internet Security 2008, is this correct? If so is this just for precaution? Also, any Wilder experts that want to jump in here and explain why an AV and other RealTime Protection is needed with firefox, please do.

 

That is a good joke

 

Hello,
NIS 2008 does not exist. I have written it as a joke. Or more like a scorn for the Big Brother corporations...
Mrk

 

I'm smiling, and I think need to stay out of this forum even though I love it so much. I also definitely need to stop installing and unstalling security software to try out. However I think I should still use an AV. And maybe a Firewall. And well some type of On Demand AS. And of course a HIPS program of some sorts. Oh yeah and of course common sense. LOL.

 

great posts Mrkvonic .

 

AVG is not crap the suite that is anyhow..I've used it since i came here last 6months and i have not had 1 malaware virus get through, it caught maybe ummmmmmm 4 trojans through winrar..... Prior to that i used Trend which was boggy and missed heaps i kept thinking cuz its trend micro is better.......NOT SO !!!! just cuz it's one of the big boyz..... I used to laugh at avg thinking omg well something is better then nothing well with the suite its great... all my other AV"s sat there doing nothing avg has caught like i said 4 in six months and heaps of cookies malaware... i double checked by instalilng norton today and it found nothing so all the way with AVG !!!!!!!!! Suite......


pssssst and she runs fine on my 382 mb machine

 

I have something very strange to report. I got myself a license of ZoneAlarm AV (uses KAV engine + extended database). Ran it through my sample set, and wonder of wonders, AVG Internet Security (Anti-Malware) detects a bit higher than KAV.

KAV is excellent for detecting older malware, but my samples come from quite reliable sources, and not just some VX collection. This proves (at least to me) that KAV is no longer the best AV for newer malware. Kaspersky had better get the development of their heuristic engine going, or things will get very rough for them.

But I have zipped up the samples and am preparing to send them for analysis, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

Then let's wait for their final report, those samples (some of them at least) could end up as FPs for KL.

 

I got an email within minutes of submission (I love this about KL ) that only two of the files were clean and the rest are infected. A bit of a problem is that signatures are not being added quickly today since it is a weekend. As a result, not all the malware has been added yet. But I'm sure everything will be added by Monday (I sent only around some 22 samples, not too much).

But regardless, AVG did detect slightly more, and I was pretty surprised to see it myself.