What Software Can I get Rid of?

Hi @ Wilders

My Security software is:
Windows 10 x64bit
Windows Firewall
BitDefender Antivirus Free
NovirusThanks EXE Radar Pro
NoVirusThanks OSArmor Default Settings
MalwareBytes Anti Exploit Beta
MalwareBytes Anti-Ransomeware Beta
Emsisoft Emergency Kit Starter (On demand)
Hitman Pro Free (On demand)
Keyscrambler

I wonder if there is any overlap/overkill that would allow removal of one or more software?

Thanks for your help

Terry

 

Windows 10 x64bit
Windows Firewall
BitDefender Antivirus Free
NovirusThanks EXE Radar Pro
NoVirusThanks OSArmor Default Settings
MalwareBytes Anti Exploit Beta
MalwareBytes Anti-Ransomeware Beta
Emsisoft Emergency Kit Starter (On demand)
Hitman Pro Free (On demand)
Keyscrambler

MBAE is very optional, if you believe you really need it, keep it; if not, remove it.

 

Hi guest

Thanks very much for your reply. I am interested in why you suggest I can remove BitDefender? Can you expand? And are you suggesting this is replaced with Windows Defender?

Thanks

Terry

 

uninstall all except windows defender and MBAM (free)
3rd-party is known to cause massive culprits.

this useless collection of redundant security software is BS (on any windows).

best is a layered security concept but all of your listed software is fighting on one layer.
if malware gets behind the line you have lost it all.

 

Well I tend to agree with you, but really since NoVirusThanks OSArmor came out last year, I never encounter any problems with Windows Defender.

 

Windows Firewall
BitDefender Antivirus Free
NovirusThanks EXE Radar Pro
NoVirusThanks OSArmor Default Settings

 

I sure would not get rid of Windows Firewall. You need a firewall and WF is perfectly capable of blocking ports - which does NOT require any special or proprietary coding. So all 3rd party firewalls really do is consume extra disk space and add fluff and bloat with added features most users never need, without adding any extra protection.

Note the new version of Malwarebytes 3.x integrates Malwarebytes Antimalware, Malwarebytes Anti Exploit, and MalwareBytes Anti-ransomeware into one program.

I use Windows Firewall and Windows Defender on all our systems here and have never been compromised. That said, regardless your anti-malware solution of choice, it is wise to have a secondary scanner on hand just to verify your primary scanner or YOU the user and ALWAYS weakest link in security didn't let something slip by. Remember, the best security in the world is easily defeated if you open the door and invite the bad guy in. So I generally recommend Malwarebytes for that. The free version is just fine if you remember to regularly scan for malware manually. But note Windows Defender and Malwarebytes Premium (which includes a real-time scanner) play exceptionally well together without conflicts or hogging of resources.

So if paying for a security program, Malwarebytes is the one I would suggest. Just remember in the Malwarebytes control panel to go to Settings > Application and scroll down to the Windows Action Center section and set the "Never register Malwarebytes in the Windows Action Center" option. This prevents Windows Defender from disabling itself when it see Windows Defender.

But note your best defense is to keep your OS and security updated and avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments and popups. And that too is regardless which security program you use.

 

ERP + OSA will block most malware and post-exploits infections.

Yes since you are on Win10, you don't need more since ERP + OSA will do the preventive job.

 

I would remove this:

NoVirusThanks OSArmor Default Settings
MalwareBytes Anti Exploit Beta
MalwareBytes Anti-Ransomeware Beta
Keyscrambler

Also, update your apps and OS and backup your data and you should be fine.

 

Hi @ Wilders

Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has already contributed or may continue to contribute to this thread.

I found it useful, slightly confusing and in small part contradictory. But that is the nature of opinions.

As a starter, I have removed Mbytes Anti-exploit and Anti-Ransomware. We will see what happens over time.

Insofar as the suggestion to revert back to Windows Defender, I found a very detailed analysis on the Ghacks site by Martin Brinkmann which suggested that many of the freeware antiviruses were better. So I have not changed from BitDefender.

It is this kind of help that promulgates learning.

Thank You

Terry

 

@guest would you say the same about EAM?

 

EAM offfers you a robust Behavior Blocker, so it all depends on the user preferences:

on Win8/10

- you decide that ERP + OSA is your main protection, you won't need EAM or any AVs other than Windows Defender.
- you decide EAM is your main protection, you won't need ERP, OSA can be used alongside but it is not necessary.

 

Good move, honestly unless you go to very malicious sites or download and run all suspicious executable you find, the chance of being exploit-ed is almost nihil.

Martin Brinkmann didn't use ERP and OSA alongside WD when he wrote his article.
ERP + OSA is the real power of the setup, not WD (which is there because of Win10) and i consider it more as support, on Win7, i won't need even an AV.

 

I think it important to keep in mind the OP is using Windows 10, not Windows 7.

For those who insist testing labs tell the whole story, see AV-Test's most recent AV-Test December 2017 test results with W10. Click the all important "Protection" column title to sort by Protection and note where BitDefender stands. It beats out Panda Security, Norton Security, Trend Micro, VIPRE Security, Avira, BullGuard, the crowd favorite ESET , and others! (Check out what other often criticized program beat those contenders! ).

Now check out the most recent from AV-Comparatives Real-World Protection Test February 2018 and note BitDefender had a perfect score with 0 false positives! Note that only 4 programs tagged 100% of the malicious samples thrown at them - see what was one them! Then see which weren't.

@TerryWood - what I am illustrating there is (1) what I've been saying for years and that is reviewers and testing labs test in "artificial" environments under "simulated" scenarios. They are NOT real world in spite of their claims. Therefore you have to take their results with a grain of salt. (2) You cannot rely on 1 reviewer/tester. While that report may claim BitDefender is better, another report will certainly show another is better. This will ALWAYS be the case because testing parameters are simulated and based on biases (even with the best intentions!) depending on what that reviewer/lab feels is the more important testing parameter. And (3), like I have also been saying for years, you don't have to drive around in an Abrams Tank to be safe! You just need a fairly recent model car that is properly maintained (including its safety features) and kept current AND you need to drive defensively.

In computer terms, that means you need to use a modern operating system and security solution, keep them current, and you need to avoid risky behavior - don't be "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments and popups - the same things you need to do regardless your security software of choice.

I say if you like and trust BitDefender, use it. It is a fine program. Keep your OS and security updated, and don't be "click-happy". And use a secondary scanner just to ensure BitDefender or you (the weakest link) didn't let something slip in.

 

Hi @ Bill_ Bright

I could not agree more with your comments.

Just look at the diversity of opinion on this, as yet, small thread.

It is suggested that I move from a respected A/Virus (BitDefender) to Windows Defender which has never, in my view, and according to those pundits we all disavow, performed particularly well. Yet it is getting better so we are toldr!

If an antivirus is at all needed (that is the question) then the best (in one's opinion) should be chosen.

As I said in one of my comments, essentially in support of this forum and the people who contribute to it. Out of confusion and contradiction becomes learning. OF A FASHION.

I stand by my personal judgement, I have accepted some advice. But I baulk at removing bit BitDefender. It is because of my lack of knowledge and confidence. Nonetheless part of the learning process @ Wilders. For which I am grateful to all.

Terry

 

Terry- You seem like a very thoughtful person, so please consider this:

1). Whenever you read something like "I've used product X for years and have never been infected!!!!!" you should immediately dismiss this statement. This is like saying that "I've never been in an Auto accident so Insurance is pointless", or "My House never has burnt down so I would be a Fool to be insured".

2). Watch out for the "professional" testing sites. Notice that they never, ever say how old the malware used actually is (and there is a great deal of difference between malware that are true Zero day and malware that are a few days old); and they also will cherry-pick what types of malware is used in the test.

3). Don't believe the "Behavior Blocker rocks" comments. Many (all) of these products will not distinguish between legitimate software and malware that will act in exact same way. A person that is very close to me (actually She is with me ALL THE TIME) soon will be releasing a video (not that it can be posted on Wilders!) that highlights this point.

4). The use of an AV is so ingrained into the Psyche of the Computer user that trying to tell them that protection such as this is pointless and that they should change is like telling someone that their religious beliefs are wrong- nothing but a Voice crying out in the Wilderness, maybe heard but otherwise ignored.

5). "Safe Computing"- the biggest fraud of all. A website that has been legitimate for years can be compromised; a product that has been without issues since its development can be replaced with malware simply by Blackhats that obtained the needed FTP credentials.

In short, watch out for conventional wisdom. Frequently it is based on ignorance.

 

That is not the same thing at all! I have never been in an auto accident but I sure would never go without insurance! Same with house insurance. My house has never burned down because my BBQ grill is not right next to the house, I don't leave pots on the stove unattended, and I never smoked in bed when I used to smoke. But I still keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen and in the garage - just in case.

None of my computers have been infected because I practice safe computing - not because I use product X.

That makes no sense either. "Safe Computing" does NOT imply a site is safe. Safe computing refers to the user's discipline. Of course a site can be compromised. It happens way too often. That is exactly why users need to be "security aware". That is exactly why users need to use an anti-malware solution. That is why users need to avoid risky behavior.

It has always performed well enough. It's biggest problem is the brand name on it. If it were as bad as those pundits would want everyone to believe, 100s of millions of users would be infected. Not happening.

Nah! You just a decent one. Again, the user is always the weakest link.

And what is "best"? The one with the fewer false positives? The one that is lightest on system resources? The one that tags the most malware in simulated lab tests? The one that runs on-demand scans the fastest?

You absolutely need the best if:

• If you don't keep Windows updated,
  
• If you don't keep your security solution updated,
  
• If you are "click-happy" on every unsolicited download, link, popup, and attachment you see,
  
• If you visit illegal pornography or gambling sites,
  
• If you participate in illegal filesharing via Torrents and P2P sites,
  
• If you connect to public "hotspots" with admin level accounts,
  
• If you let undisciplined users use your computer with admin level accounts.

But if those scenarios don't apply to you, then any decent solution, even the basic Windows Defender will do just fine.

It is just marketing weenies and biased people who claim you need the "best" anti-malware solution.

 

I would definitely NOT remove KeyScrambler, it's a simple tool that can help in case other tools fail.

Yes, false positives are a problem, but I still believe BB's are a must have.

 

In case other tools fail? You can use that argument to justify layer after layer after layer after yet another layer of specialized security tools. They just are not needed.

If a separate behavior blocker was needed, that would indicate Avast, AVG, Avira, Comodo, McAfee, BitDefender, Panda Security, Malwarebytes, Norton Security, Trend Micro, VIPRE Security, BullGuard, Kaspersky, Windows Defender, ESET and all the others were failing and inadequate and there would be 100s of millions of infected systems out there. Not happening!

What decent real-time antimalware solution doesn't do behavior analysis these days? All those I just listed do. They all have their own terminologies and methods, and each, of course, claims to be better than the other. But they all do it.

In fact, most if not all real-time antimalware solutions already use a layered approach with heuristics, behavior, definitions and more to look for viruses, Trojans, rootkits, worms, spyware, PUPs, etc.

 

Regarding KeyScrambler and the like- remember that keyloggers must do 2 things to compromise a system- it must first accumulate the data, then TRANSMIT it out to the Blackhat. An Outbound alerting Firewall will alert you to the OutBound transmission (and where it is coming from) making manual remediation both possible and trivial.

Further, there are just oodles and oodles of other types of data stealers that do not have mechanisms similar to keyloggers (and thus will be invisible to things like Scrambler); but once again an Outbound alerting Firewall would make you proof against stuff like that. And I won't even mention Forked processes that something like WFC will suppress without even an alert.

Point being, why concentrate on something specific like a dedicated anti-keylogging application when a more generalized solution is available for the taking?

 

Correct, but no need to make such a big deal about it. My point of view is quite simple, there's always a chance that AV/AE/firewall will fail, and a tool like KS can then still prevent a keylogger from doing damage. It's very lightweight and shouldn't cause any problems, so why not?

Yes correct, but I haven't actually touched an AV in over 10 years, so I have no idea which one is the best. From what I've read, the ones from Avast and Emsisoft should be pretty good.

 

Hi @ Cruelsister

"Point being, why concentrate on something specific like a dedicated anti-keylogging application when a more generalized solution is available for the taking?"

Such as?

Just very interested.

Terry

 

CFW...

 

I agree, there's always a chance. But by that logic, why not have a separate real-time secondary AV scanner? A separate spyware checker? A second firewall? A separate rootkit detector? Two routers? You can draw arbitrary lines all you want. But that still does not make them necessary.

The fact of the matter is, keyloggers (software based keyloggers that is) are malware. And anti-malware programs look for malware. You don't need a separate anti-keylogger.

Now if your computer is located somewhere where untrustworthy people have physical access to your computer when you are not around, then I say load up with all the layers you can.