360 Total Security - English

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by ifacedown, Apr 23, 2014.

  1. Jaspion

    Jaspion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    Posts:
    195
    Location:
    Brazil
    I have experienced problems such as the UAC alert in Internet and Total Security, faulty real-time protection in Total Security (sometimes files don't get detected on write unless I turn on monitor all file types, sometimes files aren't quarantined properly), and the problems are usually intermittent like this UAC problem, so that's what I'm calling unstable, although I know this word is associated with system crashes, and I have not experienced these. Baidu is not without its problems, but at least it doesn't have such usability problems. P.S.: And that is surprising in my book, I expected Qihoo to be able to produce a better security product with their experience.
     
  2. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
    You do realize that uac is more of annoying than actually helpful? That's why hips exist due to being able to configure what to trust and what not. In UAC, you can't configure that.
     
  3. Jaspion

    Jaspion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2012
    Posts:
    195
    Location:
    Brazil
    While this is beside the point here, you are partially right. UAC is kernel-deep, HIPS is not. Each has its purpose and its characteristics, they don't replace one another.
     
  4. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
    I agree. Thanks to patchguard, all HIPS are limited in their ability to do their job as intended, but, microsoft knows better I guess. Anyway I figure in order for 360 to do it's job properly, it demands highest privileges [just cleaned old laptop with TS, had 741 infections, really nasty, asked for restart due to special techniques involved, restarted, all is well] in case it needs them in any given scenario ranging from startup infection, code manipulation/injection, corruption of itself, you name it. How will they get whitelisted in UAC remains to be seen.
     
  5. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    The main problem with UAC is where it stops things. It's required to even execute something and if you allow that, it will just allow everything onwards. HIPS on the other hand will ask you if you confirm any actions that could potentially be harmful after the execution. Something UAC doesn't do at all. That's why it's really only useful if you by mistake execute a file that you know is malware and you can click NO and you're clear where on WinXP without UAC it's a done deal as soon as you execute something. Just that and nothing else.
     
  6. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
    Cryptic messages of the HIPS won't save you if you can't figure out what is telling you. Or a badly implemented one [comodo hips blocking desktop fiasco]. That's why I think HIPS is not newbie or clicker happy oriented solution. Containment in the first place.
    Not tested emsisoft, but I hear they are pretty informative and easy to read.
    Nowadays everyone is going with hips, bb, sandbox, or the combination of the three.
     
  7. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    If you're unable to read (and understand) HIPS details you're not suppose to use it in the first place.
     
  8. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
    Unless you make it super quiet and super tight, which in turn increases the chance of false positive block-on-execution ;)
     
  9. Solarlynx

    Solarlynx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2011
    Posts:
    1,994
    Ditto!
     
  10. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
  11. pb1

    pb1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2014
    Posts:
    550
    Location:
    sweden
  12. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    13,115
    Location:
    UK
  13. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    I gave it a try this morning and already uninstalled. Three malware files detected on Virus total by both Avira and Bitdefender are not detected at all by 360 Total Security with Avira and Bitdefender enabled and updated.
    That let me think that A. and B. definitions files in 360 are outdated of some days. Not a good thing.
     
  14. phyniks

    phyniks Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Posts:
    258
    You re right.. the qihoo engine is very effective agaist zerodays but unfortunately it needs internet connection
     
  15. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    Okay, just to be sure I looked into the avira folder. This is reported in the latest vdf file:

    Virus Database File
    Version: 7.11.159.188
    FUP: 1
    License date: 9.7.2014
    VDF date: 9.7.2014
    Minimum engine: 7.9.4.32
    Signatures: 7056837
    Required linked VDF: 7.11.159.146
    Source: 7.11.159.188
    Compiler: 1.5.0.4

    So looks like avira database is one week old!!!
     
  16. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
  17. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    Yes, it was reported like that on my system too. But it's a misleading information. Try to open with word the latest Avira vdf file and you will see...
    Actually I think that the date on the screen refers to the day in which you update the signatures and not to the day in which signatures have been released by Avira or Bitdefender.
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2014
  18. Stode

    Stode Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Posts:
    377
    Location:
    Finland
    either way, i'm currently relying on this and malwarebytes anti-malware..
    so far so good, feeling pretty safe. :)
     
  19. GakunGak

    GakunGak Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Posts:
    953
    All right, I will see if I can find some more information about this and let you know anything I find.
     
  20. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    Great. Thank you, GakunGak.
     
  21. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Here is what I've got today.

    vbase029.vdf:

    Virus Database File
    Version: 7.11.160.210
    FUP: 0
    License date: 15.7.2014
    VDF date: 15.7.2014
    Minimum engine: 7.9.4.32
    Signatures: 7111408
    Required linked VDF: 7.11.160.209
    Source: 7.11.160.212
    Compiler: 1.5.0.4

    vbase030.vdf:

    Virus Database File
    Version: 7.11.160.211
    FUP: 0
    License date: 15.7.2014
    VDF date: 15.7.2014
    Minimum engine: 7.9.4.32
    Signatures: 7111408
    Required linked VDF: 7.11.160.210
    Source: 7.11.160.212
    Compiler: 1.5.0.4

    vbase031.vdf:

    Virus Database File
    Version: 7.11.160.254
    FUP: 1
    License date: 15.7.2014
    VDF date: 15.7.2014
    Minimum engine: 7.9.4.32
    Signatures: 7121569
    Required linked VDF: 7.11.160.211
    Source: 7.11.160.254
    Compiler: 1.5.0.4

    It's still strange, that you can't find any VDF: 7.11.160.211 from Avira VDF history page in here.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2014
  22. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    I've just updated and now I have this version too. But if you look on Avira vdf history page there are already 5 new vdfs after 7.11.160.254.
     
  23. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    I found a new Beta version upgrade of 360 TS and downloaded it plus upgraded too.

    Component(s) update.JPG

    Before that upgrade installation, there was some Component(s) auto update, which I don't know anything about?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
  24. garrett76

    garrett76 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Posts:
    221
    Still on 7.11.160.254 (released on 15.7.2014) here. Avira is already on 7.11.162.16 (date 17.7.2014). So definitely 360 uses older signatures than the original Avira. I see no point to enable Avira and Bitdefender engines if they are outdated. They only make the system very heavy with no significant benefit in protection.
     
  25. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    Can you find 360 TS BitDefender update defs somewhere?
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2014
Loading...
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.