im finish with avira..... after heavy infection

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by simisg, Jun 16, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dell boy

    dell boy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Posts:
    240
    Location:
    uk, england
    jeez stop beaching already, avira is good, eset is good.
    you're both just manipulating each others words nd stfu.
     
  2. NoIos

    NoIos Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    Posts:
    607
    Well this story is no surprise to me. I have seen systems get infected with every possible security software combinations.

    The main problem is that Software companies lie when the say "total security", "Maximum security" and phrases of this type. They know well that signature based protection is a joke...or kind of a lottery...and heuristics have max the IQ of my cat.

    And since all these are facts...ask the experts...the law should protect the consumer from their fraudulent advertising. This way the masses would have a better idea about what computer security is and what is needed for a better protection.

    Then the companies or web sites that test all the antiviruses. They should stop the lies too. When they say this product caught 99% of the tested malware...they know very well that they can only provide an indication and nothing more...they become...mainly for the money or in order to accomplish other goals, an advertising tool for certain products.

    Avira's 8 capabilities in repairing files was a joke too. Version 9 is better. Avira trully is great in detecting malware but that's all about it.

    Backup images are a kind of solution but not really the best one, so stop recommending them like they are the absolute solution. Rollback Rx offers something close to what I understand as great way to protect your machine.

    So buy less, buy carefully, tell them to prove their curriculum vitae and their higher education and the name of geniuses or security experts with their current work. If you use a free or open source product wonder why they give it for free or why they want to show off their talent in coding ( there are exceptions ). Just think about it.
     
  3. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    One thing is for certain,used appropriately SBIE will prevent all Virut variants causing damage.

    As for removal capabilities with AVs I've heard it said before that it isn't Avira's strongest suit.My own preference,based on nothing more than a gut feeling,is to use dedicated cleanup tools such as Cureit,AVZ,etc rather than rely upon a standard AV.
     
  4. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,641
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    From time to time people will be reading horror stories like this regarding avira's capabilities, of which of course I don't believe a word ;)

    I don't remember to have heard here lately (as topic subject) about the other AV's ruining thousands of PCs every second around the globe because of their ineffectiveness :cautious:

    It's just a question of reading between the lines...

    Bring down the number one!
     
  5. xMarkx

    xMarkx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Posts:
    446
    I gave up on Norton many years ago when my PC had malware infected like symptons and Norton didn't pick up anything. If I recall, shortly after that I couldn't even update Norton so I switched to F-Secure which is what my ISP provided for no extra charge and it found and deleted 2 trojans and everything was normal again. I may give it a shot again though because that was like back in the Windows 98/ME days and I heard Norton is really light on system resources now. It happens.
     
  6. arran

    arran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,154
    These are the very reasons why I don't use any AV or Scanning app.

    I think I will permanently stick with my Zero Day IMPENETRABLE security setup of my MD rules and Shadow Defender or Deep Freeze :D
     
  7. arran

    arran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,154
    I have no issues with uploading things to VT for a second opinion. but I have think having an AV active on your OS is a waste.

    since when has there been any exploits from Microsoft or FF updates??
     
  8. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    If Avira detected the original sample that got to the system of this user, why did he execute ito_O "I shoot myself in the head, why doesn't the headache go away after some Aspirin?" Oh boy...

    To attempt cleaning file infectors is no good idea. They tend to damage infected files beyond repair by overwriting parts of the file or you cannot restore the file 100%. Yes, CureIt may clean Virut. But it does not detect Virut reliable (some infected files will be left behind and your system will get reinfected) plus there is a good chance that cleaned files will no longer work.
    What is the point of attempting it, if you can have a safe and 100% reliable method (= backup) ?
     
  9. simisg

    simisg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Posts:
    412
    Location:
    Greece
    finally no antivirus help me to complete clean this computer...... the disk is formated hips and sandbox is a must and im stupid i forget it
     
  10. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Why do you feel this is a must? You can be perfectly protected without either.
     
  11. 3xist

    3xist Guest

    This only comes to one conclusion:

    Anti-Virus is dead. You can't rely on it as your first line of defense. There is TOO much malware out there and AV Software can NOT keep up with it. Preventing in the first place is the way forward, Detection (AV) comes second. No AV can detect 100% of everything, Your security should work like this:

    Prevention (HIPS/Firewall) - Example.
    Detection (AV Software)
    Cure (Image Back up)

    (Even then you can't offer 100% security... 100% security does not exist, But prevention must be your first line of defense guys...)

    Cheers,
    Josh
     
  12. FRug

    FRug Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Posts:
    309
    Seatbelts are dead. I've heard people die in car accidents even though they had their seatbelts on.

    Conclusion: Seatbelts are useless. So are traffic lights, airbags....
    Solution: Improved wrecking service and more education by first aid courses
     
  13. 3xist

    3xist Guest

    I can relate to sarcasm... But I must disagree with your analogy. Seatbelts in physical world have no commonality to Anti-Virus (detection) in the digital world.

    This is why AV is dead alone. But in a layered security architecture (Prevention, Detection, Cure) is useful for usability and security purposes, where prevention comes first, not detection.

    Cheers,
    Josh
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2009
  14. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294
    Airbags inflate at a speed of over 100mph. An unrestrained or improperly restrained occupant can be seriously injured or killed by the forced of an activated air bag.

    Truth be told,seatbelts are only tested to a certain mph.

    The real seatbelts are the 5-point safety belts you see in race cars.
     
  15. arran

    arran Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Posts:
    1,154
    How would he be perfectly protected without either? Or are you recommending some other type of software?
     
  16. dawgg

    dawgg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Posts:
    818
    (probabily not going to go down well in Wilders...)
    IMO, you're wrong... Millions of people surf the internet every day and don't get infected as they are sufficiently protected by their antivirus.


    Edit: you say "antivirus is dead" and then "AV software" in the list of software you think people need? Say whao_O
     
  17. 3xist

    3xist Guest

    AV is dead alone and when used as first line of defense. AV used in a layered security setup and second line of defense works for usability and security purposes. I will post this again:

    Millions of people also get infected because there Antivirus didn't detect that virus. This is why Prevention works as first line of defense. You can't provide protection with just "anti virus" Heck, Look at conficker worm: 10 million PC's infected world wide!

    Cheers,
    Josh
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2009
  18. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    Of course attempting to clean these infections isn't the most desirable option but the fact is that most people only consider backup or imaging seriously after their system has been wrecked.Formatting is also preferable but can be very time consuming (thank goodness for Nlite/Vlite).
     
  19. TrojanHunter

    TrojanHunter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2007
    Posts:
    151
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I keep hearing 'AV is dead' and 'use it as your last line of defence'. I personally use all of my sercurity software as my last line because commonsense keeps me out of trouble and as such I havn't had a virus in as long as I can remember. I can accept that Anti-virus has it's draw backs, but so does HIPS and sandboxing.

    HIPS can monitor you're system for changes, but it wont tell you if something is dangerous or not. Last time I used Comodo, it was like everything I did was a suspicious action from the pop-up boxes that sprung up, when I was installing legitimate applications for example. Lets say for example someone goes onto the Internet and downloads something they think is safe but it turns out that the file is actually malicious. HIPS would be ineffective in such a scenario because the user is going to execute that file thinking it's safe and click allow on any HIPS prompts. The only time I can see this being of any use is if something suspicious tries to install itself (Drive By), but such things are rarer on a decent browser and you'd be better off with Sandboxie anyway or something similar IMO. I know some on here are HIPS enthusaists, but this is my personal opinion so please don't shoot me down for it. Also I like to use my computer rather than answer a flood of Pop-ups all of the time.

    On sandboxing sercurity defence like Sandboxie I think these are well worth running because they're not intrusive like HIPS and can stop any drive by downloads. They do however suffer from the same drawback as HIPS because once a user recovers a file thinking it's safe (It's not) they'll infect their system regardless.

    I think people are a little harsh on Anti-virus because it's the only sercurity defence that will tell someone if what they intend to run is malicious. It's just they cannot detect everything, but like I stated above commonsense goes a long way to avoiding these nasties. I think Behavoural blockers have the better potential of being a mainstream solution in line with traditional anti-virus.

    I'm not trying to suggest anyone made such claims on here, but I've read on numerous forums of how people have ditched anti-virus for HIPS entirely thinking they have bullet proof sercurity, but I disagree with that.
     
  20. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Oh, right. I didn't mean to imply using nothing, my bad. I meant that you can still use alternatives, for example I'm using and AV and behavioral analysis, as opposed to HIPS/sandbox etc. I just personally don't think those are a must, and everything has an alternative to suit the user and make them feel protected. Well lets face it at the end of the day it's all about feeling protected, you are never truly invulnerable.
     
  21. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    I know Avira is one of the best AVs for detection, especially their suite (I think).

    Cleaning, not so good.

    What's better, to detect something and not being able to remove it, or being able to detect much less but being good at cleaning what it detects ?

    The only way to be certain that an infection has been removed, is to restore a clean image. Depending on your setup, the software/hardware may cost some money, but it's worth it.

    Btw, I wouldn't put those two AVs you mentioned on my computer. Anything that doesn't do well in av-comparatives' tests won't get onto my computer.

    I'm not sure which AVs are good at detection AND cleaning, but McAfee (with Artemis enabled) and probably NIS 2009 come to mind.
    Question is, do you really want that stuff on your computer ? :p
    Check out the McAfee forum. :cautious:

    There is no 100 % detection, and adding many security programs on your computer won't do you any good. (unless you're a 'semi-expert', and want to use 'tech' tools like classical HIPS, harden-it, anti-executable, behaviour blockers etc., but even then it won't do you much good) Just make sure your software (Microsoft updates) is up to date, including Flash, other Adobe stuff and remove any old Java or Shockwave players and things like that. You can have a few programs for on-demand scans, but in my experience they add little to nothing. Then again, I LOVE restoring an image. :D

    At least as important as an AV is what to do and what not to do on the internet. Don't click on ads, don't install video-codecs, ActiveX, be careful about what you download etc. IE 7 is not safe in its default configuration, so tighten IE's security settings or use a different browser, also properly configured.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  22. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Just one point: although an AV may list 2m signatures in its database, it's very likely it actually has more malware records than that when the variants are totalled up.

    To illustrate this point, KL posted the other day that they detected the 25th millionth malicious program (see here) on 9 June. This is despite their database count showing over 2,343,000 records (figure taken from KIS program interface, not website.)
     
  23. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    Why does Avira allow the user to actually execute the file, shouldn't it be blocking the access to the file until the user has selected ignore, skip or what ever?
     
  24. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    .. people don't get infected because antivirus fails, but because they do foolish things and don't care. For example: conficker infected people because they didn't have their OS updated with a patch that was released somewhat year ago, or didn't have a firewall. If these 10 million people would have HIPS, they would have probably allowed the conficker anyway.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2009
  25. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    You have to battle very hard to run anything flagged up as dodgy by Avira.It tends to repeatedly pop up warnings and beep hysterically.Anyone that chooses to disregard these warnings or worse,disable the real time scanner temporarily fully deserves any subsequent disaster.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.