Which antivirus respect your privacy and allow you to send NO data to their cloud?

Today very few security software still relies "only" on signatures (blacklisting). Most of the software introduced behavior blocker, hips, sandbox etc. modules.

On another topic, (btw just out of curiosity) what do you think privacy invasion (on PC) can lead to more than spam in your e-mail? Note that I would also like the software I use to respect my privacy "as much as possible".

 

Thats the main point to consider! Then better not to run an AV then running it with 80% of the power turned OFF.

 

BB, hips, sandbox don't need cloud. Problem is, they are usually not strong enough in traditional AV programs.

I won't go back to the original concept of security and how it changed over the years. I treat my PC like i treat my house.

To answer to your question with a question. What do you think that a security company like Iobit, that stole MBAM's database, could do with your PC? If a scammer has taken over Shadow Defender's servers and had access to your PC, would you wait to see what he can do? I wouldn't. That's the difference. I don't want to suppose. I want to be sure.

Bottom line. Companies are run by people. People have flaws. It's not my job to "default trust" people, i believe in pro-active response.

DiamondCS developers, were revered for years in this very forum. Once they disappeared and re-appeared years later, the same people revearing them, were regarding them borderline or plain scammers.

People are still asking whether Tony is still running SD's site or a scammer does.

Iobit was "wonderful, beating even MBAM", until it turned out, they were ripping MBAM's database. Only because they became sloppy.

Just to site some examples.

I don't want to THINK what these people would like to do with my privacy. Maybe i 've been reading for too many years "security" fora. Back in the days, it was about "me being in absolute control of what comes in and out of my PC". Today it's more of a hobby for program testing.


I am not against cloud at all costs. Panda's approach (the dev had confirmed), is good. But usually they just don't explain what they do. And, i am old school control-freak.

There is a proverb here, "trusting is good, not trusting is better". It's like with using an email for buying software. Every site says "we won't give your email to anyone". Then, for mysterious reasons, you start getting spam in anotherwise "virgin" email address. Trust is relative. Everyone is ready to offer it in words, but better not believing in words. As Iobit's case showed, bad people (unbelievable, yet true), may work is "security" too... It's not my job to wonder what intentions they may have with my PC. My job is that my PC isn't at the mercy of their intentions.

I do use AVs too from time to time, i was just amused by the attack on the OP.

 

Is there a problem, IF NO personal data is sent?

 

Sorry but that is so NOT true. Maybe that was true like 5 years ago, today, all of the above mentioned features utilize cloud for more accurate and improved protection and user friendliness. Take Comodo as example. If it was churning out popups like crazy in its early days, cloud brought that to very minimum.
avast! is also using Sandbox but is also utilizing cloud for further analysis within the Auto Sandbox. ThreatFire was using cloud heavily for file inspection and behavior and i'm pretty sure AVG's IDP is using cloud to prevent false positives and for better detection. You can't live in the past and say all that did perfectly well. Yes, it did, 5 years ago. But today, not so much. Just like malware is evolving, anti-malware apps are also evolving. But if you prefer malware over anti-malware, well, then that's your choice...

 

Fine, they use cloud. As long as they give you choice, they 're fine, no need to gang up on the OP.

I want to live in the past, as long as i don't get infected, it's fine. I prefer no malware without cloud. Unless you want to convince me that it's impossible to stay malware free without cloud...

People exist that still prefer DOS games instead of Battlefield 3 or run XP despite the marvelous tiles of Win8. What do want. Some don't like evolution the way most people intend it.

 

You can't compare games with antivirus programs. Games don't have to evolve and some of us like the old ones even today. Antiviruses HAVE to evolve in order to do their job. If you don't like it, then don't use it. And also good luck using one that doesn't use some for of cloud these days... and if they do have the option to disable it, what's the point? By disabling it you're essentially making your AV behave like it's few years older. Menaing it's pretty much worthless.

I'll just never understand some ppl who make such a fuss about it. Go and use avast! 4.5 that doesn't have any cloud functionality. Just don't wonder then why it will miss so many things compared to latest avast! 7.0...

 

Games don't have to evolve? Then why are they always require higher hardware? OSes don't have to evolve either?

And in deed, i don't use AV. And when i was using Avast, i wasn't using the cloud. Where's your problem? The OP doesn't want cloud. Be polite and explain that to her in a gentle manner and explain to either choose reduced protection or search for other forms of protection.

The OP didn't come here to ask "the best protection". She came to ask "which AV doesn't send data to the cloud". It's simple enough.

 

Who says the games need super duper new hardware to evolve? That's a new age BS where every new game needs super graphics.

I've played Zombie Shooter few weeks ago. It's an isometric top down shooter with graphics from 1995 but it was fantastic. It was released not long ago, but the graphics look horrible compared to all the new games that have high end 3D graphics. There are also bunch of indie games that look like crap but they are fun. Antiviruses don't have that luxury. They can only evolve further and never backwards. Unless you don't really care about protection.

 

Cloud is a buzz word, there is no proof "CLOUD" does sh#t. It has not improved protection. It still relies on signature based detection as it always has, it's just that companies like Webroot, Panda etc just don't have to spend money rolling out signature updates these days per client.

Marketing wise they love the word "CLOUD". Simple folk see that buzz word and go "this must be good, i'll buy it", Well it's not that great honestly. It's the new black, but in reality does not add to detection or protection as you can see in AV detection tests.

Look at trhe fools over at Webroot, they say they had Flame malwzre samples since 2007. What a joke... The truth is they don't have a clue and "CLOUD" is just marketing hype. Every week a new botnet covering millions of infected PC's is discovered. Every week more people are getting owned despite these buzz words

 

Clearly you don't have a clue what cloud is. If you think it's signatures only you couldn't be mistaken any more than you already are... because you seem to know more about it than all the security vendors in the world. Which is a bit hard to believe. And if you think utilizing full cloud isntead of local signatures is easier, then you're wrong again.

 

-As said most of the BBs, HIPs, etc modules make us of a cloud these days.
-Most security software will try to use hashes first, (uploading a file especially big ones introduce server load and cost); if they see a file (most of the time executable) they have never met before then they'll upload it and see what it does to identify the file.
-Complete utter trust / respect and trust are very different things. I trust Kaspersky with my computer cause they have earned my and many other's respect but I will take action and investigate if I find something suspicious about them. (Kaspersky is just an example here, I don't use Kaspersky). And people here wouldn't suggest you a shady company either. Security vendors (respected ones) have to keep your data safe and private, if they're caught leaking they will lose customers and money.
-My point is be careful, but don't overdo it. How do you know that your operating system is not transmitting your files or such over internet, did you have a look at the source code? Hell maybe your hardware if transmitting data about you, how will you be sure about it?

 

The same people who promote the games, the sales managers. AV companies have them too. Do you see how every game review puts a mark on graphics, A.I. etc? That's what most people call evolution.

Exactly, many people also run XP, with SSM and feel their PC just great. Even if XP "is much more vulnerable to malware" than Win7, or Win8. It's a matter of choice and personal... happiness.

The rest, is PR marketing. The cloud was made to facilitate AV companies primarily and continue with their "signature" primary policy, only it costs less to have it centralized than de-centralized. Imagine if AV vendors really decided to move towards non signature based protection. Uhhh, bad for sales, the customer would be much less dependant on renewal.

But , as i said, again, aside personal evaluations of what is evolution (i agree with you about games, but i am in the minority,if you make a poll in a forum of 15 year olds, the evolution is better graphics, A.I. and sound effects), the issue is not what or you like, but what the OP asked...


Also, it is not always the case that people have trivial information on their computers. They may have stuff that they are paranoid about. A relative of mine is such an example. When i told him "i don't know what exactly is sent to the cloud, he shut it off, because in that specific computer, he brings back work from his office (encrypted in USB drive and disencrypted in his own) and while it's not "top secret", it's something he can't risk to leak even by mistake, because it could cost him a lot.

So, if we were to discuss "is it better protection to leave the cloud on", i wouldn't be discussing it. But OP doesn't want the cloud, what do you want to do? Shoot her? She may want the choice to be less protected, it's her risk to take, not yours or mine.

 

No I understand. "ClOUD" is a buzz word, marketing hype.

 

Oh lord, read again what this topic is about...

If Windows was transmitting my files over the internet, you can be sure i would know. I won't tell you how, i leave it to your imagination.

My point is, you are free to do as you like, why isn't the OP or me free to do so too?

 

I very much doubt that you'll now (I can think of tons of ways to check but they'll introduce their uncertainty with them) but of course everyone can have their own opinions and use them. I'm just stating mine here.

Using older versions of security software, using a sandbox like Defensewall, or using a pure HIPS might give you want you want. Another option might be switching to a virtual environment when you need to do work.

 

Cloud is just a buzzword. Hahahaha, you ppl are so funny... Sure it's just a word that describes continuous communication between clients and servers, but still, cloud is not just a buzzword. But if that makes you float your boat, so be it. I just hope you're still using Norton 1997 or McAfee 4.0...

 

The cloud simply cuts down bandwidth costs to AV vendors. Instead of sending to 20.000.000 users new definitions every 5 minutes, you have 20.000.000 users sending their scan data to a central service that replies back "clean" or "infected". Admittedly, since they want to cut costs, this also results to better protection. They could do the same with more frequent updates and localizes malware analysis modules, but this costs more. Bigger installers, more definitions etc.

The cloud could become of secondary importance if they gave priority to whitelisting or behaviour blocking (Threatfire which was an early attempt was already quite powerful without the cloud, but Symantec killed the evolution of the program of course).



It's a bit like Defensewall. Would you REALLY pay XX euros every year to get Defensewall 2011 if you knew that Defensewall 2010 keeps working fine in your PC and has kept you bulletproof? In this forum many would. But most simple Joes would say "Uh, i wasn't infected, so i will save the bucks and maybe upgrade next year".

How many offices, which practically do no software installations for ages would be more than happy with a lockdown like Anti-executable (provided DLL monitoring wasn't buggy), instead of Norton 2010/11/12? Unfortunately, people know "antivirus" and know they "update hourly", the rest is niche knowledge and... AV companies like that too and stay this way. As a reviewer of ZeroVulnerabilityLabs ExploitShield in download.com says "how do I know this program really works if it won't open"

http://download.cnet.com/ExploitShield-Browser-Edition/3000-18510_4-75780388.html?tag=mncol;1

While with AV you see new definitions, you see "you are protected" with ticks, etc.

While with signatures, clouds, etc, certainly you want to pay for renewal. You can live without signatures or clouds, can you...

This is a personal, silly evaluation, but, IMHO, the cloud would have been much more useful, back in the XP days, when surfing to 5 porn sites with IE6 without getting infected, was reason to celebrate. Nowdays, i REALLY don't understand, how the risk of getting infected has grown compared to IE6 days and the ActiveX "roll the dice" routine... I guess i am lucky.

 

If we would stick to some users approaches we would be still writing with typewriters and using pigeons to exchange information

 

Ok, since you don't have much faith to the Linux MS-hating white and black hats that would love to expose evil MS, i will admit to you the ultimate truth: I have no other choice than to accept Windows sending my files out. Because Linux isn't an alternative for me. But, having to live with one software sending my files out, doesn't mean that i must allow every other do the same, when i do have alternatives that work for me.

Yes, if you look at my signature, you will see what i do. Not that i need them really, since i 've been for long without anything but the firewall, but when i return to Widler's i get paranoid and put back some of the software "just in case".

At the end, the purpose here, isn't to use "the newest" just for sake of "new", but to use something that keeps bad things out of my PC. If that works, new or old, does it matter? How many things can pass through Faronics anti-executable with DLL monitoring for example without YOUR permission?

 

Said the man that effectively represents ZA in this forum... BTW, how are Zone Alarm sales going? Just curious.

 

I am eating popcorn

 

Sorry you have misunderstood what actually happens in the cloud. It is not a yes/no database but a complex analysis on behavior of programs that automatically leads to new detections and protection for all users instantly (no need of downloading signature). The detection of new sample is largely automated (determination of a bad or good program) with few cases of manual intervention by malware analyst.

Localized malware analysis will not benefit from thoudands of user data and the power of dedicated data centres. The same applies with frequency of updates.

You seem not getting the advantages. i.e. A small fraction of data been exchanged from the user to the datacentre as compared to signature download (better for the user). Complex analysis in data centres not possible with home PCs and instant protection from new threats.

 

LoL. Sorry, I don't represent ZA and not even working for them, just a user as most here!! And what the hel* this has to do with cloud AVs? Personal attacks do not make your arguments more convincing... on the contrary.

 

Which is all fine and i do understand that it's more secure than not having a cloud. The question is, can i please have the right to not want the cloud? Please?

And, more important, what sort of "analysis" Appguard, Defensewall, Voodooshield need to do in order to keep you safe? I dare say safer. None.

So it does seem a bit odd, that instead of going to the simpler solutions, the well known companies, insist on signatures and cloud and "complex analysis". Why do you think is that? I mean, most people have multicore CPUs, maybe not strong enough for complex analysis (thank God Folding at Home is still doable), but pretty good for "default deny" action. Could it be that more "simple" solutions wouldn't bring as much money?