Bitdefender 2010 1 year free license

[GWarner]

I tried MSE a while back and found that for some reason it would not automatically update itself even when I specifically had it scheduled to do so. Rather than fight it I went back to my favorite free anti virus program, Avast Home.

All anti-virus programs will cause a slow-down of your PC because of the over-head it creates to scan files as they are accessed. For some like Avast the slow-down is very slight while others like McAfee and Symantec the slow-down can be very noticeable. I'd have to question whether an anti-virus program that doesn't slow-down the system is actually doing its job or not. I know I wouldn't trust it.

[thefool]

I'd have to question whether an anti-virus program that doesn't slow-down the system is actually doing its job or not. I know I wouldn't trust it.

We are talking noticeable and unnoticeable slowdown. If the antivirus program had a non-measurable slowdown I'd not trust it

[Kuron]

II tried MSE a while back, and gave up on it. It could never complete a scan of everything on my system without crashing after around four hours of scanning.

[PB]

> All anti-virus programs will cause a slow-down of your PC because
> of the over-head it creates to scan files as they are accessed

I read that Microsoft Security Essentials will also check the internet
for more info about a file if it's suspicious! Now THAT'S slow! Maybe
that's why I ended up uninstalling it. I don't want every sus file on my
PC being cross-checked online during a scan.

[Kuron]

I read that Microsoft Security Essentials will also check the internet
for more info about a file if it's suspicious! Now THAT'S slow! Maybe
that's why I ended up uninstalling it. I don't want every sus file on my
PC being cross-checked online during a scan.

I think the better question is why would you trust MS with security?

[IdeasVacuum]

...because, if nothing else, the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

[thefool]

I think the better question is why would you trust MS with security?

This is almost as funny as reading about 9/11 conspiracies

> All anti-virus programs will cause a slow-down of your PC because
> of the over-head it creates to scan files as they are accessed

I read that Microsoft Security Essentials will also check the internet
for more info about a file if it's suspicious! Now THAT'S slow! Maybe
that's why I ended up uninstalling it. I don't want every sus file on my
PC being cross-checked online during a scan.

Au contraire!
Its not slower than anything else(Read some benchmarks, please). So if they do that(online checking), it must be really well implemented.

[Kuron]

This is almost as funny as reading about 9/11 conspiracies

You are aware we are talking about Microsoft, aren't you? I can assure you that Microsoft is not involved in some vast conspiracy to make themselves look bad, they just make products with security holes in them because they are inept and out of their league with most things they attempt.

Like MS-DOS (written by Seattle Computer Products) and the NT kernel (written by DEC and IBM), MSE works well because it was not written by Microsoft. MSE is based on Defender which is based on GIANT AntiSpyware which was written by GIANT Company Software, Inc. which MS bought.

For the record, I have been programming since 1979, and have used MS products since 1979. I am not a MS hater, I am just an honest MS user.

[thefool]

This is almost as funny as reading about 9/11 conspiracies

You are aware we are talking about Microsoft, aren't you? I can assure you that Microsoft is not involved in some vast conspiracy to make themselves look bad, they just make products with security holes in them because they are inept and out of their league with most things they attempt.

Like MS-DOS (written by Seattle Computer Products) and the NT kernel (written by DEC and IBM), MSE works well because it was not written by Microsoft. MSE is based on Defender which is based on GIANT AntiSpyware which was written by GIANT Company Software, Inc. which MS bought.

For the record, I have been programming since 1979, and have used MS products since 1979. I am not a MS hater, I am just an honest MS user.

I think the consensus nowadays is that its actually not the operating system like Windows 7 thats insecure, it is the third party applications. I agree there have been some bad years for security, no doubt, but the later years it has been tightened extremely much.

Here is an interesting report about this:
http://secunia.com/gfx/pdf/Secunia_Half ... t_2010.pdf

I'm not saying Microsoft are perfect, but I trust them more than random 3rd party developers.

[Kuron]

I think the consensus nowadays is that its actually not the operating system like Windows 7 thats insecure, it is the third party applications. I agree there have been some bad years for security, no doubt, but the later years it has been tightened extremely much.

MS has made great progress, and IE has come a LONG way. Unfortunately, it is the long-standing bugs (like the recent shortcut issue) that always come back to bite MS in their ass and crap all over the progress they have made. They need to find a way to discover these "bugs" that have been in Windows for many years.

[thefool]

I think the consensus nowadays is that its actually not the operating system like Windows 7 thats insecure, it is the third party applications. I agree there have been some bad years for security, no doubt, but the later years it has been tightened extremely much.

MS has made great progress, and IE has come a LONG way. Unfortunately, it is the long-standing bugs (like the recent shortcut issue) that always come back to bite MS in their ass and crap all over the progress they have made. They need to find a way to discover these "bugs" that have been in Windows for many years.

Yeah I agree, the shortcut bug was an embarrassing design flaw in the shell. At least they didn't ignore it, took the blame and fixed it as fast as possible.

I'm not sure how they would be able to discover these bugs, other than rewarding people for finding and reporting them.

[Kuron]

At least they didn't ignore it, took the blame and fixed it as fast as possible.

To their credit, they even released a patch for XP SP2 which is not supposed to be getting any more fixes.

I'm not sure how they would be able to discover these bugs, other than rewarding people for finding and reporting them.

MS does have the source to Windows. They have a better chance of finding the bugs than anybody else

[PB]

> Its not slower than anything else(Read some benchmarks, please)

I don't have to read what I've personally experienced.

> So if they do that(online checking), it must be really well implemented

First quote showing online checking of files:

The program's reputation-based detection and software signature-based detection seem to rely heavily on Microsoft SpyNet, the unfortunately named cloud-based service that compares file behaviour across computers running various Microsoft operating systems.

Second quote showing online checking of files:

One thing we hope Microsoft will improve is Microsoft Security Essentials' relatively poky scan speed. It was the slowest in our on-access scan test, which judges how quickly scans run when you copy, open, or save files. The app's Dynamic Signature Service may account for some of that: When Security Essentials sees a potentially malicious file that doesn't match known malware, it contacts Microsoft servers for additional analysis.

So, two respectable computer sites stating that files are checked online.

[thefool]

MS does have the source to Windows. They have a better chance of finding the bugs than anybody else

The purebasic team has the source to the purebasic compilers, so why do they keep fixing bugs when they could just read the source code and find them? And while Purebasic certainly is categorized as a huge project, windows is categorized as enourmous. Operating systems are some of the most complex things ever to be coded

I don't have to read what I've personally experienced.

And a VW Golf is a bad car because you crashed it into your garage wall?

So, two respectable computer sites stating that files are checked online.

I know you don't have to read my posts because you personally have experienced it to be slow... But if you did, you would read that i did not write that it doesn't check online.( I'll only succumb to using this annoying smiley because you did)

The articles you point to are a year old, there are much newer benchmarks available testing newer versions which doesn't list it as slow. Also, it only checks with potentially dangerous files, and this action might be a reason I've not had any false positives yet.

[Kuron]

The purebasic team has the source to the purebasic compilers, so why do they keep fixing bugs when they could just read the source code and find them?

Unlike PB, MS can afford to pay 100 experienced programmers to spend a year or two sifting through the Windows source looking for exploits.