What is /g/'s recommended AV for Windows? I'm currently running Win 10 tech preview with 360 Security
Past 2 years I've been using Bitdefender 2013 Total Security and its worked a charm especially for browsing backwater shithole sites and moderate torrenting. Best AV in that list you got there by a longshot.
Decided to upgrade to BD 2015 today, right now actually.
You don't need AV as long as your PC isn't a fucking whore that eats stranger USB-sticks like it's her job and you have noscript in your browser. Also, the Windows integrated AV isn't bad. External AV software will just slow your system down and annoy you with "hurr durr your license runs out in 572824739 days hurr you better buy a new one durr".
I never get into these threads early enough.
I do 3rd party IT consulting.
Under no circumstances should you use the following as an active A/V
Microsoft Security Essentials
>Doesn't detect important shit, and when it Does, it cant remove it.
I skeptically approve the following:
>works well, but a bit more bloated every year
>No reason to not like it, but I don't trust it's detection rates.
>how are they still in business
I have not personally used BitDefender, but i've noticed the fags who shout about MSE rarely if ever suggest BitDefender, give it a try.
Avira seems the best home free AV at the moment.
Malware Bytes is not an active scanner unless you pay for it, and even then, it's shit.
CS 2015 is okay, but you have to make sure you enable the checkbox 'apply to everyday life', otherwise you wont get the warnings when she takes her pants off and has visible blisters and you'll forget to use a condom.
how many burgertokens did the nsa pay you cancerous friend?
For my post, I assume you have a reasonably fast PC, let's say at least 4 or 8 GB RAM etc.
I agree with you for the most part, but cannot believe you call Kaspersky shit tier. It's signature is one of the best along with Avira and Bitdefender yet it also provides zero day protection (at least better than most others).
I personally use Bitdefender, but I would probably prefer Kaspersky if I could find a free license. (I got a promotional offer, so I use Bitdefender for free).
I used to use cracked ESET Smart Security and I was satisfied with it.
I agree with you MSE, McAfee, Norton sucks. (Only briefly used MSE myself)
For free, I believe more or less they are the similar and personal preferences matter if you are an average user. If you are really crazy about detection and whatnot and want it free, use Avira or Bitdefender Free.
Shit and avoid no matter what: MSE, McAfee, Norton
Free and OK: Avast, AVG
Free and great (might cause performance drop): Bitdefender Free, Avira.
Paid and great: Emsisoft, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, ESET
I must add that I only used the following ones but I am kind of a security nerd so I like to watch reviews.
ESET, Avast, Bitdefender, Bitdefender Free, MSE and Kaspersky very briefly.
I liked the Kaspersky most and I don't remember MSE detecting something, not even once.
I've always been very pleased with BitDefender myself, but I can tell that it is a bit heavy on resources. It's a lot better with false positives than it used to be at least.
Ad blocking and common sense is truly the best defense though.
Heres my general security measure overview:
1. Comodo Dragon browser
>comodo web inspector and privdog, blocks insecure pages from being accessed, blocks data from being sent to trackers and ad networks.
3. Bitdefender TS
>best av i've used, especially for blocking sites, its like an extra wall behind comodo. Shows those little green tics next to a site if it is trusted and even still privdog blocks all outgoing tracking data if it isn't.
works for me.
Common sense is great, but when you spend alot of time scouring the web for free versions of articles, standards, books and other crap, you eventually fall into some sketchy places.
I use loads of CAD software which need to be re-licensed often, and just downloading key files is highly risky shit, but its gotta be done.
>using a botnet browser on /g/
>not using chromium/firefox
>not using ublock
Common sense works against packet injection? Really? How?
Last time I checked, people who opened Linkedin, Slashdot, Linux Journal etc were infected with malware.
Gary, "Common Sense" only works if you're ignorant or don't use the Internet. Only shitheads think it actually works in practice.
The McAfee Logo here is stuffed. "McAfee Secure" is the PCI compliance product line, which they sold off to Pathdefender a few years ago, only to have Pathdefender decide the Qualys products were better.
I do. It doesn't really belong in this thread because it's not really AV.
I agree with the sentiment that most AV is bloat and not much else unless you're forced to meet a compliance requirement (and realistically, most businesses are, so "common sense" is out the door. That, and most of my users don't have common sense).
But EMET stops a large portion of 0day attacks, regardless of what browser you're using or other addons are involved. I've tested it myself by roaming a number of malicious sites with IE8 RTM a while back, and it stopped everything.
There are ways around it and there are exploits written that subvert it, but if you take the approach of nontargetted, in the wild shit, it's incredibly effective.
Does seem to have issues with out of date versions of Adobe Acrobat - which says more about Adobe than EMET.
Although Linux isn't entirely bulletproof, it's much more secure than Windows and Mac OSX because of its strict permission system for risky operations. Common sense would still eliminate the possibility of malware.
Permissions don't matter when there's an escalation vulnerability that the basement dwelling freetard author overlooked.
Everyone just calls Windows insecure because malware authors target it
Who's this basement dwelling freetard? Another great security advantage of Linux is it's open source and free as in freedom so we can always fix security exploits with a large community.
Nice false information, every security exploit we had got repaired within 24 hours. Stay butthurt because Linux will always be much more superior and manages most of the servers that are used for everything you download from. Without Linux, it would be basically the stone age of technology.
>every security exploit we had got repaired within 24 hours
If it wasn't such shit, there wouldn't be such devastating exploits to begin with.
>manages most of the servers that are used for everything you download from
There's just as much IIS in production. And if I recall correctly. it wasn't affected by heartbleed.
There are lots of other Unix cousins that aren't developed by SJW's.
Paying attention to what the fuck you're doing is better protection than any anti virus can offer. The age of the antivirus is over. Companies only run it to protect from liability.
How does anyone actually get their computer infected by malware? It doesn't make sense to me. I would have to make an effort to find some.
>if it wasn't such shit,
Not everyone here is an autistic shitmongler that plays around with freetard lincucks bullshit and does nothing productive.
Some of us need shit like DAWs, VSTs, and the OSes that support them, and fuck if i'm gonna pay for all that shit before i even make it big.
The warez scene is almost entirely composed of scummy 3rd world slavshits and chinks and i don't fucking trust them, i wanna scan the shit i download and know its clean.