From today, anti-virus is free, says Microsoft

Michael J (User):

why would you bother getting this when there are almost definitely better free anti virus programs available. I highly doubt this will be better than something such as avast.

TV Bis (New user):

I highly doubt this will be better than something such as avast.

It's much better!

plutonium210 (User):

Seems even when MS offers something of value, it still gets canned by the anti-MS brigade.

It's specifically designed to protect Windows so it gotta be better than the generic stuff out there. It's never going to be 100% effective, but lets face it what product is?

And in keeping with the open source proponents (Linux crowd), you don't have to instal it if you don't want to, and it's FREE so it must be GOOD! .................. Right?

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
It's specifically designed to protect Windows so it gotta be better than the generic stuff out there.

What? First, anti-virus programs are by companies specifically for Windows. Sure, there are a couple of AV programs for Linux, OS X etc, but the bread and butter income for AV companies is Windows. Second, what about that last MS disaster called One-care. That too was specifically written for Windows, but it was nowhere near as good at doing its job as other AV programs. And let us not forget that MSE is basically a re-write of One-Care.

It is all well and good to be an MS fanboy 'plut210', but for goodness sakes get some perspective! As a bit of flame-bait, I might also add that if it wasn't for Windows, the entire AV industry probably would not exist!

plutonium210 (User):

Quoting petert:
It is all well and good to be an MS fanboy

Hardly petert, I've been a proud Mactard for decades and Am only exposed to Win at work.

Quoting petert:
but for goodness sakes get some perspective!

Being presumptious is not like you petert!
We have had 14 machines running OneCare at work for 2 years and have had no problems. And yes I don't use it personally as I don't feel it's as thorough as PCcillin.

And as for perspective along with experience? I totally hate Win and Linux!

But it seems because I don't ignorantly bag MS at every turn, I'm not part of the APC Forum in-crowd!

yesplease (New user):

pc cillin. hahahaha. When has this ever worked?

phunkymunky (New user):

Quoting petert:
I might also add that if it wasn't for Windows, the entire AV industry probably would not exist!


Why wouldn't you attack 90% of the market over 5 - 10%? makes sense...

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
it still gets canned by the anti-MS brigade.

Beating a dead horse on this forum mate!

And since when do you start to defend the 'Evil' giant from Redmond?
You didn't secretly go out and buy a Win Rig did you ;-)

plutonium210 (User):

Quoting Me In Oz:
You didn't secretly go out and buy a Win Rig did you ;-)

God forbid! My music business would go broke waiting for all the updating required ;-)

Raindog (User):

Quoting Me In Oz:
You didn't secretly go out and buy a Win Rig did you

PMSL!!

Raindog (User):

Quoting Me In Oz:
Beating a dead horse on this forum mate!

You should know the alternatives by now. :>

The Big Baboo (User):

AS a "Penguin-In-Training" I'm looking forward to the day when I can dump Windows altogether but it'll be awhile yet but till then I refuse to download anymore of their stuff than I absolutely have to :)

todd_h86 (User):

I have been using the beta of this since it was released in the US 4 - 5 months ago and even in beta form it worked like a dream, I go torrenting and visit suspicious websites as part of my job and I have yet to find a virus/malware infection on my pc, I run malwarebytes once a week (finds nothing) as well as monthly scans where I pull my hdd out and run it on a PC with CA which finds nothing. It uses less resoures than AVG Free and it incorporates well into Windows 7. I am just glad the public release is here so I can stop installing AVG and Avast and just use this. Michael J, maybe you should test it before bagging it. The only reason I can see why Microsoft havent included it in Windows 7 is to keep the bloody EU and Symantec/Trend and Co. happy with anti-competitive suites etc.

If your using AVG stop and use this.

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting todd_h86:
If your using AVG stop and use this.

Same goes for NOD ......... Yuk !

Raindog (User):

edit: delete - win server derived duplication strikes again.

Raindog (User):

Quoting todd_h86:
I go torrenting and visit suspicious websites as part of my job

and only read Penthouse for the articles, right?


Quoting todd_h86:
I run malwarebytes once a week (finds nothing) as well as monthly scans

That's like only using a condom on Saturdays, workable in theory but wide open for the inevitable.

Quoting todd_h86:
It uses less resoures than .....

One would hope so given your comparing periodical scans against real-time protection.


Quoting todd_h86:
I am just glad the public release is here so I can stop installing AVG and Avast and just use this.

so the advaantage of not installing anti-virus solution A or B and instad installing solution C is what exactly?


Quoting todd_h86:
The only reason I can see why Microsoft havent included it in Windows

The better reason would be to offer the consumer choice, my guess however, is that your suggestion is probably the more correct.


Quoting todd_h86:
If your using AVG stop and use this.

Well that could be considered, but aren't you missing something? Oh yeah, that's it, a reason why?

todd_h86 (User):

Quoting Raindog:
One would hope so given your comparing periodical scans against real-time protection.

Never said anything about not having real time protection.... I have MSE INSTALLED and RUN PERIODICAL SCANS with OTHER anti-malware software. At the moment it is using less than 8 MB of RAM in task manager.


Quoting Raindog:
so the advaantage of not installing anti-virus solution A or B and instad installing solution C is what exactly?

If all my clients are running the same AV it makes support a lot easier....


Quoting Raindog:
Quoting todd_h86:
I go torrenting and visit suspicious websites as part of my job

and only read Penthouse for the articles, right?

They have the best interviews! And the germans do awesome work with legacy drivers.... if u can find one without a virus.


Quoting todd_h86:
I run malwarebytes once a week (finds nothing) as well as monthly scans

That's like only using a condom on Saturdays, workable in theory but wide open for the inevitable.

As I said above... I have MSE installed and run these scans to make sure.... So really its like using a condom everyday of the week but also getting her to take a test every sat....

Raindog (User):

Quoting todd_h86:
Never said anything about not having real time protection....

Good! i interpreted your second line as those being your only line of defence.


Quoting todd_h86:
They have the best interviews! And the germans do awesome work with legacy drivers...

German Penthouse drivers? The mind boggles..

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting Raindog:
German Penthouse drivers? The mind boggles..

Actually "Raindog" If you could find me a cheap penthouse in Germany with a really good driver for my Harley I'd be over there faster than you could say "anti-virus" :)

james mckay (New user):

ok.
you all seem to be drifting from the original point.
sure you could download the microsoft one and install it,or you could install avast,or even dare i say the n word.
but in the end, if the virus/trogan/worm is good...you will get infected.
id like to bring say, the Happy99.exe SKA Virus.
no anti-virus picked this up, not a one.
they had to read the scripts in it to know what the hell was going on.
it took the first company (not naming one)2 days to get it.
but in that time it infected over 1 million computers.
now, if one anti-virus was better than the rest, how come not one of them coud pick this one up?
when it comes down to it, they all do the same thing.
they might do it differently but basicly get to the same point.
its freedom of choice and micrsoft is offering a free one.
if they want to its up to them.
end of story.

Raindog (User):

Quoting james mckay:
you all seem to be drifting from the original point.

How so, amateur sage?


Quoting james mckay:
but in the end, if the virus/trogan/worm is good...you will get infected.

Original point? hmm, no it wasn't, not at all, but a valid if somewhat emotive point all the same.


Quoting james mckay:
id like to bring say, the Happy99.exe SKA Virus.
no anti-virus picked this up. not a one.

And the point is? Relative to MS verses after market scanners? Original point wise.


Quoting james mckay:
when it comes down to it, they all do the same thing.
they might do it differently but basicly get to the same point.

Or not get to the same point. And in getting and not getting there use vastly different resourses, cost vastly different sums of cash and cause vastly different levels of disruption. Some work well, some not so well, and what works for one may not work so well for others.

You brought up some valid points, but you were way off the mark suggesting others had missed anything.

james mckay (New user):

im sorry.
forgive me for saying anything at all.
if anybody should say anything,why not a programmer of the original virus or even multiple ones that havent been relesed to the public for resons on a ntn basis.

james mckay (New user):

its not hard to make a virus that doesent get picked up from any anti-virus.
its once it becomes a threat to peoples security or wellbeing that companys act.
think of one that deletes critical files.
you could induce a BSOD and the person would have to reinstall the OS

james mckay (New user):

i wasent aiming that at you.
its the general idea thats going away from the point.

Aubrey (User):

Quickly! Some freetard needs to reply to this article with an immediate and gratuitous anti-MS/proprietary software message. Otherwise plutonium210 is going to make a post that makes him look like a complete defensive jerk again. We have to protect him from himself people!

Aubrey (User):

Nevermind. Too late again! Could someone just set up a bot to do this please.

plutonium210 (User):

Quoting Aubrey:
Some freetard needs to reply to this article

Seems some freetard already has.

The Big Baboo (User):

You,you you freetard you :( stop picking on me mate :)

Phred (User):

Quoting plutonium210:
Seems some freetard already has

Welcome back :O)

Fornax (User):

as someone who looks at peoples home PC all the time this has to be better than what a lot of people do which is nothing or they let their subscriptions to paid products lapse. The average joe has never heard of avg or avast and don't really trust them.

Halcon (Advanced member):

I have used AVG free before, then i stopped using it due to some obscure component within it.
Now I use avast! Antivirus free Home Edition, this program is taking care of my XP system.
For Windows 7 it has no problem, AVG is installed on that partition, problem is the no availability of 64 bit free firewall, Zone Alarm failed to me :(.
I have not tested Avast with Windows 7 64 bit, so I can't comment on it, tough luck!

The Big Baboo (User):

Hey "Halcon" :) Ever tried Avast with the "Comodo" firewall and wait for it punters :) It's absolutely free,free,free unlike some MS stuff out there which even if it is free :( you're going to pay for somehow.

Tin (Regular user):

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry has already made up their mind which is "definately" the best AV/security software... This one will be as popular as good ol' One Care was, and will probably cause as many problems for the idiots that download it.

CCCMikey (New user):

Hmm, so now AVG and Avast will just be for those systems that fail WGA testing, unless someone finds a way around that like they did with WMP11

Aubrey (User):

Ok then, I guess I'll have to add the obligatory freetard comment myself.

MS should be congratulated for finally addressing the bugs in their software that make anti-virus necessary. Leaving this for so long and forcing users to actually pay third-parties to do it was unacceptable.

I do wonder though why an additional utility is the preferred solution when they should really be addressing the fundamental flaws in the codebase that create these vulnerabilities in the first place. I guess they had managed to convince users and the industry that viruses are really someone else's responsibility. Great marketing really.

If you bought, say, a chair and it routinely broke, the MS way would be to suggest you buy a third-party "chair fixer" kit and use it regularly. Any future failures would be your responsibility. At least they are now actually giving away their own branded chair fixer kits. Woot.

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting Aubrey:
I do wonder though why an additional utility is the preferred solution when they should really be addressing the fundamental flaws in the codebase that create these vulnerabilities in the first place.


Non-network viruses and trojans appear to just be regular programs. These don't use vulnerabilities to propagate. They use user stupidity or removable media... Neither of which can easily be closed off in the OS (imagine if MS said they were removing USB media support!).


There are still known vulnerabilities not related to networks, but changing these would probably require Vista level changes to the way we do things (like removing the all users "run" keys from the registry, which would break many legitimate installers)

james mckay (New user):

Quoting Tin:
There are still known vulnerabilities not related to networks, but changing these would probably require Vista level changes to the way we do things (like removing the all users "run" keys from the registry, which would break many legitimate installers)

people can make .BAT files that dont need to make 12 pop=ups come up.

you can realisticly make an account on any OS you please if you ake a .BAT file and program it to do it,then convert it to an .exe with a nober of different programs out there and rename it anything you want.
eg. mcrosoft xp sp3 keygen,vista keygen or even iwmp3.exe and people(the general majoraty of people that dont use a computer for nothing other than gaming,googling stuff,facebook or myspace and it wont even get picked up by the best of av programs becouse its such a little threat.
now,if you make this account remote acsessable...theres not a lot a skilled programmer-hacker cant do.
when companys bring out a new anti-virus its like saying "COME GET ME HACKERS" but at the same time trying to offer protection from them.
i have been thrugh the main scripts to this AV program and have found so many loop-holes its not funny...
im not telling anybody do do this.
im not being mean to the last post.
and dont yell at e for grammer or spelling misakes.
(new keyboard)

plutonium210 (User):

Quoting Aubrey:
should really be addressing the fundamental flaws in the codebase that create these vulnerabilities in the first place

Because as my father used to say - "Locks are only made for honest people". Any one with malicious intent will get into ANY codebase, Linux, Mac or Win .......... even military grade machine language code!

If Linux and Mac had the same market share as Win, it would also have it's proportional share of malicious attention.

Aubrey (User):

Quoting plutonium210:
If Linux and Mac had the same market share as Win, it would also have it's proportional share of malicious attention.

I don't disagree that there would be some - but there are major differences in the architecture and internal pannelling that deny burglars some of the necessary footholds to gain useful access. They may be able to get onto the landing and take the outdoor furniture, but the room with the valuables is much more secure. Also the guys who designed and built it are just next door and keep redesigning and updating the locks as free service.

But Linux machines can certainly transmit Windows viruses - some of us actually run anti-virus programs simply to protect Windows machines we may connect to or exchange files with. (I don't, but I'm like that.)

Raindog (User):

Quoting plutonium210:
If Linux and Mac had the same market share as Win, it would also have it's proportional share of malicious attention.

No IF about, your right on the money, the other OSs do hold a proportion of the market and as no surprise do have proportionate risks. The architecture is definately more secure than Windows but the have the that same human risk factor which is the likely flaw in any OS.

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting plutonium210:
If Linux and Mac had the same market share as Win, it would also have it's proportional share of malicious attention.

This is quite a furfy. Certainly MS has the largest share of the desktop market, but let us not forget that *nix has far and away the largest share of the server market. What's more, that *nix server market has not been subjected to anywhere near the same level of virus etc assault as has the desktop market. So, when someone tries to suggest that it is only the Windows market share that is responsible for the large number of virii etc, I tend to disagree; such a position is far too simplistic. If it were that simple, *nix servers would be in a far worse position than Windows servers, but history shows that is not the case. The reason for this is the fundamental difference in architecture between *nix and Windows system - with Windows obviously being the worse of the two. There are other issues that also need to be considered. For example, for decades, unlike *nix systems, MS made the default user the administrator; hence, making it easier to gain deep access to individual computers. So, again, simply stating that mal-writers write virii for Windows because it has the largest market share is being rather too simplistic; not necesarily completely wrong, but a tad too simplistic.

Edit: Current estimates are that Windows has around 90% of the desktop market. Similar estimates are that *nix has at least 60% of the server market and perhaps more than 70%. So, using the proportional argument, there should be around 2/3 as many *nix virii as there are Windows virii. The problem is, although there are many thousand and thousands of Windows virii, there are barely a handful of *nix virii. Clearly, the proportional argument is flawed meaning that the debate that Windows virii exist only because it has the largest market share is also flawed.

Tin (Regular user):

Quoting petert:
This is quite a furfy.


Yes... Most figures for market share on desktops are based on web browser agent-id strings reported by a select collection of websites. That means people not browsing those sites are ignored completely. And worse - people fudging Agent IDs to bypass stupid website checks based on statistics end up reinforcing those statistics.

The other measure - sales - is even stupider. Tried buying a laptop with no OS? It's damn near impossible unless you're OK with a cheap Clevo piece of crap.

Raindog (User):

Quoting petert:
This is quite a furfy. Certainly MS has the largest share of the desktop market, but let us not forget that *nix has far and away the largest share of the server market.

While you'll get no arguement from me that NIX in gereall is much better hardened against intrusion than Windows the sever v desktop comparison is a little simplistic.
For the main servers a run 1) as commercial operations and 2) are generally only accessed at a command level by skilled (assumedly) professionals.

There are countless instances of hacked NIX webservers everyday, this is not a flaw in the servers but can be related back every time to the human element. That same old moron factor.

Any system is only secure to the level of stupidity applied by it's most moronic user.

That most of these breaches go no further than the shared web directories is testiment to well applied NIX security, that there are breaches at all just proves the most secure system can still be let down by stupidity.

If other system occupied more desktop there would be more effort directed to writing malware that affects those systems.

You only have to read the accounts of a few hackers to find that most have not breached the best security via clever code. Most found there way in with key loggers, pranked support calls etc.

Windows still suffers the legacy that it was designed wide open and recent effort to close some of the holes have been cumbersome and annoying to the extreme.


Quoting petert:
Current estimates are that Windows has around 90% of the desktop market. Similar estimates are that *nix has at least 60% of the server market and perhaps more than 70%. So, using the proportional argument, there should be around 2/3 as many *nix virii as there are Windows virii.

Given the majority efforts of late have been for malware to create bot-nets, it's not too hard to figure maximum impact will still be achieved by targeting desktops. Targeting servers is still primarily more use as a distribution medium. And why bother when the e-mail standards we all rely on, dictate that billions of virus laden spams must sail through secure servers without interuption.

I still believe NIX is a head by a country mile, but don't for a moment consider it inpenetrable, that is folly.


Quoting petert:
Clearly, the proportional argument is flawed meaning that the debate that Windows virii exist only because it has the largest market share is also flawed.

However remove the word "only" and that same sentance is a pretty accurate call.

plutonium210 (User):

Quoting petert:
This is quite a furfy

No it's not. It is still very valid as the sheer numbers of desktops and laptops would far outstrip the numbers of servers.

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting petert:
So, when someone tries to suggest that it is only the Windows market share that is responsible for the large number of virii etc,
Virii :):) Is that a real word "petert or are you just having a sly dig at us :) I always thought it was viruses but then I could be wrong.
Waiter :) Some double bourbons for my friends here :)

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

No Big Baboo, I am not having a lend of you. The word virii is the linguistically correct plural of virus; however, these days most people would (incorrectly) use viruses.

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting petert:
No Big Baboo, I am not having a lend of you. The word virii is the linguistically correct plural of virus.
I apologise most whole-heartedly my friend :( I did actually look it up after we last spoke on here and yes you are correct.But as a "Trainee Penguin" who's still learning to waddle and catch herrings,what can you expect.By the way ;) Can anybody tell me how to migrate "My Favorites" and "Outlook Express to "Ubuntu" or should I just try and find it myself somewhere?

Tin (Regular user):

Actually, that's not correct... Virii is only a pluralization of a non-existent word "virius". A quick Google search will get information on why this is.

The Big Baboo (User):

Quoting Tin:
Virii is only a pluralization of a non-existent word "virius"

Hmmmm "Virius Maximus" Wasn't he the guy who was in charge at Londominium Minor just before Septus Maximus got his grotty little hands on it and then they made it into that blasted movie with what's his name ? The Aussie dude ? Gladiator mmmmmm rats what's the guys name :(

SLi (User):

Quoting The Big Baboo:
with what's his name ? The Aussie dude ? Gladiator mmmmmm rats what's the guys name :(

I believe his name is Russel Crowe =)