Need to install MSE?

[gufus]

- Secunia PSI
(Personal Software Inspector)

How does it compare to Belarc Advisor?

 

[Dominique]

Dominique <[email protected]> écrivait 78.46.70.116:

OT from the main subject but my ISP, Bell.ca now offers McAfee Security
Suite (or something like that) to all its internet customers according to a
recent email I've received. They even say it's the best on the market!!!...

I guess computer's troubleshooters will have more work soon.

Forgot to tell, IT'S FREE to their customers... ouch!

 

[VanguardLH]

VanguardLH, you wrote a cogent essay covering several concepts well and
convincingly.

Unfortunately, the energy you expended to compose it was apparently
wasted on its ostensible target.

Anyway, thank you - I learned a bit from it on top of my prior
knowledge.

Some folks feel compelled to defend their personal choice in <pick a
product> whether they really believe in it or not. I'd like to
Paladin reveal what he thinks is his choice of perfect security
software that it will always protect him. That he doesn't understand
that no one product ever will -- and not even a dozen of them except
to INCREASE detection coverage and afford multiple methods of
eradication some of which are better than others -- shows that he
never did go to college to take engineering and computer science to
understand the basics of a *general-purpose* operating system. Since
it is not a closed or specific-use OS, it will always be susceptible
to software invasion.

He shows that he is unwilling to rationally debate the topic. That in
itself evidences his lack of true faith in his choice of one security
product. He has no ammo to fire back except childish retorts.

I never said overlapped coverage was a panacea or a perfect solution.
Won't ever happen on a general-purpose OS. I said it would better the
detection coverage. He's happy with what coverage he has and that's
okay for him; however, it is not as good a solution as overlapped
detection and obviously passive scanners aren't not going to cause
conflicts, slow the host, or interfere with the operation of apps.
Scanning can be scheduled and I've yet to see a workstation or home PC
that was occupied by its owner or user(s) every minute of every day
but Paladin must not know about scheduling a scan operation.

However, adding more tools into your security toolbox means having to
learn how to use them and perhaps the learning curve is Paladin's true
aversion to overlapped coverage. Maybe he wants to watch more cable
TV or play video games rather than install, configure, and read the
manual to trial another security program. He probably also doesn't
have a scheme in place to revert his host back to its exact prior
state should he decide the trialware is not what he wants. With his
attitude, if a hard disk has never died in any computer he previously
owned means he sees no value in saving regular backups. His existing
scheme (whatever that is, like system restore) is sufficient for him.

 

[Paladin]

Some folks feel compelled to defend their personal choice in <pick a
product> whether they really believe in it or not. I'd like to Paladin
reveal what he thinks is his choice of perfect security software that it
will always protect him. That he doesn't understand that no one product
ever will -- and not even a dozen of them except to INCREASE detection
coverage and afford multiple methods of eradication some of which are
better than others -- shows that he never did go to college to take
engineering and computer science to understand the basics of a
*general-purpose* operating system. Since it is not a closed or
specific-use OS, it will always be susceptible to software invasion.

He shows that he is unwilling to rationally debate the topic. That in
itself evidences his lack of true faith in his choice of one security
product. He has no ammo to fire back except childish retorts.

I never said overlapped coverage was a panacea or a perfect solution.
Won't ever happen on a general-purpose OS. I said it would better the
detection coverage. He's happy with what coverage he has and that's
okay for him; however, it is not as good a solution as overlapped
detection and obviously passive scanners aren't not going to cause
conflicts, slow the host, or interfere with the operation of apps.
Scanning can be scheduled and I've yet to see a workstation or home PC
that was occupied by its owner or user(s) every minute of every day but
Paladin must not know about scheduling a scan operation.

However, adding more tools into your security toolbox means having to
learn how to use them and perhaps the learning curve is Paladin's true
aversion to overlapped coverage. Maybe he wants to watch more cable TV
or play video games rather than install, configure, and read the manual
to trial another security program. He probably also doesn't have a
scheme in place to revert his host back to its exact prior state should
he decide the trialware is not what he wants. With his attitude, if a
hard disk has never died in any computer he previously owned means he
sees no value in saving regular backups. His existing scheme (whatever
that is, like system restore) is sufficient for him.

So, you really just wanted to insult my intelligence all along.
How professional.

After you read this, you might want to run another scan.

Duh...yeah, I don't backup my data.
Duh.

 

[Paladin]

On Fri, 09 Aug 2013 08:26:40 -0400, Wolf K wrote:

And if you run on Linux, WTF are you doing offering "advice" to Windows
users?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Can+you+use+Linux+and+Windows?


And yes, if you infer condescension at this point, you're correct. FTR,
I run on Linux also, though not on this machine.

Hurrah for you.

 

[s|b]

How does it compare to Belarc Advisor?

It's been ages since I've used Belarc Adsvisor. Last time I used it it
showed the things CPU-Z or PC Wizard show, mainly hardware.

PSI shows software and warns you if it's up-to-date or not. If not, it
provides with a link to download the most recent software. If I'm not
mistaken this can be done automatically, but I prefer to do it manually.
Once a week, it will also do a full scan (which is pretty fast if your
C: drive is a SSD).

I'm still using 2.x, which is still supported, but 3.x can be downloaded
as well. But I can not compare it to Belarc since I've not used it in
years.

 

[s|b]

I forgot a very important one:

- Secunia PSI
(Personal Software Inspector)

Oh crap! ONE more! (Last one.

Online Armor Free

It's a software firewall and you don't really need that if you're behind
a router with built-in firewall (and NAT), but OA also does HIPS.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host-based_intrusion-prevention_system>

Since OA was taken over by Emsisoft, there hasn't been any updates for
the program itself (last version is dated Oct 2012), but the HIPS
database is still updated frequently.

 

[Jan Alter]

"W. eWatson" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"W. eWatson" wrote in message
You received quite a few good answers.
MSE can easily be found in Google, it free and installs easily.

I, personally, would get rid of McAfee for the reasons others mentioned.
You
may need to use the uninstaller that Ken Blake referred to (
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallmcafee.shtml ).
As some others suggested, it is usually recommended to only run one
anti-virus in 'real-time'. You can have others installed, but only use
one
in real time and the others as 'on-demand' while the real time one is
shut
off.
I would also suggest you dl and install the free versions of
SuperAntiSpyware (SAS) and MalwareBytes AntiMalware (MBAM) and run them
occasionally. They will detect and disinfect just as well as the paid
versions.

For years now the discussion goes on about what is the best anti-virus
software with often heightened emotions from some folks to which is the
best. I, myself, having been using Webroot for over 5 years and have been
more than satisfied with it. Yet not even Consumer Reports covers it in
comparison to other programs whenever they rate virus defense programs. I
should probably write them and ask why they don't rate it. I've not heard it
mentioned in this thread. Is it that bad?
I agree than not one program will catch ALL viruses and that a second
or third program may have to be run to catch an infection. Does anyone know
of a definitive source to compare the qualities of one anti-virus program
over another or is asking for some good anti-virus software authority
opening another can of worms?
Thanks,

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

For years now the discussion goes on about what is the best anti-virus
software with often heightened emotions from some folks to which is the
best. I, myself, having been using Webroot for over 5 years and have been
more than satisfied with it. Yet not even Consumer Reports covers it in
comparison to other programs whenever they rate virus defense programs. I
should probably write them and ask why they don't rate it. I've not heard it
mentioned in this thread. Is it that bad?

It's not bad at all. It looks like their marketing ignores reviewers
and maybe they don't offer bribes.

Steve

 

[VanguardLH]

You are welcome to run 15 virus scanning tools 24/7.
I am not interested in it.
I keep saying that, and you keep pushing your way as correct.

Your choice of security software must be poor if it would take 24
hours to run a 2 or 3 scans with it (using that to extrapolate to how
long adding another 1 or 2 other security programs would take to run
their scans in addition to the one you have). Takes Avast Free under
an hour to run a deep scan on my host and about the same for
MalwareBytes both of which I *schedule* to run on different days.
Plus I said they are primarily to discover dormant malware so you
don't have to run them every day. I never said to run on-demand scans
every day. That was something you added to exascerbate the argument.
I run each just once per *week* and *schedule* them to run on
different days of each week. That's two less than one hour scheduled
on-demand scans per week. If you don't use your host every day as I
do but more like a few times per week then once per month is okay. If
you're on a workstation every day at work and where your company
deployed an enterprise-grade anti-virus setup then it's likely they
are running a scan every day (so if you work very early in the morning
you might incur the impact in responsiveness of your host to run the
scan but they run a low priority so the impact is negligble unless you
play video games which is not likely your job there). You don't even
have to run a daily on-demand scan using whatever one security product
was your one choice.

If your one security program meets all your criteria and suffices to
your comfort level then go for it. You were promulgating that
approach to the OP as though it were better than having overlapped
protection to increase detection coverage. It's not better coverage
because it's only product with its bias in how to protect and less
than 100% coverage on what it can detect. Not one security program,
despite your inane inference below, that claims 100% detection.

There's okay protection and there's better detection. With scheduling
there is no hassle in deploying better protection; however, there is a
short education (perhaps 1 of reading and poking at a product) in
implementing better detection for each additional protection; however,
of course, that assumes the user actually expends the time to read up
on a program to know how to use it, something that most users neglect.

Stop arguing that occasional scheduled off-hours on-demand scans are
some horrific ordeal. No one is believing that argument.

On this OS that is currently exposed to the internet, you are welcome to
hack into it... hell, you can meet me at Starbucks and I'll give you root
access; you'll get nothing of value.

Now you're being inane again.

 

[Johnny]

OT from the main subject but my ISP, Bell.ca now offers McAfee Security
Suite (or something like that) to all its internet customers according to a
recent email I've received. They even say it's the best on the market!!!...

I guess computer's troubleshooters will have more work soon.

After reading your post, I checked with AT&T and found out it also
offers McAfee Security Suite to its U-Verse customers.

I don't see how McAfee can be any worse than other security suites. It
has been around a long time.

I have been paying for Avast for years, and never had any serious
problems with it, but if you read the support forums, you will find that
many people do have major problems with it.

 

[Paladin]

Your choice of security software must be poor if it would take 24 hours
to run a 2 or 3 scans with it (using that to extrapolate to how long
adding another 1 or 2 other security programs would take to run their
scans in addition to the one you have). Takes Avast Free under an hour
to run a deep scan on my host and about the same for MalwareBytes both
of which I *schedule* to run on different days. Plus I said they are
primarily to discover dormant malware so you don't have to run them
every day. I never said to run on-demand scans every day. That was
something you added to exascerbate the argument. I run each just once
per *week* and *schedule* them to run on different days of each week.
That's two less than one hour scheduled on-demand scans per week. If
you don't use your host every day as I do but more like a few times per
week then once per month is okay. If you're on a workstation every day
at work and where your company deployed an enterprise-grade anti-virus
setup then it's likely they are running a scan every day (so if you work
very early in the morning you might incur the impact in responsiveness
of your host to run the scan but they run a low priority so the impact
is negligble unless you play video games which is not likely your job
there). You don't even have to run a daily on-demand scan using
whatever one security product was your one choice.

If your one security program meets all your criteria and suffices to
your comfort level then go for it. You were promulgating that approach
to the OP as though it were better than having overlapped protection to
increase detection coverage. It's not better coverage because it's only
product with its bias in how to protect and less than 100% coverage on
what it can detect. Not one security program, despite your inane
inference below, that claims 100% detection.

I wasn't pushing my approach to the OP at all.
I told the OP to only run one AV...period.
The OP apparently had no problem with that.
He never asked what my approach was to secure my personal INFO was.
My personal data is never exposed,in the way you assume,in the first place.
My choice of security software is none of your business, because I don't
need your assistance, thank you.

I responded to Wolf K that I do absolutely know that I don't need any
thing other than my security suite.
That is true, will always be true.
Then you piped in.

One more time ... I don't need to run all that BS manually, automatically,
scheduled, with my mothers assistance.
Period.

There's okay protection and there's better detection. With scheduling
there is no hassle in deploying better protection; however, there is a
short education (perhaps 1 of reading and poking at a product) in
implementing better detection for each additional protection; however,
of course, that assumes the user actually expends the time to read up on
a program to know how to use it, something that most users neglect.

See above.

Stop arguing that occasional scheduled off-hours on-demand scans are
some horrific ordeal. No one is believing that argument.

Believe what you want.
My info is safe, none of your stupid scanning/anti-cookie software is
needed by *me*.

Now you're being inane again.

Whatever.
Go scan for cookies or something.

 

[Ken Blake]

OT from the main subject but my ISP, Bell.ca now offers McAfee Security
Suite (or something like that) to all its internet customers according to a
recent email I've received. They even say it's the best on the market!!!...

Since McAfee must pay them to offer it to their customers, they had
better say it's the best, or else they will lose that income.

 

[Ken Blake]

I don't see how McAfee can be any worse than other security suites. It
has been around a long time.

Yes, it has been, and at one time it was the best available. But for
quite a while now, it hasn't been. It's now one if the worst--perhaps
the very worst of the major products.

But feel free to disregard what I say and use McAfee or any other
product you want to. You can even disagree with everybody else and/or
any reviews. It's your choice, not mine, and to tell the truth, I
don't really care. I'm glad to help people when I can, but if they
want to ignore my advice, that's fine too.

 

[Ken Blake]

I agree than not one program will catch ALL viruses and that a second
or third program may have to be run to catch an infection.

Even if you ran *ten* programs, they wouldn't catch everything. Any
anti-virus program can only catch those viruses that its latest
anti-virus definitions know about. Even if there are new definitions
every day, there will always be new viruses that will be newer than
the newest definitions.

A good anti-virus program can substantially reduce the risk of
infection. It can never eliminate it entirely.

 

[gufus]

I'm still using 2.x, which is still supported, but 3.x can be downloaded
as well. But I can not compare it to Belarc since I've not used it in
years.

'k

 

[Buffalo]

"Alias" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Which is why one needs more than just an AV program.

Which is why I have 35 or them and run them all, once a day, one at a time.
By the time they're finished, I am ready to go to bed and never even have a
chance to read my email.
Damn!!

 

[Wolf K]

Your choice of security software must be poor.... [...]

Somewhere a couple days ago P dropped the hint that he's running on
Linux. He's just trolling. Killfile him.

 

[Paladin]

You are welcome to run 15 virus scanning tools 24/7.
I am not interested in it.
I keep saying that, and you keep pushing your way as correct.

Your choice of security software must be poor.... [...]

Somewhere a couple days ago P dropped the hint that he's running on
Linux. He's just trolling. Killfile him.

P hinted that he runs both.
But, yes, my secure info is on a Linux box, no flash, no java, SELinux
enforcing...on a HDD that does not stay online for random internet use.

I didn't want to push Linux ... but the two of you are walking
advertisements for it

With all that scanning you guys recommend... I'm moving my Pogo account to
a linux box. Don't want someone hacking my gems

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Which is why one needs more than just an AV program.

No, all one needs is to be careful. The only way I can get an
infection on my main PC is by installing it myself!

Steve