Discussion in 'Application Software' started by Katzenfreund, Dec 19, 2016.
You need to login to view this posts content.
well, just out of curiosity i clicked your links.first was eset. it took ages..
i do not use any scanners, apart from mse, because usually a scanner finds nothing.
so it just eats resources.
i am very careful with internet. no warez sites, no pron, no torrents, etc. . best boy in class..
so what did it do? after more than an hour, 75 minutes,
it found no less than 14 [!] `infected`files. now i know that eset has been the bane
of my friends` life,when they write programs, with false positives that keep coming up.
so i hardly panicked, i never panick. it is a commercial interest to detect ìnfected`files.
it sells software. and the chimney must smoke, as we tell al gore here in holland.
i seem to remember a thread started by jayblok about if we need a scanner at all.
very interesting. so i do not think so. it eats resources, it gives false positives, and a
pain in the neck. it also costs money.
what did it find, you may wonder. only pups. potentially unwanted programs. no real
threats at all. i wasted 75 minutes. i deleted them, of course, but eset is a payprogram.
a nono as far as i am concerned.
f secure was next. a matter of minutes, it scanned the memory; no threats found, and then it
started the sales patter. i liked it.so it leaves nothing on your pc?? in the good old dos days, the same could be said for fdisk... lol.
next was housecall..nasty thingy; it started with a licence agreement. i do not like that a bit. but it was nice and fast. it did not waste my time like eset did.it found no threats. but it offered me another tool, with another licence agreement. i did not download it.
and the winner is; malwarebytes! in version 3 you can no longer switch off the trial version, alas,but they offer some free tools, junkware removal tool among them. and an anti rootkit too.do not bother with the trial version. it is merely bloatware, imho.
now i realize that my reaction is less than an objective opinion, but i hope it offers a good road test to those links
yeah malwarebytes 3 i deactivated trial right away - click on settings, my account and then deactivate to go back to free mode
otherwise have nothing to lose if want to try the premium/realtime features for 14 days and then will go into free mode
Malwarebytes is not the subject of this thread. And the 3 online scanners given still have their place, as they do not duplicate its work.
The fast ones don’t do a full job, but mainly scan the programs you are using.
But since Malwarebytes was brought up as “a better alternative”, I inform that it’s not perfect either:
Firstly it has to be installed and stays, unlike the 3 online scanners.
Secondly, it’s not a full AV, it concentrates mainly on new threats.
Thirdly, it’s not free for a full job, including rootkits etc.
Fourthly, I was using the pro version from a crack, but stopped because it was heavy on resources, especially while updating, and was also hampering my browsing by frequently blocking sites for no apparent reason. Sites that all web checkers pronounced as clean. In fact, I never understood why it enjoys good reputation.
You need to login to view this posts content.
First, there is your answer ....."Fourthly, I was using the pro version from a crack, but stopped because it was heavy on resources" and your wondering why it was heavy on resources? say it again only this time use your quiet voice to see if you can capture my meaning here. LMAO.
Second, if it is blocking sites on you then you are visiting sites that you really should not be visiting. It doesn't block clean sites.
As long as you are running it legally ... There is absolutely nothing wrong with Malwarebytes 2 or 3, I've been using 3 for over a week now, there are NO slowdowns, NO "hampering" of resources and if it blocks a site here and there then it is doing it's job, it should be part of everyone's security solution.
Some people really just do not get it.
It does block some sites like Zippyshare that is clean. Some files hosted there is probably malicious but the site itself looks clean to me, not a reason for MB to block it.
And one of those people who don’t get it is YOU, LMAO!
Worse than that, you get personal and ironic about someone’s opinion, and offend without being offended.
Getting a key from a crack is irrelevant, for those who understand, who obviously do not include you. I won’t go into details, as you lack even the basics.
If you want to get ironic and offensive, two can play. So I can laugh at you, not only because you lack in knowledge but more importantly because you don’t know how to discuss. If you can’t discuss maturely without getting worked up and offensive, you don’t belong in any forum, or anywhere in society for that matter.
Before continuing, bear in mind that:
(a)YOU started the personal offense, not me
(b)I reserve the right to answer in the same style
(c)If you don’t like being offended, don’t offend in the first place.
I don’t use Zippyshare but I agree about the unjustified blocking. As I said above, it was blocking sites declared clean by several site checkers. So I looked at its criteria for blocking and, among other, it said that if several sites on a host are found malicious, it blocks all of them, “to get the host to act” or words to that effect. Personally, I don’t care what other sites do on a host, nor do I want to teach the host a lesson, I just want to visit the intended site. I even joined MBAM’s forum to clarify the blocking criteria, but to no avail.
So first I started whitelisting some blocked sites, then I decided the blocking feature was only of nuisance value and disabled it. That was 2 – 3 years ago on XP, which is considered vulnerable. Nevertheless, I didn’t experience any malware after the disabling. And though I still have the key, I haven’t bothered installing MBAM again on my current W10. No malware problems so far.
I clarify that I am using a good antivirus, which seems capable of handling security without enhancement.
The first one runs from the browser and doesn’t need downloading. You are right about the others.
Yes, that’s how they work. And that’s why I said they are to be used for a second opinion, not as resident AVs. E.g. if you suspect the presence of malware that your AV misses. Or when you just want to occasionally verify that your system is clean.
Hey, I'm not offended, I am just defending a good piece of software that you are trying to run into the ground.
So please, enlighten me, what is it that I don't understand that you are failing to point out?
a.) Is it the fact I am failing to agree with you that your opinion of Malwarebytes is very low because it restricts or encumbers your access to those sites that you visit to get the cracks for all the illegal software you run?
b.) I think what might be it is that you don't like it when people disagree with you.
c.) Or is the fact that I pointed out that the crack you were illegally using to make a free program a premium program without paying for it that was causing your slowdown of the software and your system?
Pick one, please.
No, I don't take offense ........ I just point out the obvious.
You don’t understand. Nevertheless, I’ll make another attempt to spell it out.
Don’t use irony and “LMAO” directed against anybody.
Don’t use a phrase like “Some people really just do not get it”, it’s offensive.
Your signature also represents an offensive attitude towards others.
Attack arguments, not persons. The above are attacks on person.
You can freely express opinion, even strong one, disagree with others, and say so, but do not offend them.