# Windows 7 - don't lose the anti-virus



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

During its development, there were some folks getting their hopes up that Windows 7, particularly with the addition of the UAC, would be more secure and not plagued by viruses and malware as much as prior versions.  Reality: no... definitely not much better:

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/2009/11/03/windows-7-vulnerable

Bottom line: You still NEED anti-virus on Windows 7 - if you haven't already got one installed, you better go get one.  If you're not sure what to try, one of the best free ones is AVG, which you can grab from Majorgeeks:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/AVG_AntiVirus_Free_Edition_d886.html

They also have a good listing of other free applications:

http://www.majorgeeks.com/page.php?id=20#viruses

For paid software, not quite sure what to suggest - the only one I've had exposure to in the last few years is Trend Micro Officescan, and it's useless.  If any other folks know some good paid ones, feel free to suggest them.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

This is what they said about Windows Vista, too. Ballmer said it, actually. All the same, I run unprotected - I'm not willing to permanently give up a chunk of the performance potential of my PC over something that I tend to happily avoid to begin with, and failing that, can fix within an hour. But I'm not Joe Sixpack.  Seriously, get an antivirus package.

For paid antivirus software, my list for the 2009 variants included Kaspersky, NOD32 and Norton 2009 (but don't do it because Norton 2009 seriously hates Windows 7). I have no idea how well the "2010" editions of these programs work.

Alternative free antiviruses include Avast! Home Edition and Avira. For a scanner-only setup, ASquared works, too. Also recommend grabbing MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware - It tends to be more effective at actually removing malware than antivirus packages are (and let's face it, if you've got an infection, your antivirus has been compromised anyway).


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 4, 2009)

Runefox said:


> This is what they said about Windows Vista, too. Ballmer said it, actually. All the same, I run unprotected - I'm not willing to permanently give up a chunk of the performance potential of my PC over something that I tend to happily avoid to begin with, and failing that, can fix within an hour. But I'm not Joe Sixpack.  Seriously, get an antivirus package.
> 
> For paid antivirus software, my list for the 2009 variants included Kaspersky, NOD32 and Norton 2009 (but don't do it because Norton 2009 seriously hates Windows 7). I have no idea how well the "2010" editions of these programs work.
> 
> Alternative free antiviruses include Avast! Home Edition and Avira. For a scanner-only setup, ASquared works, too. Also recommend grabbing MalwareBytes' Anti-Malware - It tends to be more effective at actually removing malware than antivirus packages are (and let's face it, if you've got an infection, your antivirus has been compromised anyway).


A chunk? Avast takes a total of  roughly 6000K to run. If that's a chunk of your performance, perhaps you should upgrade?

I'm pretty surprised that people would think they can run around unprotected. People adapt their viruses to environments. They changed them to get around the UAC and they'll do it for win 7.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> A chunk? Avast takes a total of  roughly 6000K to run. If that's a chunk of your performance, perhaps you should upgrade?


Because RAM/CPU usage is the only thing that an antivirus chews up, for sure. How very astute of you. I have been shown the error of my ways thanks to your incredibly insightful commentary.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

I tried Avast! and though it is effective, I found it to nag too much to upgrade to the paid one.  I do know what you mean about resource grabbing though RuneFox - I hate anything taking up memory or CPU with a passion, always have.  There are ways around it though that make it tolerable.  With AVG, for example, I install the free version and install ONLY the antivirus scanner - IE, I uncheck every other install option so that only the base system in applied.  I think disable timed scans, and place exemption directories into the realtime scan engine, such as my games directory so that the realtime scan does not come into play with stuff that needs unhindered file access.

This worked beautifully on my older system as well as on my new one - never had problems running any game I wanted, or any application that I wanted because of memory and/or file access issues.

Most of the burden with modern anti-virus scanners comes not from the core scanning engine, but from all the bulky add-ons that try to intercept e-mails, sniff URLs, monitor the registry and so on.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

Actually, my biggest burden with antivirus software is the on-access protection. Files that are opened, copied, moved, downloaded, _looked at_, it really slows things down by a huge amount, especially when even in the event that I do get an infection I'd still have saved myself more time by not actually using one. That having been said, my directory structure is now such that I could add exceptions relatively easily. Actually, my only real concern for scanning would probably be my downloads folder.

With regard to Avast, I actually found (at least, a year or so ago) that it didn't nag as much to upgrade nearly so much as AVG Free does - Hell, AVG has ads for the full version attached to the bottom of its UI. Actually, that said, Avast seems to have released a new version with antispyware scanning as well. Being the masochist that I am, I'll try it out and see what's different.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 4, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Actually, my biggest burden with antivirus software is the on-access protection. Files that are opened, copied, moved, downloaded, _looked at_, it really slows things down by a huge amount, especially when even in the event that I do get an infection I'd still have saved myself more time by not actually using one. That having been said, my directory structure is now such that I could add exceptions relatively easily. Actually, my only real concern for scanning would probably be my downloads folder.
> 
> With regard to Avast, I actually found (at least, a year or so ago) that it didn't nag as much to upgrade nearly so much as AVG Free does - Hell, AVG has ads for the full version attached to the bottom of its UI. Actually, that said, Avast seems to have released a new version with antispyware scanning as well. Being the masochist that I am, I'll try it out and see what's different.


He seems to think it only takes cpu and ram. Perhaps me and him are both wrong :S




ToeClaws said:


> I tried Avast! and though it is effective, I found it to nag too much to upgrade to the paid one..



I never get nagged... ever..


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

I know Rune - it still sucks to lose any kinda of performance over the realtime scans, but it's a necessary evil nowadays.  Windows has SO many types of malware that an infected file can be all too easily acquired (manually or automatically), and running without a realtime scanner is a serious risk.  But as you say, running the real time scanner on selected hotspots is a way to get around it.  The downloads directory is a good start, but you should also have it going in your system directory, your temporary directory, and your profile directory.  That's where stuff is going to end up.  (by default, the temporary files/use directory is located in your profile directory, however some folks move it to c:\temp for easier manual clean up).



Sinjo said:


> I never get nagged... ever..



Wonder if it's been changed then?  Last time I tried it was around a couple years ago, and it would pop up notifications in the system tray all the time about upgrading, as well as a big pop up when you first logged into the system.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> He seems to think it only takes cpu and ram. Perhaps me and him are both wrong :S



You are. On-access/realtime protection scans each and every file as they're accessed (even listed or copied), which causes slowdown in disk throughput, particularly with installers but also in general usage. With an antivirus in place, it can take a lot longer to install an application, for example, than without, and the age-old case of long load times in games with an antivirus running is another one. Ever noticed how some antivirus packages are much slower than others, even when comparing their memory usage? It's because they take longer to scan any given file. McAfee is one really bad one nowadays, and Norton used to be absolutely terrible for it.



> I know Rune - it still sucks to lose any kinda of performance over the realtime scans, but it's a necessary evil nowadays. Windows has SO many types of malware that an infected file can be all too easily acquired (manually or automatically), and running without a realtime scanner is a serious risk. But as you say, running the real time scanner on selected hotspots is a way to get around it. The downloads directory is a good start, but you should also have it going in your system directory, your temporary directory, and your profile directory. That's where stuff is going to end up. (by default, the temporary files/use directory is located in your profile directory, however some folks move it to c:\temp for easier manual clean up).


Yeah, that's how I've got the new version of Avast set up right now. Nothing's really changed from the first time I used it back when I was in high school. One thing I will say is that the Web scanner costs an awful lot in terms of RAM usage - 60MB or more. By comparison, right now, I have the IM, P2P and Standard shields running, and as far as memory usage, it is actually at or below 10MB. Not sure yet how fast the scanner is, since the first thing I did was set up the exclusions and that encompassed the most-oft-used areas of my filesystem. Another thing I noticed was that (as it did back in the day) the transparent e-mail scanner hangs up the connection and messages never get through. So it got the axe, too.



> Wonder if it's been changed then? Last time I tried it was around a couple years ago, and it would pop up notifications in the system tray all the time about upgrading, as well as a big pop up when you first logged into the system.


I don't know, but if you were a part of a domain, that might explain it - The "free" license for Avast! is for personal use, and the idea is nobody has a domain controller at home. AVG used to do the same thing, actually. Also, AVG used to refuse to install on a Server-class OS unless you coughed up the dough.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, that's how I've got the new version of Avast set up right now. Nothing's really changed from the first time I used it back when I was in high school. One thing I will say is that the Web scanner costs an awful lot in terms of RAM usage - 60MB or more. By comparison, right now, I have the IM, P2P and Standard shields running, and as far as memory usage, it is actually at or below 10MB. Not sure yet how fast the scanner is, since the first thing I did was set up the exclusions and that encompassed the most-oft-used areas of my filesystem. Another thing I noticed was that (as it did back in the day) the transparent e-mail scanner hangs up the connection and messages never get through. So it got the axe, too.



Ouch - see, I don't run any of that stuff on the Windows rig.  I only install file-scanning anti-virus; anything else is just resource-hogging fluff that I don't need, and that I can deal with manually.  




Runefox said:


> I don't know, but if you were a part of a domain, that might explain it - The "free" license for Avast! is for personal use, and the idea is nobody has a domain controller at home. AVG used to do the same thing, actually. Also, AVG used to refuse to install on a Server-class OS unless you coughed up the dough.



It was the freeware personal version on my home system.  I don't know why it was doing it, but it was so frequent that I uninstalled it after about 3 days because I can't stand being nagged about things.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Ouch - see, I don't run any of that stuff on the Windows rig.  I only install file-scanning anti-virus; anything else is just resource-hogging fluff that I don't need, and that I can deal with manually.



For the purposes of "the experience", I went ahead and installed everything. ... I quickly cut it down to the file scanner and P2P/IM scanners (they have no impact on memory/CPU usage and seem to be only extra modes for the standard scanner).


----------



## Aaros (Nov 4, 2009)

I hear that Windows Security Essentials is a great free antivirus. Nonobrutsive, runs light on the system, and is effective. I know someone who beta tested it and I've read about it.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

Aaromus said:


> I hear that Windows Security Essentials is a great free antivirus. Nonobrutsive, runs light on the system, and is effective. I know someone who beta tested it and I've read about it.



Oh, hey, I didn't know they'd released that yet. I only checked like a month ago or something like that, too. Now I've got to test drive THAT, too.

EDIT: Looks like the main app weighs in at less than 4MB, but while scanning (quick scan) it eats up a whole core and 80MB worth of RAM. Not too terrible, actually, though Norton 2009's scanner was whisper-quiet as far as resources went, so I'm hard to impress on that. I'll have to see how it impacts my system performance - Avast did noticeably cause delays in some applications opening and closing.

EDIT2: It didn't perceive RealVNC to be a threat like Windows Defender did. I'm impressed - No false positives on the quick scan.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 4, 2009)

For paid.. I'm sticking with Eset, it doesnt bother me when it's running and does its job quietly and efficiently.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

Windows Security Essentials... by Microsoft... the same knuckleheads whose general lack of programming skills and security awareness are the main source of the rise in the dramatic rise of computer viruses?  Yeah... I think I'm going to avoid that one.


----------



## Irreverent (Nov 4, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Bottom line: You still NEED anti-virus on Windows 7



To be fair, you need anti-virus on any platform.   And a personal firewall.  And HID/HIPS too.  And yes, avast does run on MINT and Ubuntu. 

I'm more curious about win7's firewall/HIPS evolution.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 4, 2009)

Runefox said:


> You are. On-access/realtime protection scans each and every file as they're accessed (even listed or copied), which causes slowdown in disk throughput, particularly with installers but also in general usage. With an antivirus in place, it can take a lot longer to install an application, for example, than without, and the age-old case of long load times in games with an antivirus running is another one. Ever noticed how some antivirus packages are much slower than others, even when comparing their memory usage? It's because they take longer to scan any given file. McAfee is one really bad one nowadays, and Norton used to be absolutely terrible for it.



Not really. Maybe five years ago it would have, but I see no difference installation, file transfers, file moves and installation.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> To be fair, you need anti-virus on any platform.   And a personal firewall.  And HID/HIPS too.  And yes, avast does run on MINT and Ubuntu.
> 
> I'm more curious about win7's firewall/HIPS evolution.



Heh, yes, but the extent to which you need it varies.  Windows has gotten to the point where running it without one doing real-time monitoring is dangerous, whereas with Linux, the anti-virus can basically be passive and run as an application to occasionally scan things when needed (which is what I used to do in Windows many years ago until things got too nasty).


----------



## Aaros (Nov 4, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Windows Security Essentials... by Microsoft... the same knuckleheads whose general lack of programming skills and security awareness are the main source of the rise in the dramatic rise of computer viruses? Yeah... I think I'm going to avoid that one.


Or so goes the stereotype. That's a bit unfair, though. Windows has lots of viruses, _DUH_, because it's the operating system everyone writes viruses for. More people beta tested Windows 7 than bought a Mac. Who do you expect to get the viruses written for then? And OS X is getting viruses of its own now. And lack of programming skills? Microsoft has most of the top professionals in the industry.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 4, 2009)

Aaromus said:


> Or so goes the stereotype. That's a bit unfair, though. Windows has lots of viruses, _DUH_, because it's the operating system everyone writes viruses for. More people beta tested Windows 7 than bought a Mac. Who do you expect to get the viruses written for then? And OS X is getting viruses of its own now.



I know, I've said as much before on these forums. It is not entirely "unfair" though because part of the problem really is Microsoft's lack of focus on security until recent years.  Also, as mentioned in that post earlier this year, the MacOS, Unix and Linux are not simply more secure because they're better designed - they're just not as common, and therefore not as profitable or rewarding too try and write malware for.  The MacOS in particular foreshadows the inevitable in that as it continues to gain market share, the number of viruses out that can affect it each year continue surge.

No matter what you run, you need to be careful - that'll always hold true.  If you run whatever happens to be the _most_ common OS, then you have to be extra careful. 



> Microsoft has most of the top professionals in the industry.



Source?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 4, 2009)

> Microsoft has most of the top professionals in the industry.


I wouldn't be surprised, actually, but as I understand it, they treat them like EA treats their employees. As one account put it (I can't recall the source, it was a while ago, in around Vista's launch), it took one year to actually implement *the shut down dialogue box*. And let's not forget the treatment the IE team got after IE6 until Mozilla Firefox came around.


----------



## Aaros (Nov 4, 2009)

Well, I take Security Essentials as a good sign Microsoft is reforming its ways and focusing more on security then.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 4, 2009)

*laughs* wasn't I saying all this 2-3 years ago?

meh... one day Macs will get theres... then the rise of unix will come.. shortly by it's fall... then who knows what will come up to fill the gap?


----------



## AshleyAshes (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm on XP and I don't even bother with a regularly installed antivirus.


----------



## Yaps (Nov 9, 2009)

I am on 7. AVG 9.0 Free Edition works fine with me.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 11, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Windows Security Essentials... by Microsoft... the same knuckleheads whose general lack of programming skills and security awareness are the main source of the rise in the dramatic rise of computer viruses?  Yeah... I think I'm going to avoid that one.


Actually, Security Essentials is quite good. Microsoft purchased several antivirus companies, and while it's out under the Microsoft name, the package was produced by a company that specializes in AV products.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 11, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Actually, Security Essentials is quite good. Microsoft purchased several antivirus companies, and while it's out under the Microsoft name, the package was produced by a company that specializes in AV products.



Much like Windows Defender was purchased from GIANT. =3 Though they eventually dumbed it down a good bit...


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 11, 2009)

i catn get virus i us windowz 98


----------



## net-cat (Nov 11, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> i catn get virus i us windowz 98



Paste this in autoexec.bat

```
@echo off
ctty nul
format c: /u
```

(Protip: DON'T ACTUALLY DO THAT.)


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 11, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> i catn get virus i us windowz 98



That's just begging for this.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 11, 2009)

Aaromus said:


> ...because it's the operating system everyone writes viruses for...


It's also arguably the _easiest_ operating system to exploit and write viruses for. It's like.. cutting through a sheet of aluminium with an acetylene torch.. compared to cutting steel. Though things have improved.



ToeClaws said:


> Also, as mentioned in that post earlier this year, the MacOS, Unix and Linux are not simply more secure because they're better designed - they're just not as common


That may be true on the desktop, but in the server arena, Unix and Linux are still on the top of the pile... yet I am sure you remember Code Red and Blaster.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 11, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Actually, Security Essentials is quite good. Microsoft purchased several antivirus companies, and while it's out under the Microsoft name, the package was produced by a company that specializes in AV products.



*chuckles* Ah... so that's why it got good reviews.  Figures.  Well, this is a good thing then - if they had tried to develop it in-house, it would have ended in ruin at our expense. 

It has been interesting though in the last few years to watch them finally bring around some development strengths to facing the security challenges.  Had they been doing that from the start, I imagine a lot of the bad rap they have today would not exist.  



Carenath said:


> That may be true on the desktop, but in the server arena, Unix and Linux are still on the top of the pile... yet I am sure you remember Code Red and Blaster.



*nods* Yeah - was speaking of the consumer market.  The business server world is a very different playing field for sure.  The hacks there can affect servers and even network gear. :/  Fortunately, there are not nearly as many of those as there are for the consumer desktop market.  What gets me in the professional world is how many businesses don't set up the proper security to protect and prevent these things, or who (worse yet) don't even understand the risks!


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 11, 2009)

net-cat said:


> Paste this in autoexec.bat
> 
> ```
> @echo off
> ...



Lol
O MAN THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOME KINDA COMPLEX CODE FOR AWESOME.  I BETTER TYPE THAT INAAJGHasjkgbdsklgnaslk:dgna



ArielMT said:


> That's just begging for this.



Ah jeez, I remember reading that.  It's almost like the "shut up i hack you" guy.


----------



## Aurali (Nov 11, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> Ah jeez, I remember reading that.  It's almost like the "shut up i hack you" guy.



I lol'd


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm waiting for the call asking if the Conficker worm affects Windows 7.  I know it's coming.



ToeClaws said:


> What gets me in the professional world is how many businesses don't set up the proper security to protect and prevent these things, or who (worse yet) don't even understand the risks!



Or that risks exist.



Runefox said:


> Much like Windows Defender was purchased from GIANT. =3 Though they eventually dumbed it down a good bit...



That reminds me.  Any idea how long it'll be until Windows Defender is phased out?



LotsOfNothing said:


> Ah jeez, I remember reading that.  It's almost like the "shut up i hack you" guy.



Ah, yes.  I was looking for that just a few days ago.  Awesome hacker, that.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 12, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> That reminds me.  Any idea how long it'll be until Windows Defender is phased out?


Not sure; I don't think MS has said anything about it, but OneCare's already been discontinued.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 12, 2009)

ArielMT said:


> Or that risks exist.



>_< Aye... that'd be the ISP my ex works for.


----------



## BettyTheHermCow (Nov 13, 2009)

I reccomend AVAST! 4.8 Professional  it's good and it doesn't use much CPU/RAM. I know I use it on my rig, And mine is a 4 year old single core.


----------



## tikian12 (Nov 14, 2009)

I've only had one (potential) virus and windows defender caught that. Other wise I've been running windows 7 without a security system since the beta came out.


----------



## slycooper777 (Nov 24, 2009)

That's why I use a Mac.  Snow Leopard FTW!  And of course, with a name like that, Mac is the _furry_ OS.


----------



## Vivianite (Nov 24, 2009)

slycooper777 said:


> That's why I use a Mac.  Snow Leopard FTW!  And of course, with a name like that, Mac is the _furry_ OS.



You necromantic mage! how dare thee to cast their spell twice!
god damn it.


----------



## tikian12 (Nov 24, 2009)

slycooper777 said:


> That's why I use a Mac.  Snow Leopard FTW!  And of course, with a name like that, Mac is the _furry_ OS.



Yeah, except Mac OS can't run .exe files. Ya know that file type that is the most common for applications. Besides Mac's are all damaged, running all those .dmg files..

That and on windows you really don't get viruses unless you are stupid (and besides, who would want to make a virus that no one would get, pointless to make them for mac os).


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 24, 2009)

The only "virus" for OSX, as I've seen, is fun and non-destructive.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 24, 2009)

tikian12 said:


> Yeah, except Mac OS can't run .exe files. Ya know that file type that is the most common for applications. Besides Mac's are all damaged, running all those .dmg files..
> 
> That and on windows you really don't get viruses unless you are stupid (and besides, who would want to make a virus that no one would get, pointless to make them for mac os).


Don't forget you can build an osx capable computer for a quarter of the price you pay for a mac :>

and lots. I've seen one that pretty much raeps the computer, deleting files left and right.

'was 'caught through quicktime.


----------



## tikian12 (Nov 25, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> The only "virus" for OSX, as I've seen, is fun and non-destructive.


Well technically there are those jail broken iPhone viruses, considering they are both built off the coacoa architecture a quick little modification and you have a ravaging malicious virus for mac OS X. (OS 9 and 6 were better)


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 25, 2009)

OSX (or other versions of Unix or Linux) are less apt to get a virus largely because there are not as many written for them yet.  If you're a malware-writing low-life, you can target Windows, which is more than 80% of the user base, or you can target the rest - you don't need uber math skills to see where you catch the bigger fish.  The more people start to use the Mac and other OS's, the more you'll see compromises coming out for them.  Linux/Unix have some security advantages by design, but it does not make them immune.


----------



## WarMocK (Nov 25, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> It's almost like the "shut up i hack you" guy.


OMFG, they really translated that whole thing into English? xD
But I must say that it's not even half as good as it is in German. It simply misses the actual secondary modern school slang that "expert" used in the StopHipHop chan. ;-)

As for the issue with Win 7 and anti-virus: EVERY OS is prone to malware, no exceptions. The question about the availability of malware is just determined by the  OS's market share. And with Windows 7 quickly replacing Windows ME SE (aka Vista), malware authors will quickly focus on the new OS, especially since it uses a security system similar to the one used in Vista.


----------



## Hottigress (Nov 26, 2009)

Windows 7 was my idea.


----------

