Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection - Firewalls ; Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection and removal ? Preferably free. Thanks, Lewis...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

  1. Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection and removal ?
    Preferably free.


    Thanks,

    Lewis



  2. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Lewis Angel wrote:
    > Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection and removal ?
    > Preferably free.
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Lewis
    >
    >



    SpywareBlaster http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html

    SpywareGuard
    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareguard.html

    SpywareTerminator
    http://www.spywareterminator.com/

    SuperAntispyware
    http://www.superantispyware.com/

    SpywareDoctor (Free version from Google Pack)
    http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor/google_pack/

    AVGAntispyware (Free Version)
    http://free.grisoft.com/doc/download...yware/us/frt/0

    Many of these have a 'Pay' version which offer more options- like real time
    protection. Check them out and decide which you like best. HTH

    Bud

  3. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Lewis Angel wrote:

    > Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection



    Comparison against baseline.

    > and removal ?



    Complete reinstall. What else?


    > Preferably free.


    Did you intend to pay for something such trivial?

  4. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Lewis Angel wrote:
    > Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection and removal ?
    > Preferably free.
    >
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Lewis
    >
    >


    yes,
    user education !

    explain to your clients that
    the windows software world is filled with trialware, crapware, nagware
    that will try to conquer your desktop by any means necessary, and
    because of this

    they should only use approved software and if they want new software
    that does a specific task they should ask the administrators for suggestions
    instead of installing a bunch of unknown tools, that surfaced after
    their first hasty google query.

  5. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:MN2dnWepzeX0SkzanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > Just listed some without comment and forgot an old favorite of many.
    > I'll say more that might help you in making a decision..or not. LOL!
    > Comodo's BOClean which is touted to be good re: trojans and gets
    > many good reviews. It does lack on-demand scanning


    True. It is only an on-access scanner.

    > and real time protection


    Um, on-access (real-time) protection is what it DOES provide.

    > but is said to just lay there and go into action to stop a Trojan
    > from running if one is downloaded.


    There are few database updates to BOClean anymore. Even the author
    admits that the heuristics are antiquated. Don't expect it to find
    many trojans anymore when compared to even the freebie anti-virus
    scanners available now. If you visit the Comodo forums (which
    acquired BOClean), it hasn't been updated in years and is not
    considered adequate or even feasible anti-trojan protection anymore.
    Comodo does intend to include portions of BOClean's algorithms into
    version 3 of their free anti-virus program. Alas, version 2 of
    Comodo's anti-virus program has less than 45% coverage of known pests
    (i.e., it is a very poor AV program) and has remained in beta status
    throughouts its existence (so Comodo can divert any indepedent testing
    of their AV program under the guise of "its still beta"). Version 2
    will always remain beta until version 3 comes out (that will include
    HIPS); however, if version 3 remains beta for more than a couple
    months then figure it will suffer the same fate as version 2 and be
    low in coverage and discarded as a viable free AV alternative.

    > FWIW I also have the old versions of AdAware, The Cleaner and
    > Spybot.


    Never used Cleaner. Although I still have Ad-Aware (free) and Spybot
    S&D installed, I don't consider these as top-notch detectors anymore.
    I use them like you use caulk around a window: doesn't block the major
    problem but might fill in the holes. They're free and I do NOT run
    them as on-access scanner but only as on-demand scanners.

    > I'm using the pay version of AVGAnti-spyware.


    This product used to be called ewido. Then Grisoft (under their AVG
    product family brand) grabbed it and renamed it. It's good. Although
    you download the trial version, it becomes a free version after the
    30-day trial. That is, it does not fully cripple itself after the
    trial period but instead just disables the on-access scanner, so it is
    still a viable on-demand scanner. Grisoft also has their AntiRootkit
    (also free).

    > In any case unless you're really hard up for disk space I'd get and
    > install Spywareblaster, SpywareGuard and BOClean.


    While I still use SpywareBlaster to add AX disable registry keys for
    known malware along with their bad sites list that gets added to the
    Restricted Sites zone which, unlike a hosts file, still lets you visit
    the site but neuters it, I wouldn't bother with SpywareGuard anymore.
    Its algorithms are very antiquated. Even Microsoft's Windows Defender
    is better (but not for pest coverage and instead as a monitor to check
    with system changes are made). There hasn't been a database update
    for SpywareGuard since 1/22/2004. You expect a security product with
    4 year-old signatures to find any pests that you encounter today?
    Dump SpywareGuard as it won't protect you. Signatures are too old.
    Heuristic algorithms are even more ancient.


  6. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Oh, and when trialing an anti-spyware product, you might want to check
    how much memory it eats up. PC Tools Spyware Doctor eats up about
    36MB but can occasionally jump up to over 150MB (even with you doing
    nothing in its GUI).

    There are some system protections in Spyware Doctor that duplicate
    what Windows Defender and other security suites will protect.
    Duplication means duplicate prompts regarding the same detected
    change. However, many of these protections (under OnGuard) are
    disabled in the free version of Spyware Doctor. Browser Guard,
    Network Guard, Process Guard, and Startup Guard are all disabled and
    you cannot enable them in the free version. So to have those
    system-level protections, you WILL need to get something in addition
    to the free version of Spyware Doctor. Considering that all but one
    (File Guard) is disabled in the free version, Spyware Doctor consumes
    too much memory.

    Spyware Doctor is useful but understand that it is lureware trying to
    get you to "upgrade" (i.e., PAY) for the full version. Considering
    that almost all the "guard" protections are disabled, I would normally
    suggest to just leave their OnGuard function disabled and use Spyware
    Doctor as an on-demand scanner; however, disabling OnGuard does little
    to return the memory that Spyware Doctor consumes. 35MB is way too
    memory to consume for a security program that is only ran as an
    on-demand scanner (i.e., when you are not running the on-demand scan,
    the product should not consume ANY memory!).

    Unless you are buying the full (paid) version or you are willing to
    have a bunch of disabled "guards" consume memory then I'd suggest not
    bothering to use Spyware Doctor.


  7. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:1ICdnSrOTa2y5kzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >
    > SpywareTerminator
    > http://www.spywareterminator.com/



    You might want to read the license agreement presented during
    installation regarding their Crawler "services", and read their
    privacy "policy" at http://www.crawler.com/privacy_policy.aspx.
    Crawler is the author of Spyware Terminator, and who really want you
    to use their search toolbar so they can collect the ad revenue through
    the redirects and ads in their search results. Crawler "services"
    collect personally identifiable information about you. I don't know
    if uninstalling the Crawler Toolbar (they called it opting out) gets
    rid of all Crawler processes or behavior.

    The original author of this product is a self-professed spyware
    author. That is, he used to write the spyware that now he writes a
    product to detect, similar to a thief that becomes a security
    consultant. So he gained his experience to write the anti-malware by
    first infecting users hosts with malware. Do you trust a convert (who
    could convert back again and do so rather easily considering the tool
    that you allowing him to install on your host)? At one time, Spyware
    Warrior listed this as rogueware
    (http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_anti-spyware.htm) but eventually
    removed it when it was less offensive; see
    http://www.spywarewarrior.com/rogue_...m#spyterm_note
    (there is another same-named product and which is still listed as
    rogueware).

    Seems like the stuff that you are trying to get rid of using this tool
    is included with this tool. This type of bundling with crapware is
    not rare, especially with "free" software, but they should be polite
    in letting you choose NOT to include the bloatware *during* the
    install. During the install, you can deselect to install the "Web
    Security Guard Toolbar". This is their way of hiding that it is the
    Crawler toolbar. Later you get to choose to NOT participate with
    their Spyware Central to send information when new (unknown) spyware
    shows up on your host, but if it is new and unknown then their program
    won't know about it. Anti-spyware software is just as prone to
    zero-day attack as are anti-virus software. After installing Spyware
    Terminator, and even if you deselect using the Crawler toolbar and
    sending info about unknown programs to them, you might want to visit
    the Settings in the program to further restrict what info gets sent to
    them.

    Besides other Crawler bloatware, they also bundle in Clam AntiVirus.
    Pest coverage is poor (ClamAV at only 48%), worse than Comodo's poor
    AV product (53%), when compared to other freebie AV products (Avira,
    Avast, AVG). Don't bother with installing Clam AV.

    Personally, I stay away from Crawler's Spyware Terminator. It is
    still too tarnished for my taste based on its past, the company that
    proliferates it, and the bundled fluff included with it.


  8. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection


    > Personally, I stay away from Crawler's Spyware Terminator. It is still
    > too tarnished for my taste based on its past, the company that
    > proliferates it, and the bundled fluff included with it.


    I did not enable the Crawler toolbar and was somewhat disappointed in it's
    appearance in a recent update. Mat rethink my use of it in th future. You
    are quite right in holding it in suspicion.

    Bud

  9. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:vtOdndZSdb7Zfk_anZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >
    >> Personally, I stay away from Crawler's Spyware Terminator. It is
    >> still too tarnished for my taste based on its past, the company
    >> that proliferates it, and the bundled fluff included with it.

    >
    > I did not enable the Crawler toolbar and was somewhat disappointed
    > in it's appearance in a recent update. Mat rethink my use of it in
    > th future. You are quite right in holding it in suspicion.



    Do I understand that during the install of Spyware Terminator that you
    deselected installing their toolbar but that a later "update" from
    them shoved it into your host? Yikes. This illustrates the power
    that all these security programs can exercise over your host that you
    trust with your host. This shows that Crawler is NOT trustworthy.
    With this capability ready on your host, they can install anything
    they want and have proven that they will do so.


  10. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > "Bud" wrote in message news:1ICdnSrOTa2y5kzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>
    >> SpywareTerminator
    >> http://www.spywareterminator.com/

    >
    >
    > You might want to read the license agreement presented during
    > installation regarding their Crawler "services", and read their privacy
    > "policy" at http://www.crawler.com/privacy_policy.aspx. Crawler is the
    > author of Spyware Terminator, and who really want you to use their
    > search toolbar so they can collect the ad revenue through the redirects
    > and ads in their search results. Crawler "services" collect personally
    > identifiable information about you. I don't know if uninstalling the
    > Crawler Toolbar (they called it opting out) gets rid of all Crawler
    > processes or behavior.


    isn't that the exact definition of spyware: eg software that spies on
    its users and sends sensitive personal information about them back
    to their creators.

  11. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    VanguardLH wrote:
    > "Bud" wrote in message news:vtOdndZSdb7Zfk_anZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>
    >>> Personally, I stay away from Crawler's Spyware Terminator. It is
    >>> still too tarnished for my taste based on its past, the company that
    >>> proliferates it, and the bundled fluff included with it.

    >>
    >> I did not enable the Crawler toolbar and was somewhat disappointed in
    >> it's appearance in a recent update. May rethink my use of it in the
    >> future. You are quite right in holding it in suspicion.

    >
    >
    > Do I understand that during the install of Spyware Terminator that you
    > deselected installing their toolbar but that a later "update" from them
    > shoved it into your host?


    No, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. When I first installed
    SpywareTerminator the 'Security Guard database' with the Crawler toolbar was
    not present but was included in an update to be installed if you clicked on
    it. After reading the terms of it I decided to forgo the 'Security Guard'.
    ;-) It was a sneaky presentation however with suggestions of internet
    protection.

    Bud

  12. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "Bud" wrote in message
    news:RrudnaTQadf1i07anZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >> "Bud" wrote in message
    >> news:vtOdndZSdb7Zfk_anZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>
    >>>> Personally, I stay away from Crawler's Spyware Terminator. It is
    >>>> still too tarnished for my taste based on its past, the company
    >>>> that proliferates it, and the bundled fluff included with it.
    >>>
    >>> I did not enable the Crawler toolbar and was somewhat disappointed
    >>> in it's appearance in a recent update. May rethink my use of it in
    >>> the future. You are quite right in holding it in suspicion.

    >>
    >>
    >> Do I understand that during the install of Spyware Terminator that
    >> you deselected installing their toolbar but that a later "update"
    >> from them shoved it into your host?

    >
    > No, I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. When I first installed
    > SpywareTerminator the 'Security Guard database' with the Crawler
    > toolbar was not present but was included in an update to be
    > installed if you clicked on it. After reading the terms of it I
    > decided to forgo the 'Security Guard'. ;-) It was a sneaky
    > presentation however with suggestions of internet protection.



    Oh, I see. Much like those installs or updates that try to sneak in
    the Google or Yahoo toolbars.


  13. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "goarilla" wrote in message
    news:47d30018$0$2955$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
    >
    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >> "Bud" wrote in message
    >> news:1ICdnSrOTa2y5kzanZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
    >>>
    >>> SpywareTerminator
    >>> http://www.spywareterminator.com/

    >>
    >> You might want to read the license agreement presented during
    >> installation regarding their Crawler "services", and read their
    >> privacy "policy" at http://www.crawler.com/privacy_policy.aspx.
    >> Crawler is the author of Spyware Terminator, and who really want
    >> you to use their search toolbar so they can collect the ad revenue
    >> through the redirects and ads in their search results. Crawler
    >> "services" collect personally identifiable information about you.
    >> I don't know if uninstalling the Crawler Toolbar (they called it
    >> opting out) gets rid of all Crawler processes or behavior.

    >
    > isn't that the exact definition of spyware: eg software that spies
    > on
    > its users and sends sensitive personal information about them back
    > to their creators.



    Tis part of their Crawler toolbar which has you do web searches
    through THEIR search engine. That way, as with Google, they can
    present ads on their search result pages and collect ad revenue. As
    with Google, they can and will record your searches (which can be
    subpoenaed and used in court). Whether they give a gnat's fart about
    you personally is probably insigificant but as part of their mechanism
    to tailor their advertising. Supposedly if you elect NOT to install
    their toolbar (which they try to hide during the install by calling it
    something like Web Guard knowing it will lure users into including it
    in the install) then no info is collected on you.

    They provided you with a free utility, where "free" is defined by
    their marketing group. You have motive in not having to empty your
    wallet to get the utility. They have motive in generating ad revenue
    or to hook a lure in your mouth for their commercialware. It's not
    necessarily a bad tradeoff as long as the cost is actually realized by
    both parties, and that includes you as the user of their product, and
    as long as the actual costs are not hidden. Those costs are not
    revealed when you read their description of their product on their web
    page. Not until you read the license agreement, something rare few
    users do, especially for "free" stuff, do you realize there could be a
    cost.

    I wouldn't have as much concern regarding their product if they were
    upfront in describing its intent (from their perspective). However,
    they know there are lots of users, like me, that won't bother with
    adware no matter whether the ads be in my face or hidden in the use of
    their product. If you dig, you'll find the cost of their free stuff
    but they're hoping the majority of their users never do the digging.
    How many users actually read the license, privacy policies, terms of
    use, and other conditions regarding a product? Well, how many have
    actually read the warranty that is in the manual that came with their
    laundry washing machine or television?


  14. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "VanguardLH" wrote in message
    news:fqu6uc$d5b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
    > Oh, and when trialing an anti-spyware product, you might want to
    > check how much memory it eats up. PC Tools Spyware Doctor eats up
    > about 36MB but can occasionally jump up to over 150MB (even with you
    > doing nothing in its GUI).
    >
    > There are some system protections in Spyware Doctor that duplicate
    > what Windows Defender and other security suites will protect.
    > Duplication means duplicate prompts regarding the same detected
    > change. However, many of these protections (under OnGuard) are
    > disabled in the free version of Spyware Doctor. Browser Guard,
    > Network Guard, Process Guard, and Startup Guard are all disabled and
    > you cannot enable them in the free version. So to have those
    > system-level protections, you WILL need to get something in addition
    > to the free version of Spyware Doctor. Considering that all but one
    > (File Guard) is disabled in the free version, Spyware Doctor
    > consumes too much memory.
    >
    > Spyware Doctor is useful but understand that it is lureware trying
    > to get you to "upgrade" (i.e., PAY) for the full version.
    > Considering that almost all the "guard" protections are disabled, I
    > would normally suggest to just leave their OnGuard function disabled
    > and use Spyware Doctor as an on-demand scanner; however, disabling
    > OnGuard does little to return the memory that Spyware Doctor
    > consumes. 35MB is way too memory to consume for a security program
    > that is only ran as an on-demand scanner (i.e., when you are not
    > running the on-demand scan, the product should not consume ANY
    > memory!).
    >
    > Unless you are buying the full (paid) version or you are willing to
    > have a bunch of disabled "guards" consume memory then I'd suggest
    > not bothering to use Spyware Doctor.


    Oh, forgot to mention, PC Tools Spyware Doctor will NOT fix any
    problems that it detects. It won't even delete tracking cookies.
    When you attempt to "Fix" the detected pests, a window pops open
    telling you that you have to *BUY* their commercial version. That
    means Spyware Doctor is lureware, and bad lureware since not only do
    they have you upgrade to get missing features from the crippled
    version but they also require you to upgrade to do anything about any
    detections they claim as pests. This is lureware that degenerates
    into trashware (the trashbin is where this crap belongs).



  15. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    VanguardLH wrote:


    > Oh, forgot to mention, PC Tools Spyware Doctor will NOT fix any
    > problems that it detects.



    Well, how should it?

    > It won't even delete tracking cookies.



    Tracking cookies don't exist.

  16. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    "Sebastian G." wrote in message
    news:63i9frF286fa9U1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Oh, forgot to mention, PC Tools Spyware Doctor will NOT fix any
    >> problems that it detects.

    >
    > Well, how should it?


    So you run anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware or other security
    products for what purpose? Just to alert you to a pest but then you
    choose to go manually trying to eradicate the pest yourself without
    any knowledge of even how the security product decided you had the
    pest? Well, enjoy doing all the work yourself.

    >> It won't even delete tracking cookies.

    >
    > Tracking cookies don't exist.



    You don't understand the concept of cookies? You don't understand
    that they can be used for tracking? You don't understand that they
    are just .txt files and aren't themselves spyware but almost all
    anti-spyware programs like to pretend they are so they have
    *something* to report to the user of those products to make them look
    like they are doing *something*?


  17. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    VanguardLH wrote:


    >>> Oh, forgot to mention, PC Tools Spyware Doctor will NOT fix any
    >>> problems that it detects.

    >> Well, how should it?

    >
    > So you run anti-virus, anti-spyware, anti-malware or other security
    > products for what purpose?



    Junk filtering and intrusion detection.

    > Just to alert you to a pest but then you


    > choose to go manually trying to eradicate the pest yourself



    Indeed.

    > without any knowledge


    Flattening and rebuilding doesn't require any special knowledge.

    > of even how the security product decided you had the pest?


    Of course the first step is to verify the alert.

    > Well, enjoy doing all the work yourself.


    You're talking as if there was any alternative.

    >>> It won't even delete tracking cookies.

    >> Tracking cookies don't exist.

    >
    >
    > You don't understand the concept of cookies?



    No, you don't.

    > You don't understand that they can be used for tracking?


    I do understand that they can't be used for tracking on any sane browser
    configuration, and especially that the usage of the DOMAIN attribute doesn't
    make it intended for tracking.

    > You don't understand that they


    > are just .txt files and aren't themselves spyware but almost all
    > anti-spyware programs like to pretend they are so they have
    > *something* to report to the user of those products to make them look
    > like they are doing *something*?



    Obviously I do understand this.

  18. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Lewis Angel wrote:
    > Does anyone have recommendations..


    Did you learn more thn you cared to know? ;-) This is my last post:

    FWIW Spyware Doctor (free) does remove stuff for me. And note that Spyware
    Terminator does have real time protection and with that I wish you good
    fortune. Live long and prosper. ,\\ // LOL!

    Bud

  19. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Bud wrote:

    > Lewis Angel wrote:
    >> Does anyone have recommendations..

    >
    > Did you learn more thn you cared to know? ;-) This is my last post:
    >
    > FWIW Spyware Doctor (free) does remove stuff for me.



    Strange give sweets to little children for free. And sometimes you're really
    lucky since they actualy had both good intends and clean sweeties. It's
    still a stupid idea.

    > And note that Spyware


    > Terminator does have real time protection and with that I wish you good
    > fortune.



    Is this as in "I wish you all luck. You'll need it!"?

  20. Re: Somewhat Off Topic- Recommendation for Malware Detection

    Lewis Angel wrote:
    > Does anyone have recommendations good malware detection and removal ?


    Yes. Don't try to remove malware. It cannot work reliably.
    And better don't depend on detecting malware. Use it as an additional
    feature in your security concept only.

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    The file name of an indirect node file is the string "iNode" immediately
    followed by the link reference converted to decimal text, with no leading
    zeroes. For example, an indirect node file with link reference 123 would
    have the name "iNode123". - HFS Plus Volume Format, MacOS X

+ Reply to Thread