bandicoot(Elite) posted this on Sunday, 24th January 2016, 22:31
Quote: all those Windows updates that failed to install while I had Avast and Avira on my machine, have gradually been 'rediscovered' by Windows updae I find updating windows via windows update just cause problems with my win7 computer and not beneficial at all, so never update.
RE: Changing my free Antivirus recomendation
Chris Gould(Elite) posted this on Monday, 25th January 2016, 01:46
It's beneficial if you don't like having major security vulnerabilities in you OS...
For those who struggle with Windows Update taking an eternity or failing, there are direct downloads to the MS patches that cause the problems here: http://wu.krelay.de/en/
Not keeping Windows up to date is the PC equivalent of leaving your windows open every time you leave the house, whilst living in a high crime area.
RJS(undefined) posted this on Wednesday, 20th July 2016, 14:05
My subscription with Kasperksy ran out at the weekend, so I've switched to BitDefender. It immediately suffered from the same issue with the automatic scanning of SSL sites that Kaspersky does, but it was way easier to find the option to turn off.
So far, much prefer BitDefender.
Oh and also the 2016 version doesn't support XP or Vista, but they give you a free license of 2015 that does which doesn't count towards your 3 device limit, which is nice of them!
Quote: Antivirus software vendors are terrible; don't buy antivirus software, and uninstall it if you already have it (except for Microsoft's).
This is how Robert "Roc" O'Callahan, a former Mozilla bigwig engineer started a blog post today, in which he details a long list of issues that antivirus software have caused to browser vendors.
This item was edited on Friday, 27th January 2017, 08:25
RE: Changing my free Antivirus recomendation
RJS(undefined) posted this on Friday, 27th January 2017, 08:59
He has some good points, but I'm not sure his one about not running AV software on Windows is one of them.
As long as you use Windows, download and run things from the internet (what non-tech savvy person hasn't ended up with some awful malware on their PC because they don't run AV and didn't understand what they were clicking on?), or use a web browser (so many attack vectors these days come directly from the web browser, and I have very low confidence in Mozilla or Google, and almost zero in Microsoft to prevent them), I think using AV is a sensible precaution.
Interesting reading the comments, a lot of "omg I totally agree, X or Y slowed my laptop to a crawl" posts talk about how AV can degrade the user experience. The answer to that is change your AV, and don't use Norton or anything else that remotely degrades your user experience.
I used to recommend BitDefender, I was using the free version till I paid for Kaspersky for a year, I lived with that for a year on a laptop and desktop, and all throughout that year I wish I was back using BitDefender.
Now I have a paid BitDefender license, and I would still recommend it as it has the best coverage, and lowest intrusion on your PC speed and working life.
admars(Elite) posted this on Friday, 27th January 2017, 10:01
free bitdefender is on my windows machines at home.
I've read a few ppl starting to stick up for symantec again recently saying it no longer hogs resources, but now it's tagged with that reputation from years ago, it's hard to lose.
Quote: In a severe rebuke of one of the biggest suppliers of HTTPS credentials, Google Chrome developers announced plans to drastically restrict transport layer security certificates sold by Symantec-owned issuers following the discovery they have issued more than 30,000 certificates.
...
Thursday's announcement is only the latest development in Google's 18-month critique of practices by Symantec issuers. In October 2015, Symantec fired an undisclosed number of employees responsible for issuing test certificates for third-party domains without the permission of the domain holders. One of the extended-validation certificates covered google.com and www.google.com and would have given the person possessing it the ability to cryptographically impersonate those two addresses.
