Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjmm1989 | Hacker News Reader

sjmm1989

So... let's say a person still wanted to use an Antivirus product anyways, despite not really trusting them due to reasons like this article here; or anything you can say about Norton, etc, etc.

What would you all suggest? Aside from McAfee, Norton and of course Kaspersky. I'm all ears. Some helpful hints though might be:

1. I don't want it giving me pop-ups constantly to remind me of a sale they are having.

2. It can't interfere with legitimate programs more than once in a blue moon.

3. It has be capable of being run with other security software at the same time without incurring an infraction against #2.

4. It has to cost less than 100$ per year, if there has to be payment at all.

I'm asking this because I need a reliable choice to use when suggesting to my potential customers out there. I have some go to's that I used to use, but with everything the way it is right now; I want some input.

View on HN

Windows Defender.

See: https://0ut3r.space/2022/03/06/windows-defender/ and recent discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30580444

Yeah so, I normally am in the same camp. If I have windows running, it's likely just running defender and whatever other things I have personally done to the system to 'harden' it. (Lol... hardening windows... right.)

Anyways.

The point to my question was to find those few helpful anti-viruses and other programs that might help fill the spots that WD might not. Ya feel me?

We've been running ESET Nod32 for over a decade.

Its strength is that it uses very low memory and CPU cycles due to the way it is built.

It ticks all the boxes you've given above.

I've considered Eset a few times before. Never went all the way yet. Thank you.

Anything in particular you want to add about it that might be a good tip or so? Something that only someone who's been using it for a while will know, kind of thing.

Back in 200x, we had a very old machine. It had 64Mb of RAM only. We had to install AV on this and through sifting through the AV softwares, only eset nod32 ran on it without slowing it down or taking too much resources. I like how they optimised it to the point where I could run it on that old machine. They say they write it in Assembly but I think it's just a marketing ploy. However the result satisfies me enough.

From then until now our business has gone through a lot but ESET has never been something that bothered us too much. It just sits in the background doing its thing. I have terrible memories of Symantec / McAfee just being annoying, but Nod32 is just the thing you install, it sits there and you can forget about it.

Ah yes. Assembly. I really should get around to learning it so I can test some game designs on my model 1 sega genesis.

I don't know if it's a marketing ploy rntksi. What you are describing so far sounds very much like it has been written in something like Assembly if not actually assembly. From what I know at least. (Could totally be way off)

Assembly as I know it, is used because it's not resource heavy if written properly. And an antivirus definitely needs to be written properly.

Anyways. Yeah, I am probably going to give it a look for use on my intel workstation/server. It's definitely one of the 'vulnerable' chips they released.

Oh well. So long as it does its job.

Symantec. shudders with rage

For home use, Sophos Home: https://home.sophos.com/en-us

(Disclosure: I used to work for Sophos, I no longer do.)

It's a good mix of traditional antivirus, antimalware, and privacy tools. It's also available for Macs.

Thanks for the input. After having a look at some sites that compare the two's products on the consumer and business level; I think I am going to keep both available for customers in some fashion. Some might prefer one over the other, but I do have to say...

Eset seems to have more features, but they both trade blows on effectiveness according to some graphs. So I think they might be good to use with each other in tandem if they will play nice.

Just use what comes with microsoft. If you want another layer of scanning then install Malwarebytes. Those two should be plenty for anybody. Also set their DNS to use something that blocks known malware sites (quad 9 is what I use).

Quad 9 is useful, but I found some websites that should work ended up not working anymore or as well. Kind of annoying. But yeah, Malwarebytes is one I haven't thought about for a while. Last I saw one of their things on a computer I was fixing was also one of the last times I saw CCcleaner on a computer as well.

But yeah, windows defender IS usually good enough.

At least the business version of F-Secure is not annoying the living daylights out of me, although I have the more onerous securities turned off (like the browser protection).

>OUTSIDE SURVEILLANCE ALLIANCES >Based outside Russia, China, USA and other 14 Eyes surveillance countries.

Hmmm. Interesting. Thanks.

Malwarebytes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com