Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


teh uesful
October 4, 2005 9:57 AM   Subscribe

for the bookmarks - free browser-embedded antivirus [IE only, I assume Windows only]
posted by Pretty_Generic (30 comments total)

 
For me this makes actually giving money to people like Computer Associates somewhat redundant.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 9:57 AM on October 4, 2005


I long-since abandoned pay anti-virus anyhow. Avast!
posted by Plutor at 10:00 AM on October 4, 2005


What blows my mind is that there are people who still willingly use IE. Its like driving a car and only using the first three gears.

More anti-virus is more better.

Or just get a Mac and don't worry about it.
posted by fenriq at 10:02 AM on October 4, 2005


Your mind is easily blown, my friend.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:03 AM on October 4, 2005


Mac community must wake up to security
posted by caddis at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2005


Trend Micro also has one of these available (and also IE-only). I've been happy with the free AV software from Grisoft (auto-updates its definitions, makes you download a new version of the software like once a year).
posted by SpaceBass at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2005


What blows my mind is that there are people who still willingly use IE

I hear they all have loaded guns pointed at their foreheads...

Yeesh.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:35 AM on October 4, 2005


P_G, my mind's not the only part of me that's easily blown.

SweetJesus, that's not really how I meant it. The majority of people using IE are simply unaware that there are better browsers available. Just like alot of people who still AOL think they're on the internet when they're really on AOL's internet-lite.
posted by fenriq at 10:39 AM on October 4, 2005


The fact that you can run something like a virus scanner in a browser is one reason why we have viruses.
posted by crawl at 10:40 AM on October 4, 2005


Symantec has had free online IE-only virus scanning for as long as I can remember. Of course, like the other services, you have to open a security hole to let it run.
posted by 3.2.3 at 10:40 AM on October 4, 2005


what blows my mind , is people who use i e and are willing to blindly install an active x control because they are told it is an anti virus site .
posted by mishaco at 10:41 AM on October 4, 2005


Avast irritates me because it makes you re-register every year in order to get updates. So when I install it as charity for the clueless noobs who come my way, I'm only saving them from viruses for 1 year, as they're too dense to re-register the software...
posted by buck09 at 10:43 AM on October 4, 2005


Like SpaceBass said...

Free AV software from Grisoft works...
(recommended!)
posted by Groomz at 10:46 AM on October 4, 2005


The fact that you can run something like a virus scanner in a browser is one reason why we have viruses.

Exactly
posted by caddis at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2005


The fact that you can run something like a virus scanner in a browser is one reason why we have viruses.

*Ding, Ding*. I would say primary reason.

I've never gotten a virus using Windows XP, and I use no anti-virus software. If you run PeerGuardian, XP SP2 Firewall, don't click on attachments and don't run ActiveX controls you're fine - easy as pie. AdAware the machine once a week to keep it clean, and that's all there is to it.

I'd rather not have my machine communicating back and forth with TrendMicro, Symantec or whomever. Anti-Virus software is not worth the system resources it takes up.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2005


Yeah, if you actually realize that you have to actively take five steps to protect yourself from a virus, you'll be protected from the virus. That helps 0% of the type of people for whom consumer AV software is made.
posted by buck09 at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2005


what blows my mind , is people who use i e and are willing to blindly install an active x control because they are told it is an anti virus site .

That kind of cracked me up, actually. Yo, Pretty_Generic, was that intentional humor?
posted by INTPLibrarian at 11:19 AM on October 4, 2005


I like the freeware version of Grisoft's product so much that I bought the corporate version and installed on our workstations and servers at work.

It works, and well. Documentation is somewhat lacking on the network install, but nothing insurmountable.
posted by Ynoxas at 11:56 AM on October 4, 2005


Um, I kinda trust my audience to be able to read domain names. If Computer Associates were to install viruses on people's machines, I know I'd want to be one of the named plaintiffs.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 11:57 AM on October 4, 2005


There's one thing that bugs me about both AVG & Avast, though I know this is also an issue with every non-freeware anti-virus as well: I don't want a resident anti-virus scanner. I don't want one sitting there, sucking up memory. I want one that I can just fire up on-demand, when I download something. I trust myself with my email, I don't need it popping up a little window telling me it's scanned my mail, and I don't need it acting as a proxy for my mail. I don't need it scanning every incoming webpage. I can see the performance difference when I've got one running, especially when playing racing sims.

Resident scanners annoy the crap out of me. Why, oh why, can't one of these freeware virus scanners go back to that? AVG *used* to do that until it went to the new version. I ditched it in the hopes that Avast would be better, and while I liked it better than the new AVG, the "audio on" by default and horrid interface were enough of a turnoff as well.

Since I'm posting this for posterity: HEY, ANTI-VIRUS SOFTWARE MAKERS!!! There are those of us that aren't clueless, and would rather an on-demand virus scanner! We don't want you to run a Windows service. Just let us scan files manually as they come in, and that's it. I don't need your help, I don't want your help, especially since your help hurts other things that I actually want to do. Stop it. Or at least offer a version that won't be so intrusive!!
posted by Swervo at 11:59 AM on October 4, 2005


Mac community must wake up to security

...haven't people been saying this since...1990? Listen. I'd really like to install a virus on my OSX 10.4 Mac at home. Once it's installed, I'd like my other OSX 10.4 Mac to be automatically infected through the network. Can you help me?

Yeah... I didn't think so.
posted by odinsdream at 12:17 PM on October 4, 2005


Virus writers will only begin to write viruses for Macs when it becomes worth their time to do so. The reason there are so many Windows viruses isn't necessarily because Windows is horrible, buggy software, it's because it's the biggest target.

If Apple were to ever become a big enough target, you'd better belive there would be some nasty little fuckers on their way for OS X.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:14 PM on October 4, 2005


"Its like driving a car and only using the first three gears."

My car only has three forward gears, my friend, and some of the more desirable collectible Chevrolets only have two. More is not always better.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2005


Senor_Crash, that's true. But bigger's still better, right? I mean, we're Americans and all so bigger's gotta be better. Or, at least, I'm an American, I don't know about you, you might be one of them Canadians or something.

Besides, I was alluding to cars that have more than three gears, i.e. only using the first three. Not having only three. But I see and accept your point. Maybe I should have said "Its like having four fingers and a thumb and only using your pinky to dig for snot nuggets." Would that have been better?

SweetJesus, its not quite that simple that its mere market dominance. Mac OS X is a fundamentally more secure operating system than Windows has ever been.
posted by fenriq at 4:16 PM on October 4, 2005


I had a virus on a Mac once. I think it was 1989.
posted by spock at 4:44 PM on October 4, 2005


Swervo: are you aware of the Windows port of Clam AV?
posted by flabdablet at 4:57 PM on October 4, 2005


If Apple were to ever become a big enough target, you'd better belive there would be some nasty little fuckers on their way for OS X.

and

Mac OS X is a fundamentally more secure operating system than Windows has ever been.

A future AskMe question of mine will be focused on the difference between these two statements. Thanks for the link P_G
posted by jessamyn at 5:10 PM on October 4, 2005


I assume viruses are possible on the Mac. I just don't understand why there aren't any, unless it's really hard to do.

Just because there's a low market share isn't an excuse. Every time a Mac/Windows flame war starts up, you know there's some young hacker dying to prove all those Mac fanboys wrong. But they never seem to pull it off.
posted by fungible at 7:04 PM on October 4, 2005


jessamyn, if you haven't read "In the Beginning, there was the Command Line..." By Neal Stephenson, you should do so for a layman's perspective on the idea of software cruft. This backward compatibility and code re-use, although great for short-term market share, leads to really unwieldly software architecture. Thus the big bloated code that Microsoft Operating Systems have suffered since Windows 95.

Though NT was good stuff.

posted by onalark at 8:49 PM on October 4, 2005


I'm still waiting for someone to give me a virus that I can install on my 10.4 Mac that will automatically infect my other 10.4's in the house through the network. Come on caddis, SweetJesus, you're telling me nobody anywhere has even written a proof-of-concept? Strange, eh?

Oh, and I also don't know my Administrator password (let's say), so if it asks for it, it fails as a virus.
posted by odinsdream at 9:34 PM on October 4, 2005


« Older Victorian and Edwardian photographs:...  |  As old man winter approaches o... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments