Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

mox parser malware

First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Onyx's Avatar


Onyx
06.02.2012 , 01:37 PM | #41
Quote: Originally Posted by Talarchy View Post
AVG and Avira have a disgusting amount of false positives. I know this for a fact because I have been trying to get them to take one of my programs off the heuristics list for ages and they just ignore you even if you send them the source code to prove its malware free.
You can do that yourself.

Heuristic is simply a "behavior-analysis" engine. It analyzes the execution of the code and watches for suspect behavior. If something you know is clean keeps triggering the heuristic engine, put it on your exception list. It's far better to get a false positive than a missed negative. Just because the behavior of that program isn't a virus/malware doesn't mean that other programs which utilize similar code execution aren't.
Star Wars fan for life
C C X X:
1st Special Forces Group
S . A . N . C . T . U . M . . . O . F . . . T . H . E . . . E . X . A . L . T . E . D
SWG: 2003 thru 12.15.2011 . . . . . Kettemoor ~ Starsider

snwmnx's Avatar


snwmnx
06.02.2012 , 02:05 PM | #42
Quote: Originally Posted by JollyRogers View Post
No, they are simply a smaller market share, and thus a smaller target set. However, with the Mac's starting to make inroads, the *nix systems aren't such a microscopic minority anymore. A rooted *nix box is just as owned as a rooted Windows box.
I never made the claim that they were immune, just more resilient. I also did not say WHY *nix systems were more resiliant, just that they are. So, I'm not quite sure why you are telling me I am wrong. You seem to be agreeing with my point.

To address yours:
Are *nix (and mac osx for that matter) users a smaller market share? Sure. And while market share surely plays a part, the requirement of having root access to perform any actual mischief is undeniably another. I would say its a combination of many factors that make it less profitable / desirable to craft malware for *nix systems as long as Windows is around.

Hope that cleared things up.

snwmnx's Avatar


snwmnx
06.02.2012 , 02:09 PM | #43
Quote: Originally Posted by Onyx View Post
Quite untrue.

There are many open-source applications out there which run far better/cleaner than their paid-for counterparts.

Windows has traditionally been a retail-software environment, and so many users buy into the whole "if you pay for it it is better" mentality. However open-source and collaborative products can indeed be superior. This is true even for anti-virus and anti-malware products. The best ones I've ever used/do use are free.
While I think that market is starting to gain traction, I do not believe they can (yet) compete with the likes of Kaspersky, Eset, or even Symantec in terms of False Positives, Proactive / Reactive detection, and Removal. Much less in the "In The Wild" area of detection.

I would imagine that most would probably do for the typical home user, but when security and detection are of serious concern, I sure wouldn't leave it to one of the Open Source counterparts to the established Top-of-the-line just yet.

Onyx's Avatar


Onyx
06.02.2012 , 04:30 PM | #44
Quote: Originally Posted by snwmnx View Post
While I think that market is starting to gain traction, I do not believe they can (yet) compete with the likes of Kaspersky, Eset, or even Symantec in terms of False Positives, Proactive / Reactive detection, and Removal. Much less in the "In The Wild" area of detection.

I would imagine that most would probably do for the typical home user, but when security and detection are of serious concern, I sure wouldn't leave it to one of the Open Source counterparts to the established Top-of-the-line just yet.
That would actually be somewhat the reverse In fact, some of those names you pay for now were once free/donation-only until they decided to cash in on their successes. Which, for most, is also around the same time they started to become bloatware. Pay does not equal better, and really never has in the AV/Malware tool market.

And if you are needing to remove an infection or detect some of the most stubborn ones, most of the best tools out there are not pay-to-use either. There are plenty of charts out there which show this information to be true.

You're correct that the consumer market is different from the commercial one. There are numerous things that should be done to lock down business environments and AV/Malware tools are but a small part of it. The size/design of the network as well as the limitations of the technical staff need to be taken into account of course, and sometimes the decision made is not based upon which tools have the best detection ratings but rather which tools work most efficiently within the contraints of the environment itself. Hence you'll see purchased tools used more in those implementations, but more because of certain features.
Star Wars fan for life
C C X X:
1st Special Forces Group
S . A . N . C . T . U . M . . . O . F . . . T . H . E . . . E . X . A . L . T . E . D
SWG: 2003 thru 12.15.2011 . . . . . Kettemoor ~ Starsider

snwmnx's Avatar


snwmnx
06.02.2012 , 08:06 PM | #45
Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to have any links to studies of these free and open source AV programs in comparison to Eset or Kaspersky would you?

At the very least, would you mind NAMING the programs that you believe would stack up to either application in a head on comparison in 1.) Proactive / Reactive detection, 2.) Removal, 3.) False Positive, and 4.) In The Wild catches? I could just look for myself at that point.

I have already listed several links in the previous page from just such sources citing why both Kaspersky and Eset rank higher than Symantec in all categories. I'd very much like to read some kind of independant review showing from an established and authoritative source on how the un-established free antivirus community stacks up.

I say un-established because, lets face it, as soon as a company has a reputation good enough to do so, they begin charging with one business model or another. That is the way of the AV world.

*Note: I do not mean programs that offer free versions that are limited compared to their "pro" versions. Avira offers a free version and I have already stated that it is even among my personal top 5 and has excellent scores where it counts.

Also, I'd like to say that I am now and have always been 100% behind the open source community (I am a Java developer and was quite angry with the Sun sellout). I push for Open Source tools at every position I have ever held and am well aware that, in the software community, "paying" doesn't always equate to better.

Lastly, I would like to point out (for a second time) that it was the experts at Kaspersky Labs that both found and discovered the origin of both the Stuxnet and Flame viruses. Considering the complexity, wide spread nature, and far reaching consequences of each of those two viruses, I would say that is definitely worth mentioning.

Aurojiin's Avatar


Aurojiin
06.02.2012 , 08:30 PM | #46
I haven't had any anti-malware programs installed for at least three years now, so I'm probably ill-qualified to comment, but from the tests I've seen Microsoft Security Essentials actually holds up fairly well against the competition and isn't a complete resource hog.

There is precious little difference between Norton in its present-day incarnation and an actual virus, imho.

Ganrax's Avatar


Ganrax
06.02.2012 , 08:49 PM | #47
This thread in a nutshell:

Mox Parser doesn't have malware. My anti-virus can beat up your anti-virus because I'm a computer security expert.

PS: Norton > Everything. Come on! It came with my computer and everything!

OrionsBelt's Avatar


OrionsBelt
06.02.2012 , 09:40 PM | #48
Quote: Originally Posted by Ganrax View Post
This thread in a nutshell:

Mox Parser doesn't have malware. My anti-virus can beat up your anti-virus because I'm a computer security expert.
/win
Server: Harbinger - Circle of Darkness
Orionsul Assassin - Tank + Syrus'il Mercenary - DPS
Syrusil Sniper - DPS + Syrusul Sorcerer - Heal

snwmnx's Avatar


snwmnx
06.02.2012 , 09:45 PM | #49
Actually, its more like:

"Mox isn't malware. I'm not security expert, but here are some links to those that are complete with reviews on various Antivirus programs that are on the market today and a summation of the results."

But hey, flame on.

Nogoodathis's Avatar


Nogoodathis
06.05.2012 , 07:56 AM | #50
Quote: Originally Posted by Ganrax View Post
This thread in a nutshell:

Mox Parser doesn't have malware. My anti-virus can beat up your anti-virus because I'm a computer security expert.

PS: Norton > Everything. Come on! It came with my computer and everything!
love it.