|
|
Our Hot Pick: Rising Antivirus 2006 - Certified by TUV & Checkmark! Get 10% discount by entering this coupon code: ONDISCOUNT10
|
|
|
|
"StephenB" <sboots[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uogn7393n23qeqljk00dkqn6pvs6d68sj7[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Dungeon Keeper" <james[ at ]software-dungeon.co.uk> wrote: > >>SO is the Live OneCare AntiVirus any good? - I have always used AVG Anti >>Virus >> >>Free Software >> http://www.software-dungeon.co.uk>> > Your mileage may vary. There have been good reviews and bad reviews. > OneCare > uses the same antispyware engine as Windows Defender. OneCare's antivirus > data > is provided by the anitmalware team from Microsoft. > In my experience, it successfully detects and blocks malware, but there > are > reports of threats getting past OneCare and threats detected by OneCare > that > cannot be removed successfully, but that's pretty much the same with any > antivirus program. OneCare is more than antivirus, though. Learn more at > http://onecare.live.com>
Take a look at the graphs here:
http://www.eset.com/products/compare.php
They are from makers of a competitive product (Nod 32) but I suspect they
can back them up with valid test results or they wouldn't be publishing them
for fear of being sued.
|
|
|
|
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:Ol3t0rStHHA.3364[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text]
Well it did get a VB100 rating from Virus Bulletin for June, while AVG
failed. One Care may not be the best but it is certainly improving. : )
--
Jim
|
|
From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com>
| Well it did get a VB100 rating from Virus Bulletin for June, while AVG
| failed. One Care may not be the best but it is certainly improving. : )
|
There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks.
It is easy to skew the results. In all my tests using only NEW samples, the best that
Microsoft would achieve was between 40 ~ 60% catch rate. Kaspersky scored the highest at
~90%. The otheres were between 70% and 90%.
If you test MS AV agaisnt many different BOT samples and other Internet worms with older
Trojans and traditional viruses it scores much higher. Once you test it with "Todays"
samplings it falls well below its rivals.
So the question is what is the sampling VB used ?
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:eW%238sFZtHHA.768[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> > > > | Well it did get a VB100 rating from Virus Bulletin for June, while AVG > | failed. One Care may not be the best but it is certainly improving. : ) > | > > There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks. > > It is easy to skew the results. In all my tests using only NEW samples, > the best that > Microsoft would achieve was between 40 ~ 60% catch rate. Kaspersky scored > the highest at > ~90%. The otheres were between 70% and 90%. > > If you test MS AV agaisnt many different BOT samples and other Internet > worms with older > Trojans and traditional viruses it scores much higher. Once you test it > with "Todays" > samplings it falls well below its rivals. > > So the question is what is the sampling VB used ? > > -- > Dave > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm> >
Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks."
Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to identify
not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security product's worth,
the security industry should change its testing methodology. I just think it
is extremely unfair for you to trash One Care in every venue you enter
without regard to industry standards, but based on your personal testing
which may or may not accurately reflect a product's ability to provide
reasonable protection to a consumer.
--
Jim
|
|
I use OneCare exclusively and have not had a virus or any malware whatsoever
since using it (since installing Vista Ultimate RTM last Nov). It does the
job for me. But if anyone is interested, ZoneAlarm is now available for
Vista (which I beta tested and it works great, but I still prefer OneCare).
--
-lloyd
------------------------
"Dungeon Keeper" <james[ at ]software-dungeon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:B6DFBC69-EB3B-4C6C-8FB6-2236FDB34C9F[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text]
|
|
From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com>
| Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks."
| Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to identify
| not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security product's worth,
| the security industry should change its testing methodology. I just think it
| is extremely unfair for you to trash One Care in every venue you enter
| without regard to industry standards, but based on your personal testing
| which may or may not accurately reflect a product's ability to provide
| reasonable protection to a consumer.
|
Since there is no such terminology as "virii"...
I know where you are coming from.
I have been studying viruses for a number of years now and I can tell the difference between
an anti virus product that is good and one that is bad.
If an anti virus fails to catch the new malware, then it fails to "...provide reasonable
protection to a consumer". If you think that the avg. Joe is getting hit Today by the
Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are mistaken.
Today we are seeing a vast quantity of Trojans and other non-viral malware and a producty
that only 40 ~ 60% fails to "...provide reasonable protection to a consumer". That is why I
will such quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and BitDefender.
At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus solution is no good, I still send an
average of 1,000 ~ 1,300 malware samples to Microsoft per month. I'm not a shill for any
company. I state what I see to be the *best* protection for those who do not practice Safe
Hex or practice it properly.
Now, what are YOU doing besides using false terminology such as "virii" ?
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
Now if you would but say exactly what you mean... You said: "If you think
that the avg. Joe is getting hit Today by the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS,
CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are mistaken." -- but I suspect you
meant to say: "If you think that the avg. Joe is *NOT* getting hit Today by
the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are
mistaken."
Then you said: "That is why I will such quality products such as Kaspersky,
NOD32, AntiVir and BitDefender." -- but I suspect you meant to say: "That is
why I will *USE* such quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and
BitDefender."
Then you went on to say: "At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus
solution is no good, ..<snip>" -- but again, I suspect you meant to say: "At
the same time I am *NOT* saying that MS anti virus solution is no good,..."
A missing word can often change or render not clear what one is meaning to
say... :)
Not meaning to nitpick, just trying to clarify what you really mean! :) If I
got it wrong I apologize..
--
-lloyd
------------------------
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:u7evTkftHHA.4916[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> > > | Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench > marks." > | Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to > identify > | not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security product's > worth, > | the security industry should change its testing methodology. I just > think it > | is extremely unfair for you to trash One Care in every venue you enter > | without regard to industry standards, but based on your personal testing > | which may or may not accurately reflect a product's ability to provide > | reasonable protection to a consumer. > | > Since there is no such terminology as "virii"... > I know where you are coming from. > > I have been studying viruses for a number of years now and I can tell the > difference between > an anti virus product that is good and one that is bad. > > If an anti virus fails to catch the new malware, then it fails to > "...provide reasonable > protection to a consumer". If you think that the avg. Joe is getting hit > Today by the > Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are > mistaken. > > Today we are seeing a vast quantity of Trojans and other non-viral malware > and a producty > that only 40 ~ 60% fails to "...provide reasonable protection to a > consumer". That is why I > will such quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and > BitDefender. > > At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus solution is no good, I > still send an > average of 1,000 ~ 1,300 malware samples to Microsoft per month. I'm not > a shill for any > company. I state what I see to be the *best* protection for those who do > not practice Safe > Hex or practice it properly. > > Now, what are YOU doing besides using false terminology such as "virii" ? > > -- > Dave > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm> >
|
|
One more I missed.. You said: "Since there is no such terminology as
"virii"...
I know where you are coming from." -- But I suspect you meant to say: "Since
there is no such terminology as "virii"... I *DON'T* know where you are
coming from."
Incidentally... "virii", the Latin word for the plural of virus, is a valid
word and still used in some online communities:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus
--
-lloyd
------------------------
"-lloyd" <notrealaddy[ at ]nada.ca> wrote in message
news:OaF7qGstHHA.1672[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Now if you would but say exactly what you mean... You said: "If you think > that the avg. Joe is getting hit Today by the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, > CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are mistaken." -- but I suspect > you meant to say: "If you think that the avg. Joe is *NOT* getting hit > Today by the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by > goodies you are mistaken." > > Then you said: "That is why I will such quality products such as > Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and BitDefender." -- but I suspect you meant to > say: "That is why I will *USE* such quality products such as Kaspersky, > NOD32, AntiVir and BitDefender." > > Then you went on to say: "At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus > solution is no good, ..<snip>" -- but again, I suspect you meant to say: > "At the same time I am *NOT* saying that MS anti virus solution is no > good,..." > > A missing word can often change or render not clear what one is meaning to > say... :) > > Not meaning to nitpick, just trying to clarify what you really mean! :) If > I got it wrong I apologize.. > -- > -lloyd > ------------------------ > > > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message > news:u7evTkftHHA.4916[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> >> >> | Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench >> marks." >> | Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to >> identify >> | not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security product's >> worth, >> | the security industry should change its testing methodology. I just >> think it >> | is extremely unfair for you to trash One Care in every venue you enter >> | without regard to industry standards, but based on your personal >> testing >> | which may or may not accurately reflect a product's ability to provide >> | reasonable protection to a consumer. >> | >> Since there is no such terminology as "virii"... >> I know where you are coming from. >> >> I have been studying viruses for a number of years now and I can tell the >> difference between >> an anti virus product that is good and one that is bad. >> >> If an anti virus fails to catch the new malware, then it fails to >> "...provide reasonable >> protection to a consumer". If you think that the avg. Joe is getting hit >> Today by the >> Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are >> mistaken. >> >> Today we are seeing a vast quantity of Trojans and other non-viral >> malware and a producty >> that only 40 ~ 60% fails to "...provide reasonable protection to a >> consumer". That is why I >> will such quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and >> BitDefender. >> >> At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus solution is no good, I >> still send an >> average of 1,000 ~ 1,300 malware samples to Microsoft per month. I'm not >> a shill for any >> company. I state what I see to be the *best* protection for those who do >> not practice Safe >> Hex or practice it properly. >> >> Now, what are YOU doing besides using false terminology such as "virii" ? >> >> -- >> Dave >> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>> >> >
|
|
From: "-lloyd" <notrealaddy[ at ]nada.ca>
| Now if you would but say exactly what you mean... You said: "If you think
| that the avg. Joe is getting hit Today by the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS,
| CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are mistaken." -- but I suspect you
| meant to say: "If you think that the avg. Joe is *NOT* getting hit Today by
| the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH, Form and other oldy by goodies you are
| mistaken."
|
| Then you said: "That is why I will such quality products such as Kaspersky,
| NOD32, AntiVir and BitDefender." -- but I suspect you meant to say: "That is |
BitDefender."
|
| Then you went on to say: "At the same time I am saying that MS anti virus
| why I will *USE* such quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and
| solution is no good, ..<snip>" -- but again, I suspect you meant to say: "At
| the same time I am *NOT* saying that MS anti virus solution is no good,..."
|
| A missing word can often change or render not clear what one is meaning to
| say... :)
|
| Not meaning to nitpick, just trying to clarify what you really mean! :) If I
| got it wrong I apologize..
Sorry, for my typos. It is ebarrassing to say the least.
This is correct. These oldies are rare.
"If you think that the avg. Joe is getting hit Today by the Jerusalem.B, NYB, AntiCMOS, CIH,
Form and other oldy by goodies you are mistaken."
I meant to say...
"That is why I will such suggest quality products such as Kaspersky, NOD32, AntiVir and
BitDefender."
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
|
|
"JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message
news:9C5656A0-8EA4-415E-B31B-7FB6091C8B28[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message > news:eW%238sFZtHHA.768[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> >> >> >> | Well it did get a VB100 rating from Virus Bulletin for June, while AVG >> | failed. One Care may not be the best but it is certainly improving. : ) >> | >> >> There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks. >> >> It is easy to skew the results. In all my tests using only NEW samples, >> the best that >> Microsoft would achieve was between 40 ~ 60% catch rate. Kaspersky scored >> the highest at >> ~90%. The otheres were between 70% and 90%. >> >> If you test MS AV agaisnt many different BOT samples and other Internet >> worms with older >> Trojans and traditional viruses it scores much higher. Once you test it >> with "Todays" >> samplings it falls well below its rivals. >> >> So the question is what is the sampling VB used ? >> >> -- >> Dave >> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>> >> > > Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks." > Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to > identify not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security > product's worth, the security industry should change its testing > methodology. I just think it is extremely unfair for you to trash One Care > in every venue you enter without regard to industry standards, but based > on your personal testing which may or may not accurately reflect a > product's ability to provide reasonable protection to a consumer. > > > > -- > Jim
There is no such word as "virii"
Honu
|
|
"artfudd" <notrealaddy[ at ]nada.ca> wrote in message
news:uyvymfdtHHA.4800[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >I use OneCare exclusively and have not had a virus or any malware >whatsoever since using it (since installing Vista Ultimate RTM last Nov). >It does the job for me. But if anyone is interested, ZoneAlarm is now >available for Vista (which I beta tested and it works great, but I still >prefer OneCare). > > -- > -lloyd > ------------------------ > "Dungeon Keeper" <james[ at ]software-dungeon.co.uk> wrote in message > news:B6DFBC69-EB3B-4C6C-8FB6-2236FDB34C9F[ at ]microsoft.com... >> SO is the Live OneCare AntiVirus any good? - I have always used AVG Anti >> Virus >> >> Free Software >> http://www.software-dungeon.co.uk>> >> >
You simply have no malware or threats that are detected by OneCare. I can
guarantee you that your machine is infected. It is a given. OneCare has
never been proven to be effective against any current threats...just threats
that are "old" by today's standards.
My best advice is to take off the rose colored glasses and use one of the
several effective products mentioned by others in this thread.
Having OneCare and believing it when it tells you are safe is a classic
example of "False sense of security".
Honu
|
|
"Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message
news:OUnQLRwtHHA.3944[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > > "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> wrote in message > news:9C5656A0-8EA4-415E-B31B-7FB6091C8B28[ at ]microsoft.com... >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message >> news:eW%238sFZtHHA.768[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> From: "JimR" <jrap107[ at ]msn.com> >>> >>> >>> | Well it did get a VB100 rating from Virus Bulletin for June, while AVG >>> | failed. One Care may not be the best but it is certainly improving. >>> : ) >>> | >>> >>> There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks. >>> >>> It is easy to skew the results. In all my tests using only NEW samples, >>> the best that >>> Microsoft would achieve was between 40 ~ 60% catch rate. Kaspersky >>> scored the highest at >>> ~90%. The otheres were between 70% and 90%. >>> >>> If you test MS AV agaisnt many different BOT samples and other Internet >>> worms with older >>> Trojans and traditional viruses it scores much higher. Once you test it >>> with "Todays" >>> samplings it falls well below its rivals. >>> >>> So the question is what is the sampling VB used ? >>> >>> -- >>> Dave >>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>>> >>> >> >> Quote: "There are lies, damn lies, statistics and there are bench marks." >> Then I guess if you are only measuring heuristics or the ability to >> identify not yet classified virii as the only measure of a security >> product's worth, the security industry should change its testing >> methodology. I just think it is extremely unfair for you to trash One >> Care in every venue you enter without regard to industry standards, but >> based on your personal testing which may or may not accurately reflect a >> product's ability to provide reasonable protection to a consumer. >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim > > There is no such word as "virii" > > Honu > > >
Thanks. I got that from David. I don't think pointing out my occasional
abuse of the English language, typos, grammar, spelling or punctuation adds
much to the discussion of One Care.
--
Jim
|
|
From: "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com>
|
| "artfudd" <notrealaddy[ at ]nada.ca> wrote in message
| news:uyvymfdtHHA.4800[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> I use OneCare exclusively and have not had a virus or any malware >> whatsoever since using it (since installing Vista Ultimate RTM last Nov). >> It does the job for me. But if anyone is interested, ZoneAlarm is now >> available for Vista (which I beta tested and it works great, but I still >> prefer OneCare). >> >> -- >> -lloyd >> ------------------------ >> "Dungeon Keeper" <james[ at ]software-dungeon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:B6DFBC69-EB3B-4C6C-8FB6-2236FDB34C9F[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> SO is the Live OneCare AntiVirus any good? - I have always used AVG Anti >>> Virus >>> >>> Free Software >>> http://www.software-dungeon.co.uk>>>
| guarantee you that your machine is infected. It is a given. OneCare has
| never been proven to be effective against any current threats...just threats
| that are "old" by today's standards.
|
| My best advice is to take off the rose colored glasses and use one of the
| several effective products mentioned by others in this thread.
|
| Having OneCare and believing it when it tells you are safe is a classic
| example of "False sense of security".
|
| Honu
|
That's my problem with it. The False Negatives provides a false sense of security.
That doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. I have been catching DNSChangers and Zlob Trojans
for well over a year and consistently providing them to the various AV vendors. The
following DNSChanger Trojan was caught ans submitted to the vendoes (including Microsoft
arount 5/18/07.
Complete scanning result of "02.exe", processed in VirusTotal at 06/24/2007 00:35:23 (CET).
[ file data ]
* name: 02.exe
* size: 8683
* md5.: 5a09cc1773475654dbd4c4db6d23af80
* sha1: fc63ac1e39a1c40b252896751ef9739560b52cdc
[ scan result ]
AhnLab-V3 2007.6.21.1/20070622 found nothing
AntiVir 7.4.0.34/20070622 found [TR/DNSChanger.IW]
Authentium 4.93.8/20070622 found nothing
Avast 4.7.997.0/20070623 found nothing
AVG 7.5.0.476/20070623 found [Generic5.ABH]
BitDefender 7.2/20070623 found [MemScan:Trojan.DNSChanger.AO]
CAT-QuickHeal 9.00/20070623 found [Trojan.DNSChanger.iw]
ClamAV devel-20070416/20070623 found nothing
DrWeb 4.33/20070623 found nothing
eSafe 7.0.15.0/20070621 found [Win32.Flush.A]
eTrust-Vet 30.8.3736/20070622 found nothing
Ewido 4.0/20070623 found [Trojan.DNSChanger.iw]
F-Prot 4.3.2.48/20070622 found nothing
F-Secure 6.70.13030.0/20070622 found [Trojan.Win32.DNSChanger.iw]
FileAdvisor 1/20070624 found [Not analyzed yet]
Fortinet 2.91.0.0/20070623 found [W32/DNSChanger.IW!tr]
Ikarus T3.1.1.8/20070623 found [Trojan.Win32.DNSChanger.iw]
Kaspersky 4.0.2.24/20070624 found [Trojan.Win32.DNSChanger.iw]
McAfee 5059/20070622 found [New Malware.eq]
Microsoft 1.2701/20070623 found [Trojan:Win32/Anomaly.gen!A]
Norman 5.80.02/20070622 found nothing
Panda 9.0.0.4/20070623 found [Malware Generic]
Sophos 4.19.0/20070622 found nothing
Sunbelt 2.2.907.0/20070621 found nothing
Symantec 10/20070623 found [Trojan.Flush.A]
TheHacker 6.1.6.137/20070622 found nothing
VBA32 3.12.0.2/20070623 found [Trojan.Win32.DNSChanger.iw]
VirusBuster 4.3.23:9/20070623 found [Trojan.DR.Cimuz.Gen.1]
Webwasher-Gateway 6.0.1/20070622 found nothing
[ notes ]
Bit9 info: http://fileadvisor.bit9.com/services/extinfo.aspx?md5=5a09cc1773475654dbd4c4db6d23af80
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
"StephenB" <sboots[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message
news:glov73hbdliu4q5526ghjiqkgeh4u50hav[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote:
>
>>I can
>>guarantee you that your machine is infected. It is a given.
>
> This is an unfounded assertion.
>
> -steve
> --
> Stephen Boots sboots[ at ]mvps.org
> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live
> Windows Live OneCare Forum Moderator
If the only protection is OneCare, then it *IS* infected. Every test I have
ever read that included OneCare found that it did poorly at detecting
threats.
It is most definitely not "unfounded".
Honu
|
|
"StephenB" <sboots[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message
news:033283tg7oqp9j807avqdf9nsjqd13m4hn[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote: > >> >>"StephenB" <sboots[ at ]mvps.org> wrote in message >>news:glov73hbdliu4q5526ghjiqkgeh4u50hav[ at ]4ax.com... >>> "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote: >>> >>>>I can >>>>guarantee you that your machine is infected. It is a given. >>> >>> This is an unfounded assertion. >>> >>> -steve >>> -- >>> Stephen Boots sboots[ at ]mvps.org >>> Microsoft MVP - Windows Live >>> Windows Live OneCare Forum Moderator >> >> >>If the only protection is OneCare, then it *IS* infected. Every test I >>have >>ever read that included OneCare found that it did poorly at detecting >>threats. >>It is most definitely not "unfounded". >> >>Honu > > Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. My point that it is > "unfounded" > is the "guarantee" of infection. Nobody can guarantee that my PC is > infected > even if I were running no protection at all. > I won't win this argument, in any event. I agree that OneCare has a ways > to go. > It doesn't detect everything, but then neither does any other a/v program > out > there. Yes, it failed a few tests and the fanfare about the failures was > pretty > loud as the story was spread all over the computer news and blogs. I > didn't see > the same fanfare when OneCare was certified - > http://windowsonecare.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C29701F38A601141!4299.entry?_c=BlogPart> > -steve > > -- > Stephen Boots sboots[ at ]mvps.org > Microsoft MVP - Windows Live > Windows Live OneCare Forum Moderator > http://forums.microsoft.com/windowsonecare/default.aspx?siteid=2
The "certifications" mean nothing if the product has known shortcomings.
The point I am trying to make is that Onecare has *consistently* failed to
recognized *known* threats.
This is like putting oil in your car's engine that is known to not provide
adequate lubrication. with the multitude of products on the market that
*are* effective in finding *known* threats, why use something that is not
effective?
Honu
|
|
I'm curious Honu:
If OneCare anti-virus is so poor why do you use it?
If you don't use it then why are you in this newsgroup?
If you've decided to enlighten all those who don't use your preferred
solution then I'm curious... do you do this in all the forums for the
various anti-virus programs you don't use or do you just single out
Microsoft?
|
|
"Nicholas Hanson" <da_asmodai[ at ]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6EAC70B3-BB88-4F85-973B-2605B45A10BB[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > I'm curious Honu:
> If OneCare anti-virus is so poor why do you use it?
> If you don't use it then why are you in this newsgroup?
> If you've decided to enlighten all those who don't use your preferred
> solution then I'm curious... do you do this in all the forums for the
> various anti-virus programs you don't use or do you just single out
> Microsoft?
>
I do *NOT* use it because it does not offer adequate protection.
I visit this newsgroup because it is a free country and I do not need a
"reason", or your permission to visit it.
I also visit the other antivirus newsgroups. In general, I do not disparage
other antivirus programs because they offer adequate protection.
I have nothing against Microsoft. I am after all using a computer running
one of their operating systems, and I am using Outlook Express, another
Microsoft product, to read and post.
I am sorry that I hit a nerve. If you feel comfortable using OneCare, by all
means do so. I, on the other hand, will continue to inform others that are
curious about it that it is not worthy of serious consideration.
Honu
|
|
"Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message
news:O6a3CNYuHHA.1496[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I do *NOT* use it because it does not offer adequate protection.
>
> I visit this newsgroup because it is a free country and I do not need a
> "reason", or your permission to visit it.
Well you have a reason, there is a reason we do everything we do but you are
correct in that you don't have to share that reason with me or anyone else
nor do you need anyone's permission.
> I am sorry that I hit a nerve. If you feel comfortable using OneCare, by
> all means do so. I, on the other hand, will continue to inform others
> that are curious about it that it is not worthy of serious consideration.
I actually don't use OneCare presently and you didn't strike a nerve with
me, I was simply curious as to why you were so passionately opposed to it.
I for one don't hang out in newsgroups of products I don't like trying to
convince it's users not to use it. You on the other hand apparently do and
so I was just curious as to why that is. I guess that's not something you
want to share though which is fine as you say... it's a free country.
(although that's a bit of on odd expression for the internet considering
it's global reach and the fact that many who have internet access may not in
fact be in a free country at all)
|
|
"Nicholas Hanson" <da_asmodai[ at ]hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4CAF29F2-676E-4E7F-8E2C-A4767B24A676[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message
> news:O6a3CNYuHHA.1496[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> I do *NOT* use it because it does not offer adequate protection.
>>
>> I visit this newsgroup because it is a free country and I do not need a
>> "reason", or your permission to visit it.
>
> Well you have a reason, there is a reason we do everything we do but you
> are correct in that you don't have to share that reason with me or anyone
> else nor do you need anyone's permission.
>
>> I am sorry that I hit a nerve. If you feel comfortable using OneCare, by
>> all means do so. I, on the other hand, will continue to inform others
>> that are curious about it that it is not worthy of serious consideration.
>
> I actually don't use OneCare presently and you didn't strike a nerve with
> me, I was simply curious as to why you were so passionately opposed to it.
> I for one don't hang out in newsgroups of products I don't like trying to
> convince it's users not to use it. You on the other hand apparently do
> and so I was just curious as to why that is. I guess that's not something
> you want to share though which is fine as you say... it's a free country.
> (although that's a bit of on odd expression for the internet considering
> it's global reach and the fact that many who have internet access may not
> in fact be in a free country at all)
>
Have you considered getting psychological help?
You should be aware that other human beings can and quite often do have
opinions different from your own.
do you honestly expect me to change*MY* behavior because *YOU* do not like
it?
Get a life. Get help.
Honu
|
|
You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on it
since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have
periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have anything
and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never turned
up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, and
has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other
anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I not
feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively using OC
(McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary scans from
time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the
installed applications missed.
I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare and
never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the other
hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using
Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot.
To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC exclusively and
not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use OC
over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel
comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications can
prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and
frequenting known malware web sites.
So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware prevention and
had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your own
fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to not
use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you are
using.
Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or bought)
Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it would
not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I tell
them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable with
it.
Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information you
have posted, this needed to be clarified. :)
--
Art (artfudd) ..formerly "-lloyd on this NG.
-------------
"Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message
news:uKNNdTwtHHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > > "artfudd" <notrealaddy[ at ]nada.ca> wrote in message > news:uyvymfdtHHA.4800[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>I use OneCare exclusively and have not had a virus or any malware >>whatsoever since using it (since installing Vista Ultimate RTM last Nov). >>It does the job for me. But if anyone is interested, ZoneAlarm is now >>available for Vista (which I beta tested and it works great, but I still >>prefer OneCare). >> >> -- >> -lloyd >> ------------------------ >> "Dungeon Keeper" <james[ at ]software-dungeon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:B6DFBC69-EB3B-4C6C-8FB6-2236FDB34C9F[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> SO is the Live OneCare AntiVirus any good? - I have always used AVG Anti >>> Virus >>> >>> Free Software >>> http://www.software-dungeon.co.uk>>> >>> >> > > You simply have no malware or threats that are detected by OneCare. I can > guarantee you that your machine is infected. It is a given. OneCare has > never been proven to be effective against any current threats...just > threats that are "old" by today's standards. > > My best advice is to take off the rose colored glasses and use one of the > several effective products mentioned by others in this thread. > > Having OneCare and believing it when it tells you are safe is a classic > example of "False sense of security". > > Honu > >
|
|
From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil>
| You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on it
| since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have
| periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have anything
| and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never turned
| up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, and
| has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other
| anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I not
| feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively using OC
| (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary scans from
| time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the
| installed applications missed.
|
| I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare and
| never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the other
| hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using
| Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot.
|
| To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC exclusively and
| not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use OC
| over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel
| comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications can
| prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and
| frequenting known malware web sites.
|
| So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware prevention and
| had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your own
| fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to not
| use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you are
| using.
|
| Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or bought)
| Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it would
| not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I tell
| them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable with
| it.
|
| Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information you
| have posted, this needed to be clarified. :)
Mis-information ?
How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the purchase of RAV and
Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware which then became
Windows Defender.
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm
|
|
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:uPHn9ZQvHHA.5032[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> > > | You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on it > | since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have > | periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have > anything > | and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never > turned > | up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, > and > | has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other > | anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I > not > | feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively > using OC > | (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary scans > from > | time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the > | installed applications missed. > | > | I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare and > | never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the > other > | hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using > | Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. > | > | To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC exclusively > and > | not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use > OC > | over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel > | comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications > can > | prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and > | frequenting known malware web sites. > | > | So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware prevention > and > | had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your > own > | fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to > not > | use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you > are > | using. > | > | Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or > bought) > | Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it > would > | not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I > tell > | them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable > with > | it. > | > | Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information > you > | have posted, this needed to be clarified. :) > > Mis-information ? > > How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the > purchase of RAV and > Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware > which then became > Windows Defender. > > > -- > Dave > http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm> >
How about the fact that it has *NEVER* passed an independent test for being
able to accurately detect *EXISTING* known threats?
Honu
|
|
Once again you spout untruths.. In fact the tests it failed in the recent
past (last 6 months) failed at 99.91 % of a test that required 100%
detection of known viruses used in the tests to "pass". This in no way is to
suggest it is useless and has failed all tests to detect existing threats as
you suggest. In fact it did pass these tests last year, but later failing
one in Feb this year (it detected 99.91% of the threats), and then failing a
comparison test more recently, again by only a small margin. In fact,
contrary to your unfounded claims, it DID pass the most recent test in early
June - detecting !00% of the tested threats.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191352/onecare-makes-vb100-cut
I will not respond any further to this thread because you obviously do not
know what you are talking about and simply wish to bash OneCare. I will be
the first to admit it is far from perfect, but it certainly is not the total
failure you try to imply.
--
Art (artfudd)
-------------
"Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message
news:%23UstEXTvHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > > "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message > news:uPHn9ZQvHHA.5032[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> >> >> | You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on >> it >> | since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have >> | periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have >> anything >> | and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never >> turned >> | up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, >> and >> | has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other >> | anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I >> not >> | feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively >> using OC >> | (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary scans >> from >> | time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the >> | installed applications missed. >> | >> | I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare and >> | never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the >> other >> | hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using >> | Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. >> | >> | To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC >> exclusively and >> | not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use >> OC >> | over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel >> | comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications >> can >> | prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and >> | frequenting known malware web sites. >> | >> | So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware prevention >> and >> | had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your >> own >> | fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to >> not >> | use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you >> are >> | using. >> | >> | Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or >> bought) >> | Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it >> would >> | not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I >> tell >> | them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable >> with >> | it. >> | >> | Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information >> you >> | have posted, this needed to be clarified. :) >> >> Mis-information ? >> >> How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the >> purchase of RAV and >> Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware >> which then became >> Windows Defender. >> >> >> -- >> Dave >> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>> >> > > How about the fact that it has *NEVER* passed an independent test for > being able to accurately detect *EXISTING* known threats? > > Honu > > >
|
|
Just to add one additional comment and link:
"Antivirus vendors Kaspersky, F-Secure and Grisoft, maker of the popular AVG
application, have failed to achieve the strict Virus Bulletin 100 antivirus
certification." This was the same test that OneCare recently passed a few
weeks ago. In fact of the 37 products used in the test, the 3 above were
among the 10 that did not pass.
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191749/avg-kaspersky-fail-virus
As the article states: "The same VB100 test re-established Microsoft's
OneCare security suite as a capable application."
--
Art (artfudd)
-------------
"artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> wrote in message
news:%23zz$bAUvHHA.5104[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Once again you spout untruths.. In fact the tests it failed in the recent > past (last 6 months) failed at 99.91 % of a test that required 100% > detection of known viruses used in the tests to "pass". This in no way is > to suggest it is useless and has failed all tests to detect existing > threats as you suggest. In fact it did pass these tests last year, but > later failing one in Feb this year (it detected 99.91% of the threats), > and then failing a comparison test more recently, again by only a small > margin. In fact, contrary to your unfounded claims, it DID pass the most > recent test in early June - detecting !00% of the tested threats. > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191352/onecare-makes-vb100-cut> > I will not respond any further to this thread because you obviously do not > know what you are talking about and simply wish to bash OneCare. I will be > the first to admit it is far from perfect, but it certainly is not the > total failure you try to imply. > > -- > Art (artfudd) > ------------- > "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message > news:%23UstEXTvHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message >> news:uPHn9ZQvHHA.5032[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> >>> >>> | You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on >>> it >>> | since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have >>> | periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have >>> anything >>> | and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never >>> turned >>> | up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, >>> and >>> | has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other >>> | anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I >>> not >>> | feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively >>> using OC >>> | (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary >>> scans from >>> | time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the >>> | installed applications missed. >>> | >>> | I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare >>> and >>> | never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the >>> other >>> | hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using >>> | Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. >>> | >>> | To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC >>> exclusively and >>> | not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use >>> OC >>> | over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel >>> | comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications >>> can >>> | prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and >>> | frequenting known malware web sites. >>> | >>> | So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware >>> prevention and >>> | had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your >>> own >>> | fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to >>> not >>> | use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you >>> are >>> | using. >>> | >>> | Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or >>> bought) >>> | Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it >>> would >>> | not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I >>> tell >>> | them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable >>> with >>> | it. >>> | >>> | Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information >>> you >>> | have posted, this needed to be clarified. :) >>> >>> Mis-information ? >>> >>> How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the >>> purchase of RAV and >>> Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware >>> which then became >>> Windows Defender. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave >>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>>> >>> >> >> How about the fact that it has *NEVER* passed an independent test for >> being able to accurately detect *EXISTING* known threats? >> >> Honu >> >> >> >
|
|
"artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> wrote in message
news:%23zz$bAUvHHA.5104[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Once again you spout untruths.. In fact the tests it failed in the recent > past (last 6 months) failed at 99.91 % of a test that required 100% > detection of known viruses used in the tests to "pass". This in no way is > to suggest it is useless and has failed all tests to detect existing > threats as you suggest. In fact it did pass these tests last year, but > later failing one in Feb this year (it detected 99.91% of the threats), > and then failing a comparison test more recently, again by only a small > margin. In fact, contrary to your unfounded claims, it DID pass the most > recent test in early June - detecting !00% of the tested threats. > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191352/onecare-makes-vb100-cut> > I will not respond any further to this thread because you obviously do not > know what you are talking about and simply wish to bash OneCare. I will be > the first to admit it is far from perfect, but it certainly is not the > total failure you try to imply. > > -- > Art (artfudd) > ------------- > "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message > news:%23UstEXTvHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message >> news:uPHn9ZQvHHA.5032[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> >>> >>> | You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on >>> it >>> | since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have >>> | periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have >>> anything >>> | and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never >>> turned >>> | up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up warnings, >>> and >>> | has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other >>> | anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I >>> not >>> | feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively >>> using OC >>> | (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary >>> scans from >>> | time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the >>> | installed applications missed. >>> | >>> | I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare >>> and >>> | never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On the >>> other >>> | hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using >>> | Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. >>> | >>> | To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC >>> exclusively and >>> | not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to use >>> OC >>> | over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they feel >>> | comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications >>> can >>> | prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and >>> | frequenting known malware web sites. >>> | >>> | So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware >>> prevention and >>> | had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your >>> own >>> | fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and to >>> not >>> | use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications you >>> are >>> | using. >>> | >>> | Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or >>> bought) >>> | Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and it >>> would >>> | not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I >>> tell >>> | them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more comfortable >>> with >>> | it. >>> | >>> | Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the mis-information >>> you >>> | have posted, this needed to be clarified. :) >>> >>> Mis-information ? >>> >>> How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the >>> purchase of RAV and >>> Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware >>> which then became >>> Windows Defender. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dave >>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>>> >>> >> >> How about the fact that it has *NEVER* passed an independent test for >> being able to accurately detect *EXISTING* known threats? >> >> Honu >> >> >> >
Fine. Then *YOU* use it. It fails consistently enough to make it
worthless.
Honu
|
|
"artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> wrote in message
news:ezZRBHUvHHA.2068[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Just to add one additional comment and link: > > "Antivirus vendors Kaspersky, F-Secure and Grisoft, maker of the popular > AVG application, have failed to achieve the strict Virus Bulletin 100 > antivirus certification." This was the same test that OneCare recently > passed a few weeks ago. In fact of the 37 products used in the test, the 3 > above were among the 10 that did not pass. > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191749/avg-kaspersky-fail-virus> > As the article states: "The same VB100 test re-established Microsoft's > OneCare security suite as a capable application." > -- > Art (artfudd) > ------------- > "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> wrote in message > news:%23zz$bAUvHHA.5104[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Once again you spout untruths.. In fact the tests it failed in the recent >> past (last 6 months) failed at 99.91 % of a test that required 100% >> detection of known viruses used in the tests to "pass". This in no way is >> to suggest it is useless and has failed all tests to detect existing >> threats as you suggest. In fact it did pass these tests last year, but >> later failing one in Feb this year (it detected 99.91% of the threats), >> and then failing a comparison test more recently, again by only a small >> margin. In fact, contrary to your unfounded claims, it DID pass the most >> recent test in early June - detecting !00% of the tested threats. >> http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191352/onecare-makes-vb100-cut>> >> I will not respond any further to this thread because you obviously do >> not know what you are talking about and simply wish to bash OneCare. I >> will be the first to admit it is far from perfect, but it certainly is >> not the total failure you try to imply. >> >> -- >> Art (artfudd) >> ------------- >> "Hertz_Donut" <somewhere[ at ]outthere.com> wrote in message >> news:%23UstEXTvHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~[ at ]Verizon.Net> wrote in message >>> news:uPHn9ZQvHHA.5032[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> From: "artfudd" <notreal[ at ]noplace.nil> >>>> >>>> | You can't guarantee anything about my computer. I have had OneCare on >>>> it >>>> | since it first became OneCare after the buyout from GIANT. I have >>>> | periodically used other virus scanners to make sure I didn't have >>>> anything >>>> | and that OC was doing it's job. Those secondary scanners have never >>>> turned >>>> | up anything that OneCare missed. OneCare has often popped up >>>> warnings, and >>>> | has screened various threats from time to time. If I have some other >>>> | anti-spyware and anti-virus and had the same success then why would I >>>> not >>>> | feel safe using that? In fact I did use others prior to exclusively >>>> using OC >>>> | (McAfee, ZoneAlarm Security Suite, etc.) and I also did secondary >>>> scans from >>>> | time to time - a few times those scans in fact did find something the >>>> | installed applications missed. >>>> | >>>> | I have also used other spyware scanners in conjunction with OneCare >>>> and >>>> | never have I had them find something that OC did not also find. On >>>> the other >>>> | hand I have had OC find stuff they did not - in particular when using >>>> | Ad-Aware and Spy-Bot. >>>> | >>>> | To each his/her own of course. I don't tell anyone to use OC >>>> exclusively and >>>> | not use other anti-spyware applications, and I do not tell them to >>>> use OC >>>> | over other anti-virus applications - I tell them to use what they >>>> feel >>>> | comfortable using. I also tell them that no anti-malware applications >>>> can >>>> | prevent all attacks due to careless opening of email attachments and >>>> | frequenting known malware web sites. >>>> | >>>> | So the bottom line is if you are careless about your malware >>>> prevention and >>>> | had OneCare installed and still got some infections then that is your >>>> own >>>> | fault and you cannot then tell everyone that OneCare is useless and >>>> to not >>>> | use it, because the same would happen not matter what applications >>>> you are >>>> | using. >>>> | >>>> | Additionally I have often suggested people who have installed (or >>>> bought) >>>> | Vista, to install OneCare because they had been using ZoneAlarm and >>>> it would >>>> | not work with Vista. Now that ZA does in fact work well with Vista, I >>>> tell >>>> | them to go back to it (ZA Security Suite) if they are more >>>> comfortable with >>>> | it. >>>> | >>>> | Sorry to be so long-winded in this reply, but with the >>>> mis-information you >>>> | have posted, this needed to be clarified. :) >>>> >>>> Mis-information ? >>>> >>>> How about the fact that OneCare is anti virus and is based upon the >>>> purchase of RAV and >>>> Giant Software was the creator of the software that was MS antispyware >>>> which then became >>>> Windows Defender. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave >>>> http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html>>>> http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm>>>> >>>> >>> >>> How about the fact that it has *NEVER* passed an independent test for >>> being able to accurately detect *EXISTING* known threats? >>> >>> Honu >>> >>> >>> >> >
I don't use Kapersky. I don't use McAfee. I don't use OneCare. They are
all pretty much a waste of money.
You can post all the reviews you want...OneCare is still worthless...
Honu
|
|
Hertz_Donut wrote:
<snipped>
[Quoted Text] > Fine. Then *YOU* use it. It fails consistently enough to make it
> worthless.
>
> Honu
>
>
>
Any recommendations Honu?
|
|
"deebs" <deebs[ at ]false.false> wrote in message
news:um51Q1avHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hertz_Donut wrote:
> <snipped>
>> Fine. Then *YOU* use it. It fails consistently enough to make it
>> worthless.
>>
>> Honu
>>
>>
>>
>
> Any recommendations Honu?
Norton has a new product on the market, Norton 360. Very small system
footprint. Fast scanning.
It is a very good product. Use in conjunction with Spybot or Spy Sweeper,
and Ad Aware, it is about the best protection you can get. Norton 360 will
even find rootkits that the others can't.
Honu
|
|
Hertz_Donut wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "deebs" <deebs[ at ]false.false> wrote in message
> news:um51Q1avHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hertz_Donut wrote:
>> <snipped>
>>> Fine. Then *YOU* use it. It fails consistently enough to make it
>>> worthless.
>>>
>>> Honu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Any recommendations Honu?
>
> Norton has a new product on the market, Norton 360. Very small system
> footprint. Fast scanning.
> It is a very good product. Use in conjunction with Spybot or Spy Sweeper,
> and Ad Aware, it is about the best protection you can get. Norton 360 will
> even find rootkits that the others can't.
>
> Honu
>
>
>
What is your opinion of NOD32?
I find it quite sweet and timely and its ratings seem neat.
|
|
"deebs" <deebs[ at ]false.false> wrote in message
news:uCuorHovHHA.1340[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hertz_Donut wrote:
>> "deebs" <deebs[ at ]false.false> wrote in message
>> news:um51Q1avHHA.2352[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Hertz_Donut wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>> Fine. Then *YOU* use it. It fails consistently enough to make it
>>>> worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Honu
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Any recommendations Honu?
>>
>> Norton has a new product on the market, Norton 360. Very small system
>> footprint. Fast scanning.
>> It is a very good product. Use in conjunction with Spybot or Spy
>> Sweeper, and Ad Aware, it is about the best protection you can get.
>> Norton 360 will even find rootkits that the others can't.
>>
>> Honu
>>
>>
>>
> What is your opinion of NOD32?
>
> I find it quite sweet and timely and its ratings seem neat.
I have never used it. It does seem to do okay in testing.
I think the N360 is really the best all-round choice.
Honu
|
|
|
|
David H. Lipman wrote:
[Quoted Text] > From: "deebs" <deebs[ at ]false.false>
>
>
> | What is your opinion of NOD32?
> |
> | I find it quite sweet and timely and its ratings seem neat.
>
> Eset NOD32 is *highly* reccomended and is light on resources.
>
Yes, my observation too.
|
|
|