Jump to content

Talk:Antivirus software/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Worth mentioning

There's Polish antivirus software mks_vir. The first version started in 1987. It was one of the earliest antivirus programs in history.

ActiveX

It would it be nice to list anti-virus that don't need active X separately from those that insist on having active X enabled? --Wk muriithi 16:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as it isn't original research, I don't think there's a problem with that. --RainR 04:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

220.226.27.147 (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)==List of anti-virus software== shouldn't a list / comparison of all anti-virus software be done? --24.232.113.121 04:31, 4 October, 2005 (UTC)

There's already a list here. As for the comparison, as long as it isn't original research, I don't think there's a problem with that. --RainR 04:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dr.Web

there is no such anti-virus software "Dr.Web Ltd" in the world and even no company "Dr.Web Ltd". heven knows why nobody wants to know a few facts about. my changes were discarded and articles were removed. I cannot tell the truth. so, remove incorrect reference or make it right. --eg 18:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Antivirus or Anti-virus?

ch-udi

"Best Independent Antivirus blog"

This link appears to be a warez site with links to free downloads of various full version anti-virus programs...

Grizzly37 18:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Anti-virus software → Antivirus software – Antivirus yields more results on Google. Anti-virus is awkward and is less likely to be used by the "average user" than antivirus. Theshibboleth 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Discussion

Add any additional comments
I never feel Google is a valid test for anything other than popularity which is not the same as correctness. GraemeLeggett 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 18:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Deletion of the section named "List of Top Anti-Virus Software with Descriptions"

I believe this section should be deleted from the article because

a)There is already a list of Anti-Virus products above this section

b)This list is just a copy and paste of descriptions of products found on download sites offering trial versions of the products. This list is not professional IMO, and serves only as an advertisement for multiple Anti-Virus products.

Thank you, AcceleratorX 19:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discuss

Feel free to make your opinions known. :)

If you think something needs to be done, be bold. Don't vote on everything --RainR 02:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

RainR, thank you for your guidance. I have edited the page and removed the list, but someone seems to have added the list of "top 10" protectors again. I have edited the page again and removed the list. --AcceleratorX 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted a link to http://www.fixit-utilities.com/ as it's just a website to advertise yet another security suite.

Dubious

Left by an anon:

The first anti-virus software was created by Peter Tippett in 1981. (the year is questionable because the viruses Peter read about were not discovered until 1986 - somebody please correct this data)[citation needed]

Left by cseifert: I tried to correct this using the IBM history reference. However, the changes were reverted. Not so sure why as it was vaguely classified as 'nonsense'.

S

THe external reference (history timeline) already exists that states this (which is basically the same content that exists by IBM at http://www.research.ibm.com/antivirus/timeline.htm )

NEO DISINFECTANT (PC 'ae mac' vixen):?: A SIMILAR DISINFECTOR IN THE MAINFRAME:... noted is the 'cable cycler' or "decycler" or thus in the stand alone | the genius of which is the name of the rose : the thorn of which is the changeling of the link ; that these are one into the name of the computer, the simplicity of the rose -1- -- R<>(Sx)E{Y}=Z -- -1- ||19thq --- in this way 'HIOS decides';; & in this first instance there is that it presides this accuracy to qudos| | it is the nature of R within the mainframe that is found to be stoically different as regards prespatyrianism|| the number of the mainframe regards this R is unlike the number OSR reliable in stand alone machines :: the first number this is thought to be equalataral to is something like;;; (IO)742-\/-742(IO),,, this number is also theoretical in that the actual numeracy can be logified in this way aspect,, |\/-{4}(1484)[742]^| : |!]4444[?| : ; the fact that any data-file is subject to wonder what the frequency of the equation is searches for similar R<=>R4 tenacity; this being the most stable evaluator in an equation now $/8 as fracatlisation finds that such a thing is in & within itself R? this is then it's own data-file which it recycles as it is computed:: in that case what regulation is like $/8 capable of storing R? into 1 within the mainframe - is it as simple as "specialisng the recycle bin" as it is on stand alone machines: it is obvious to realise that a mainframe must have a regulator programme that is user-freindly on some protectorate level 'beware coca-cola siren',, in that case this is our $/8 in one instance;;; so we place this in a special-file; ; F#l$/8l ; now it must also contain R? considering we have stand alone machines networked that have this 1 equation in aeffection "beware fueline drs",,, they being 'petrol pumps' of this kind; ; it is theoretically logical to assume that the computer has already placed R? in this file to a certain extent - in the same way carberettas recycle what is still useable energy,, but what is this carberetta; ; the mainframe has no other unique specialists of this kind and we wonder it will or would disturb the network to be connected to the petrol pumps all the time; ; now it is simple in that the regulator has saveable information =x= so a new file; ; G#R?=lR!l ; ; this is a file containing a link to the saved information as much as qudos predicts; ; but what if as our last file approaches; ; you cannot save the regulator information --- what is like enough is only that it can be selected and pasted in that case the same qudos; ; what if it is especially protected; the mainframe operates within parametres our interests 742/1484 and now because we cannot grasp the regular information in this way 100000x --- this because of mistakes in our ways abbacus;; the limit of our parametre is something like;  ; 500000; ; our low is an OS low of some kind of guesswork; ; so theoretically our file has to link the word or line OS500000, in the same way; ; so now we have a folder H@, containing F# & G#, in which is the fueline memorandum || ok in this folder we can put E# which is the petrol pump cognition; ; we can link this folder now into another file the final one; ; I#e; ; ; and folder all of that into IE@; ; ; this is a rosegarden or rosebed in this way containing all the information relating to disinfecting in a similar way the mainframe;;; ;;; ;;; NO!!!!!!!!!!; ; say the people it will crash break destroy - become evil and so on; ; don't do this pay lots of money in some effect of patience; ; various revelations happen; ; ; it is up to you to try in that case; ; mmm, they trusted my one equation enough can i make that one a simple one; ; YES??????????; ; (IE@)E[1]<>F<=>G{I}=2; ; can we simplyfy that --- as might do; ; Ix<=>(Fg)E=y; ; as long as it regards our formations of interests; ; or contains disinfectant; ;

HOW TO DISINFECT THE INTERNET:... in that case let's assume our equation works, and no-one has 'matrixed' it too much regards want; ; the internet has only one place i can think of can be linked into & that is JAVA; ; specifically created to realise VIRTUAL machines and cater for them as would-forest; ; which is unreliable because JAVA washes itself all the time; ; but we can link it's links; ; into an internet protocol; ; and indeed programme at simplicity; ; |INRI just SPQR|; ; so our equation now [3] we want to have protect the internet from java; ; ***; ; also wrong in venacula memory because in doing so we protect the internet from java and then the various reliants become complaints; ; but we know what we mean; ; so let's take a java programme - and place our equation in it, & one day it might be seen used by the internet like a sort of tramp on holiday; ; ACTIVA ACTIVA; ; we need a sort of digital washing machine; ; they are that give or take wiring these days; ; now it's a tramp that has stolen a washing machine or is sleeping in laundry; ; it might be seen one day; ; ACTIVA ACTIVA; any link here |3=JAVA...ACTIVA| has established this reputation in a way - so now our tramp is cleaned up, is made to work in the laundry; ; 'have you seen the laundromat @ java'; ; "tramp"; ; ACTIVA; still not good enough and leaves some pages undisturbed; ; our reputation has preceeded us; ; LA=JAZZ; ; but now despite having that as a name and variously a laundromat reputation we find that jazz musicians come and think; ; it's not about that; ; ; |||; ; feeling SIC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.51.75 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How is it so fast?

How can you check a file for 20,000 different viruses in a millisecond or so? -- 217.190.204.239 17:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on the settings, the software might just be checking for virus files in known locations instead of scanning everything, which is a lot harder. VB.NETLover (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This page is a giant virus link to winfixer. Edit asap.

reverted. Femto 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is the best? (I think avast!)

Which is the best Antivirus software ? I am having avast and i like it. Have u ever heard of avast? Anishgirdhar 13:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The comparison site was too commercial so I removed it. Just because it is a .org site does not exempt it from commercialism. It is only fair that no comparison site be allowed if they all can't be here. Why was it removed? An editor choose to remove my AV comparison site I put here yesterday that has more comprehensive AV information with the same links to the manufacturers. If an editor, whom I could not find any qualification in AV on his bio, makes this decision based on Wiki rules then we need to go over what the rule is. I feel the removal was unwarranted. We have a full staff of certified AV technicians. We have over 10 years experience with every AV product. Our comparison, in our professional opinion, would be of more value than the site that was removed. By the way, our tests on AV products comes to different conclusions that the removed site. Oue web site link has personnel that have certifications in AV engineering. The link I removed is run by self described "students" with no advanced certification to be doing the test and their links are to commercial sites that give them a commission for sales. It is carefully crafted as an "information" site that appears to be, using our experience in such matters, a cloaked a commercial site. If they would like to respond and tell us more about what makes their site acceptable for Wikipedia I am all ears. No matter what value the comparison site may be to a consumer, it is impossible to allow one site that even hints of commercialism if you do not allow all of them. In most cases it is impossible to have links to valuable information if the "no commercial links" rule is enforced to its exact wording. Trotline 14:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(Added a subject line to the above and moved discussion to the bottom)
You say "It is only fair that no comparison site be allowed if they all can't be here. Why was it removed? An editor choose to remove my AV comparison site I put here yesterday that has more comprehensive AV information with the same links to the manufacturers." To the several guideline recently recommended for your review by various editors I'll add one more: WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Next you say, "Our comparison, in our professional opinion, would be of more value than the site that was removed." Please take time to study WP:Conflict of interest -- in view of your organization's close

connection to the companies and products whose articles you want to change, you should be taking any proposed changes to the talk page for discussion. Restating what I've said elsewhere, we don't have a "no commercial links" rule, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I suggest you take some time off from editing to absorb the material pointed to, then contribute to the encyclopedia, don't just add links. Everything said here also applies to your edits in Talk:Symantec, it's tiresome to repeat the same points in two places. Finally, I suggest that you not whip out your credentials with "my computer experience is 30 years", that doesn't fly here, and it's a game you won't always win. --CliffC 04:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I submit to CliffC that the issue needs discussing and you have not done so. I would like to answer specifically one thing you said...You said you are a self proclaimed person who is "ignorant of the software business". This is the same as me helping you out by saying I have 30 years in the software business and have been doing the Internet since it's inception. So I will know what level we are discussing the issue on it is considered polite to state your credentials to participate in the discussion so the others can get your comments in perspective. (FYI I have visited your page and already have that much info.) The problem I have with discussing an issue with you is your logic is running in circles. And you only seem to have one narrow point of view that supports your perspective, which seems to be "keep one commercial link and ban all others". I do not have time to respond to it if you can not stay on issue. I will repeat here what I said on the Symantec site.... Unfortunately all I can assume from the constant restoring of the commercial link is that the people constantly restoring it do not want to discuss the validity of linking to one commercial site and banning all others. (Which would be an obvious breach of NPOV) Due to that it _appears_ on the surface that the folks restoring the links have a financial interest in the links. This , to me, make it apparent the issue needs to be escalated. Does anyone else want to shed some light on the issue? The original issue is this: "Should one commercial link that is constantly restored by one user be allowed when the same user is constantly deleting other commercial links?"Trotline 14:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(Added indentation to the above)
Your analysis is not correct, the issue is this: "Should the biased edits of a new editor who is a Symantec reseller be allowed to stand?"

  • Your first two edits here added a Symantec link, out-of-sequence, to a list of links in an article that has already mentioned Symantec five times
  • Your third edit here added your company's website to the external links section in Symantec
  • Your fourth edit here removed a long-standing link to a pertinent article about Symantec at a competitor's website from the external links section in Symantec
  • Your fifth and sixth edits here placed a link to your company's website at the top of the "Reviews" section in Norton AntiVirus
  • Your seventh edit here placed a link to your "Antivirus Advice" site at the top of the External links section of Antivirus software
  • Your eighth edit here removed a link to a competitor's antivirus review site from the External links section of Antivirus software

I and one or two other editors saw the pattern and reverted these edits. A warning was placed on your talk page, you posted here in Talk:Antivirus software, reversions were reverted back and forth, another warning was issued, a great deal of talk ensued and a lot of smoke was blown, both here and in Talk:Symantec. I don't see anything resulting from all that, so I'm going to post at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests and ask for comments.

In all that talk and smoke, you have made a couple of statements I can't let pass unchallenged.
You have misquoted me as proclaiming myself ""ignorant of the software business". That is not what I said. I was brought up not to blow my own horn, and I did modestly say on another talk page "I don't know much about the software business, but...". When I say "software business", I am talking about software sales and service, not software development. You brag over and over of your 30 years in the software business as though it carries great weight, so against my best judgment I'll unzip and show you mine: I have been in software development since 1968. You do the math.

You seem interested in my user page, you call it a "bio" and seem to expect it to be some sort of resumé. I have no need to post my resumé, as I am not in need of employment. Last year an editor much like yourself wanted to know "what qualifications CliffC has as a journalist", and I'll give you the same answer I gave him: my past contributions here are my resumé, just as your own contributions are yours. --CliffC 02:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion has gone way off topic so I will close it here. I will await a higher authority to step in. Until then I will continue to remove links from "self proclaimed experts" that are obvious attempts to promote a web site. They are also violating NPOV since the posters of the links keep removing other similar links. I rest my case. Trotline 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a higher authority in editing disputes expect Jimbo. What we have are guidelines and polices that say we don't do spam and we are not a free webhost and we are a non-profit charity so we don't do advertisng. Concerning the other stuff, feel free to review WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
10-4 Spartaz. I have reviewed my decision to delete links that are similar to the one I posted that kept being deleted with no justification in a discussion. I will do the opposite. I will add my link back to the "comparison group" of sites. My link is for antivirusadvice.com and the web site is similar to the others in the same group. If anyone wants to remove it again, please start a new topic and be specific about your reasoning for removing it.

@Trotline: stop promoting your own website. The goal of the site which you continuosly post is to earn money thru referals (see all the "Buy now" buttons). A bit of googling shows that the site you post (antivirusadvice) exists since some weeks only and that you are the one trying to promote it. Googling the other sites, which are real/true independent antivirus review sites, shows that they are world-wide known, respected and recognized websites/testers, with no financial interest in the outcome of the tests (and you will for sure not find any affiliate referal buy now link on those independent sites). So, please, stop trotlling.Spuernase 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious statement

In the "Issues of concern" section, one of the statements is that

"It is important to note that one should not have more than one antivirus software installed on a single computer at any given time. This can seriously cripple the computer and cause further damage. ..."

I have never heard this statement before, and indeed, this goes against everything I have ever been taught or read about PC security. If no one can explain the rationale behind this statement or give a valid reference for it, I will remove it. --Dinoguy1000 Talk 00:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see where the source provided states that you should not have more than one antivirus program installed because it could "seriously cripple the computer and cause further damage". In fact, the source offers no rationale for this recommendation, and the fact that it's from Microsoft (who couldn't tell a security hole from a brick wall) means I wouldn't particularly trust it. In any case, get me a third-party source, with an explanation as to why you shouldn't install multiple AV programs, and I'll leave the statement alone. --Dinoguy1000 Talk 18:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This is true, sometimes. If to antivirus software suites try to do a similar thing at the same time, like dump a list of running processes to scan them, or access the same folder on a hard drive, conflicts can occur. For example, if both programs find a virus at the same time, they both might try to do something with it at the same time, resulting in system errors. If someone can find a reference to this phenomenon, we should keep the sentence, and I think we should try to look for a reference because this is an important statement. VB.NETLover (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Code for detecting Virus

Need of Sample source code for antivirus. Also further explanation of antivirus detection technique needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.96.6 (talk • contribs)

Please post at the bottom of talk pages and sign your post using four tildes {~~~~).
I doubt this article will be expanded to include that sort of information, but try Googling "Code for detecting Virus", without the quotes. --CliffC 19:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Detecting viruses is easier said than done. You won't find any useful code for detecting viruses that is just a code snippet. Antivirus engines are thousands and thousands of lines of code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.233.248 (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

in the "Other approaches" setion, "virus signatures" refer to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Signatures... it shouldn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twipley (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. VB.NETLover (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Other terms?

I'm a newbie, so not sure where else this should go. But shouldn't there be a reference to other terms for not-really-antiVIRUS "antivirus" programs? You know, removers of spyware, adware, trojans, etc. I know there's at least a growing trend to call the lot "anti-malware", a term mentioned in the malware article. I'm surprised there isn't a move to call it "fixware", both for the job it does and the reference to the programmer you cite. Are there any others?

(Now, if I can manage to avoid screwing up the actual posting of this...) Khyranleander (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Khyranleander

I suggeset we add this link: [1] It has a ranking of best antivirus software -- penubag  (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

grammar

"Anti virus software are computer programs" Oh no it ain't. Its an 'is'. "software" is a collective noun . Compare with sportswear or spyware. mikeL come on Sinebot who should be signbot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these programs necessary at all?

IMHO this article is predicated upon acceptance of the current status quo. There is no solid coverage in the article of the real needs or benefits or utility of AV software. For instance: I'm a single user on a SOHO "system", no wireless, just a simple ADSL connection to my machine. It seems to me that if I continue to

A) use NoScript to disable all javascript (that I don't authorise)
B) use FlashBlocker to do the same with Flash
C) not open emails from people I don't know, and examine everything else using the "properties > advance" preview

then, besides the joy of not having all the razzamatazz I am secure ?? ... and would any AV stuff make me more secure anyway?? For instance, if an attachment from a colleague has a virus attached to it my AV software would make some noise and then simply ask me whether I wanted to open the file!! Well how would I know?? The supposed risk would remain there and I would have no idea. I could try reading about the general classification of the threat on the net, but that would do little more than give me an academic overview of the possibility. It still wouldn't tell me what's going to happen if I open the file. If I ring my colleague and say "hey my av says you've got a virus" would they find it, would they look, would they confirm it to me, would I trust their investigations were any good?? And how would they fare any better than me?? My daughters regularly scan their systems and find dozens of viruses. As far as I know these so called virus things have never caused them any problems and despite regularly receiving emails from them I have never had any beeps from my AV to say their emails have any problems. So, what would I do about these supposed possible "risks" that my bloated and irritating AV software may one day identify?

I feel this article needs to be expanded so that it approaches the issue from a more neutral standpoint. IMHO it is currently a low-key technical description of a software product lime and not really an encyclopaedic article. For instance where does the real risk come from? How does it arise? The only section that comes close to dealing with any of this is the "Issues of Concern" section. These issues need to be covered properly in the substance of the article not as addenda. In any case the references are only to journalistic articles in ZDNet etc. So please, more hard, critical stuff  ?  :// Thanks
LookingGlass (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Anti-virus software only, it's not about viruses themselves. Info about the origins of viruses will be on the Computer virus page. There exists a section about the effectiveness of the software. Remember wikipedia is an encylopedia, it's not a manual nor a soapbox for opinion pieces. --neon white talk 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Exactly!!!  :) As you say the issue is not about the viruses or their effectivesness but Anti-virus software. However, one is predicated upon the other. It is not possible to "discuss" anything in absolute abstraction but only by reference. The problem here is that this article seems to me to be predicated on concepts that are not addressed and which are debatable. Let me give an example of an hypothetical article on an "extreme" subject that may help clarify the point. If someone wrote an article about Necrophilia which concentrated, to the exclusion of all else, on the various practices and methodologies of it, without referring to:- the fact that the word is a medical term; that the term is used for classification of a psychological condition, that it is also a term used more generally; if the article did not contextualise the "group of psychologies" within which necrophilia resides; etc etc etc; then you would surely think that article was simply a "promotion" of necrophilia or a laudatory piece. Why then should different standards be applied to this piece simply because it is about a now fashionable (last 20 years) technology?
I agree entirely with you. This should not be a "soap box" for AV software. It should concentrate on contextualising and defining the subject. AFTER having done that successfully the further detail here would be a boon to those looking for AV software, especially if it could include any good external references i.e. not to journalistic pieces or to "expert" advertising (e.g. 9/10 dentists/dogs/doctors etc recommend ...) At the moment, as you say, it is almost a promotional piece. I don't think I'd go that far, but it is unquestioning and uncritical, both of which are fundamental requirements for "objective" writing, such as for an encyclopaedia LookingGlass (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

cross-OS antivirus aspects

Do most/all Linux anti-virus tools scan just for Linux viri, or all known including windows? If I boot a Linux livecd to rescue a windows system, will it find the windows infections if it includes antivirus tools? These kinds of OS-related and cross-OS matters should be mentioned in all of the antivirus articles. Including virtual OSes running within the same and other OSes, and simpler matters like WINE within Linux... -69.87.199.190 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A Linux antivirus tool will not scan for Windows viruses, it will scan for viruses on the system it was designed for; Linux. There may be cross OS tools you can download/buy but I don't know of any. VB.NETLover (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
not true many scanners running on linux will scan for windows viruses, which is very useful if you are using the linux box as a server for a number of windows clients.

Just google for anti-virus for windows and linux, and a list will show up

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Antivirus vs. Virus

This article seems to have a lot of information that applies specifically to viruses, not virus scanners. Should we migrate some of this? Qbeep (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In reading through the article I don't see a lot of information on viruses that isn't required at a basic level to explain antivirus software, so perhaps you can point out what you think is beyond the scope of this article? Obviously anything that isn't needed here could be moved to Computer virus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
as a top-of-the-head example, it's not necessary to name all the variations of virus polymorphism. The general concept of polymorphic virus detection may be cleaner without it Qbeep (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
a more concrete example. Consider the following:

"Powerful macros in word processors such as Microsoft Word presented a further risk. Virus writers started using the macros to write viruses that attached themselves to documents; this meant that computers could now also be at risk from infection by documents (with hidden attached macros) as programs. Later email programs, in particular Microsoft Outlook Express and Outlook, became able to execute program code from within a message's text by simply reading the message, or even previewing its content. Virus checkers now had to check many more types of files. As broadband always-on connections became the norm and more and more viruses were released, it became essential to update virus checkers more and more frequently; even then, a new virus could spread widely before it was detected, identified, a checker update released, and virus checkers round the world updated."

we're looking at an unwieldly mix of history and virus classification; with some careful editing (and possibly relocation of some content to other parts of the article) this could be trimmed down to about two sentences without harming the utility of the article. Qbeep (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me to trim that down and make it more concise, then. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cloud AV

Is it just me, or does this section seem more like an advertisment? FSBDavy (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it certainly does. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Have a look now and see if that is an improvement. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Better! But- does it belong in the "Issues of concern" section at all?218.166.149.111 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a very good point! In looking at it, I agree and have moved to to its own section. Have a look at it, though perhaps it would better fit in elsewhere? - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


I understand the value of this project

Hi HamburgerRadio (talk), I understand it very well that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, and its external links do not alter search engine rankings. However, I thought that referring to http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/download_firewall.html will help users to get the information that Comodo offers through its Antivirus Software. Please let me know your take on this context. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 07:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)--

Please see some of the links included in my message, particularly WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Perhaps in a different context, such as a List of antivirus software, it would be appropriate. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional if you check WP:EL you will see that external links are not used in article text, specifically to avoid this sort of spamming. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Noted, thank you. Shall consider these points in my future contributions. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 07:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmin (talk • contribs)

Do we really need citations absolutely everywhere?

Oh well done the Needs Citation spammer. That is SO irritating, especially when it is next to plain and simple facts such the statement on Word macro viruses emerging. I was there. They did. What's to cite? Posted by an alarming normal user - not a Wiki head so please don't flame me for having the temerity to suggest the page is now hard to read and commenting on it in this unsophisticated style. ...That posting needs citation at the end of every paragraph is annoying is a simple fact also. I use Wiki a lot as a reader and other pages don't suffer from this.

I take it that reaction was due to the potential for AV manufacturers to interfere with and bias the page. Fine. All I am saying is it's gone a bit far / crudely applied to every para whether a company is mentioned or not.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.230.173 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a good question. The reason the cite tags are there is because this article has been, and largely still is, filled with unsourced opinions. Have a read through WP:V. As that makes clear anything that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged has to be cited or removed. Jimmy Wales, quoted on that page sums it up best:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales [1]
  1. ^ Jimmy Wales (2006-05-16). ""Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"". WikiEN-l electronic mailing list archive. Retrieved 2006-06-11.
The key thing is that the tags warn readers that the text is unreliable. So we can easily get rid of the tags anytime by removing the text that is tagged or by providing references. It is probably time that this article was completely cleaned up anyway.
As far as the "I know, I was there" line of reasoning goes, have a look through WP:OR. Original research is fine on a blog, but is not acceptable on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Of note I have started going though this article and looking for references for each section. This will take a while, so feel free to help out! - Ahunt (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In regards to your links to antivirusworld .com and virus-scan-software .com; antivirusworld .com is copied from pandasoftware.com, and virus-scan-software .com is copied from a paper by Eugene Kaspersky called "Computer Viruses - what are they and how to fight them?". Per Wikipedia:Copyrights, the official English Wikipedia policy on copyrights: "... if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." --HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay I wasn't aware those were copyright vios. Let's see if we can find the originals and link to those instead. Do you have those links handy? - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find a non-copyvio version of Kaspersky's paper on the web, but it's still citable even if it's not online. Panda's paper appears to be from [2]. The reason I looked into it and found the copvios was because it didn't seem to meet WP:RS. In a fast-moving technical area, I don't think one should be too strict about WP:RS, but until I looked into the ultimate source, I didn't see any reason to consider them reliable sources. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well if you can cite Kaspersky's paper (I don't have a copy) then I will change the other link. - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I changed the reference to something I had all the publication information for. But it's unfortunately not online. If you can find a reference that's online and meets WP:RS, go ahead and change it. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
That is just great! Thank you for your help. If you have more refs that would help this article please do add them! - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to jump on your edits again, but tipsoninterview .com is copied from Wikipedia. The similarities are most striking if you look at some older revisions, say around http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Antivirus_software&oldid=263035106
Also again, the reason I looked into it was because the site didn't seem to meet WP:RS. isoftwarereviews .com also seems to not meet WP:RS, but I thought I'd give you a chance to defend that before reverting. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Nope I am not defending anything - just trying very hard to find some worthwhile refs for this article full of hearsay. It is incredibly hard to find anything reliable that backs up what is written here. As you noted, much of what is available is cribbed from this article, creating a circular form of reality. It is tempting to remove all the challenged text instead. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I referenced it a bit more. I stopped because the text just seemed rambling and repetitive. Probably should be trimmed down before trying to reference it more. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That is the main problem I encountered here - the article is a disorganized and unreferenced mess. I figured if I could find refs then it could be cut down and rearranged, but perhaps you are correct and it should be cut down and re-written first and refs added afterwards. I work much better writing articles from the refs rather than trying to find refs for doubtful statements and claims, especially in a field like this where there is no seminal textbook available. In a way Wikipedia has become too successful and well-known for that latter method to work anymore - all you find are websites with text swiped from the article. I recently saw a case where text was removed from an article as a "copyright vio", but it turned out to be the otherwise round, the Wikipedia article came first, the other site copied it. If you have the interest and the refs please do tear into this - it needs a total rewrite, but from the refs this time around. - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well there has been little work on this problem since July and in fact the amount of unreferenced hearsay has increased as mostly IP editors have dropped more unsourced "rumour-level" text in here. Overall I think the article is getting worse, not better. I realize that some of the unsourced text may well be correct, but it is hard to prove. Does anyone with sufficient technical background in this area want to go through it, remove the incorrect information, re-organize the article, tighten up the language and find sources for everything that is retained? If not I propose that all the unsourced text be removed, the article then be reorganized and after that let's see if we can grow the article from there, with refs this time to ensure that it isn't just a collection of opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay since we have a consensus for this proposed plan I will proceed in four phases: 1. Removing unsourced text, 2. detagging, 3. Confirming that the existing refs support the remaining text, 4. Reorganizing the remaining text. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The basic work described above is now complete, so if anyone else would like to wade in on reorganizing please go ahead and do so. I still have some work to do, like formating bare references, but I can do that in the background. - Ahunt (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Okay I am done now. The article still needs some work by a subject matter expert, but in reply to User:84.92.230.173 who started this thread, you can note that the tags are all gone now! - Ahunt (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No single anti-virus/anti-malware package is 100% effective!

Countless times I've seen Windows computers infected with malware, despite having anti-virus software installed, running permanently in the background AND fully updated.

No matter what anti-virus package is installed and watching the computer at all times, Windows can - and does - get infected, when it shouldn't. No single anti-virus package is 100% effective. With suitable "ref" links, I think this needs to be added to the section "Issues of concern".

Once infected, you need to run another anti-virus/anti-malware program OUTSIDE of Windows (example AntiVir Rescue System boot disc) to disinfect the system. A lot of malware, viruses etc. are so clever that you can't remove them when Windows is running and the malware itself is running, although you can try booting into safe mode. Perhaps this also needs adding to the section "Issues of concern" - that sometimes you can only disinfect the system by running the anti-virus/anti-malware tool from a boot disc (created on another computer that's clean of malware) or disinfecting Windows in safe mode.

I'm glad I use Ubuntu 99% of the time. :)

TurboForce (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You make some good points here, if you have some reliable refs that discuss this I think it would make a good addition to the article. I am glad I use Ubuntu 100% of the time! - Ahunt (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad my points have been noticed. I will need help here as trying to find "suitable" ref links is tricky in itself. This is the same problem I've been arguing like mad over in the talk page: Talk:Criticism_of_Microsoft_Windows from point 10 onwards on that page. Yes I use computers all the time I've and spent thousands of hours on computers and sorting out many problems, but trying to prove them with "ref" links is very taxing. In the case of anti-virus software, no single anti-virus/anti-malware product will make your computer like a bank safe, but more than one running at a time can create conflicts and cause Windows to malfunction. As for Windows Defender, I think that's just snake oil and all it does is slow the computer down without providing any real benefits; yes I've seen computers infected with Windows Defender installed and running - it's just lame. It's a question of how many layers of protection you can safely use without causing system problems and not slowing down Windows too much, since one product alone doesn't work effectively. TurboForce (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
All a convincing argument not to use Windows! Perhaps there are some overall view type articles or columns that deal with this sort of issue that would make good refs? Although I am not sure where to find something like that, perhaps others watching this page have some suggestions. - Ahunt (talk)
An overview should include or refer to behavioral, physical, and browsing/email hygiene components of security, as well as user accounts & rights management, how to blend active (real-time) and periodic scan programs, other means of recognizing infection or damage, and (in addition to following the limited instructions of the AV program) how to recover from the damage left after the AV program is 'finished'. That leads to the security issue & complexities of file backup (manual or sfw or cloud), and preventing backup from being contaminated before or after the damage is detected or repaired.

- Wikid (talk) 16:44, 2 Feb 2012 (UTC-5)

It's been 2 weeks and I've not seen any changes to the article yet. I know finding the suitable "ref" links can be tedious, but I have to reiterate that NO single anti-virus/anti-malware program or suite will stop Windows becoming infected. This week alone I've had to deal with a Windows Vista installation that was destroyed by viruses, despite it having an UP TO DATE anti-virus package installed and its real time protection running at all times!
Perhaps we could also explain the purpose of AppArmor in Linux and how it helps protect the system from zero-day attacks (source: click here).
Re: Ahunt - I use Ubuntu 'only' 99% of the time because I have to use VirtualDub, which doesn't support Linux (yet?), hence the dual-boot setup comes in handy. I see you've made lots of edits to Wikipedia, maybe you have more time than me to find "ref" links and edit the anti-virus article to prove to the world that no single protection will make Windows totally immune. I've seen Windows' files vaporised by viruses/malware too many times, despite the so-called protection being active and up-to-date. TurboForce (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC) <- (Time shown here is one hour behind due to British Summer Time).
Excellent points! I am having a busy couple of weeks here myself, but let me see what I can find. - Ahunt (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC) (Zulu time doesn't do daylight savings time!)
Thank you for your quick response Ahunt. I see your timestamp is 1 hour behind actual UK time. I don't know if other users in different countries have this problem with the timestamps on Wikipedia? Slight correction in my previous post, i.e. "it's been 2 weeks and still nobody's mentioned that having just a single anti-virus/anti-malware suite does NOT provide 100% protection and Windows can still become infected". Phew. This is not the only article that requires more information relevant to today's computing needs, other pages include the IRQ discussion page. Where can we find lots of experts out there who can help us? TurboForce (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully people are watching the pages or on the WikiProject Computers or Software pages, but if not then it becomes a do-it-yourself project! - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC) The time stamps are actually UTC (or GMT if you prefer) so they aren't local time, but universal time.

I did find a useful ref with one idea why this might be so and have added a new section at Antivirus_software#New_viruses. - Ahunt (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ahunt, I'm very pleased to read your latest contribution. Your latest edit in the article proves that anti-virus software alone is not 100% effective at catching viruses/malware. Perhaps someone could briefly explain how sandboxing helps e.g. AppArmor in Linux, as I can see there is a link to "Sandbox (computer security)" in the "See also" section. I know what sandboxing is and know that it limits what programs can do, but trying to explain how this prevents viruses taking over the operating system is tricky for me to write in a way that newbies can understand. I would say this approach is similar to the principle of least privilege; basically like the over-tight "limited" account in Windows XP which prevents viruses/malware from having unlimited access to the rest of the operating system, but using the "limited" account in Windows XP stops certain programs from working properly source. As I'm learning more about Linux, I know that you have to be a "root" user to run system tasks, which hinders the ability of viruses to infect Linux, in addition to AppArmor which comes with Ubuntu (I don't know much about AppArmor, other than knowing what it is and its intended purpose). TurboForce (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I just found another recent ref and so have added further text on this subject. I'll keep an eye out for more refs available. - Ahunt (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Another good source of data might be the proactive tests from http://www.av-comparatives.org or the latest proactive tests from Virus Bulletin. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. :) TurboForce (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
User:HamburgerRadio: Nice to hear from you, thanks for those tips. I used the first one to expand the text on effectiveness. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking it would be good information to write something fact-based. Something like "When faced with malware they hadn't seen (the proactive test), the antivirus programs with the best detection caused many false positives [depending on whether the consensus is that it's generally true], while popular antivirus programs x and y detected x% and y% of the unknown malware." --HamburgerRadio (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antivirus_software/Archive_1&oldid=1264633543"