Talk:Antivirus software/Archive 1

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 ~~~~

• Support. Theshibboleth 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually Google results are the other way around and the redirect picks up the alternate spelling anyhow. GraemeLeggett 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - my personal preference is for anti-virus, but a quick check on common useage (McAfee, Symantec), plus a check on Wiktionary (wiktionary:antivirus) shows that antivirus is the more common variant. Therefore, I support. Robwingfield 21:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Hyphenations are generally only used for clarity and neologisms in English nowadays. Since antivirus is now an accepted term and no longer neologistic jargon, and since antivirus is clear of ambiguity of meaning or pronunciation, it would seem that the unhyphenated version is what should be used. 70.88.166.197 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Re my comment above "anti-virus" 263 million, "antivirus" 158 million. GraemeLeggett 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That's because a search for anti-virus will pick up any instances of anti-virus, antivirus and anti virus, whereas a search for antivirus will only pick up results for antivirus. Therefore... not a valid test, I'm afraid. Robwingfield 21:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Deleted external link

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)

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)

External links

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)

Link to Wikipedia

in the "Other approaches" setion, "virus signatures" refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/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

add this link

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

• Avast! Official website

• Freeware Antivirus Software (wiki.castlecops.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XTerminator2000 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 1 July 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