I have Kaspersky 6.0.3 in my computer, it always updates. And I'm afraid, if I get Skype and begin to meet people and speak to them using it, some viruses can damage my computer as it already happens two times. But I couldn't update antivirus then. Does anyone have the same antivirus? Does damage happen with your computer because of Skype(through it)? What anivirus programme do you have? What do you think is the best?

if you're so paranoid about viruses I'd suggest switching to Ubuntu linux, you can run skype on it, and it's still rather obscure compared with Windows so probably even fewer viruses get written for it than for Mac OS X

Well.. In fact your antivirus (Kaspersky v6.0.3) is a little old. Just install a newer version of it (or Kaspersky Internet Security, it includes firewall). It's quite user friendly. A good firewall, if configured well, can protect you from some suspicious connections.
Or you can do exact what mentor said: install UNIX-like operating system: Ubuntu, Fedora core, openSuse or any other. Unix-like system uses another execution file format so it can't run any Windows applications include viruses. There is a Skype version for UNIX-like OS. In fact I'm using ubuntu at this moment and I never had any problems with viruses.

Andy McKey
mentor
Thank you.

Interesting information

I use an antivirus Avira and a scanner d.web and my w7 is ok!The most essential thing is update.

I use an antivirus Avira and a scanner d.web and my w7 is ok!The most essential thing is update.

mentor
Andy McKey
beginner
Thank you!

I use an antivirus Avira and a scanner d.web and my w7 is ok!The most essential thing is update.

It's all good and proper but a decent edition of Win 7 (not the home basic crap) costs several hundred bucks while ubuntu is free, as in 'no money ever has to be paid for it' and it too updates automatically, in fact every time a new version comes out the system offers to update to it through the internet, I doubt if you can beat that.

mentor
Could you write the full name of this ubuntu?

I use Avast, I like it. And also it's free for downloading and updating!

flave
I can do better than that - [www.ubuntu.com]

Hello everyone...
For windows You might use Nod32 anti-virus software. I found it very nice for me and I guess it'll never upset me. On linux I think there is no need to setup anything cause no dangerous virus there. So I have a choice. If you still on windows I had better upgrade to win7. There is User Account Control helping prevent virus attack.

ESET Smart Security works for me )) Never tried Kaspersky and NOD has never given me a chance for a switch. If you want a complete safety, you may want to install some virtualization software - ICore Virtual accounts, Shadow user.

Юлька
I use Avast, I like it. And also it's free for downloading and updating!

Avast is not free.
I use Avast and Nod

Avast is not free.

last I checked there was a free version available

avira! Way better than avast. Nod also missed some viruses, moreover it also moves and deletes some harmless files.

avira premium security suite, i am glad how it works.Anyway it depends on people i think,someone prefers dr.web or Kaspersky there are people who like Panda.)

Currently using AVG Anti-virus. Seems fine. But then, you never know.

I've been using AVG for years.

hopsteder You may be mistaken. Avast is free for home use.

I'm currently running Avast at home and Comodo Internet Security at work. Haven't had any problems so far.
PS: I've been running Comodo for about half a year. It's main advantage is that it can be used in a corporate network absolutely free of charge.

Standard antivirus software is long outdated and used only to make sure whether a file is a malware or not.

More advanced are HIPS (proactive protection) for they can protect from zero-day threats (unknown viruses).

So,
1) you should leave only really necessary services running and configure policies properly;
2) if you don't have a hardware router then you should consider a decent firewall;
3) you'd rather use a HIPS (Comodo D+, ThreatFire, DefenseWall etc) instead of a standard AV;
4) you should know all common processes running and files on your disks;
5) periodically do make backups (!)

For power users and those who really care:
6) you should consider a virtual environment for testing/ checking any suspicious or unknown software like SandBoxIE (btw strongly recommended for browsers)
7) use LUA (limited user account) to greatly mitigate possible consequences (very handy via SuRun)
8) if you've replaced AV with a HIPS then once a month download CureIT or AVPTool to remove dead viri and inactive malware garbage;
. . .

The last and the most important thing - STAY SENSIBLE ;)

mentor
Thank you.
And thank you, everybody!
Now I use Avast. It's easier to understand for me.

Jim
Oh! How complicated for me :) But I am going to learn these things a bit.

That's ok, flave. Should you have any specific question - you're welcome.

N.B.
1) Before any modifications *always* make backup;
2) Check via 'MSCONFIG' for possible autoruns alternation;
3) If possible, try modifying the system gradually and write the changes down;
4) Use some 'automated' utils which can easily revert; e.g. WWDC (Windows Worms Doors Cleaner) and 'Security & Privacy Complete' if something goes wrong just uncheck the option.

I prefer Acronis Home (that old free edition) to MS built-in System Restore which often failed me and which is very often abused as viri container, so when you restore your system you restore those viri too.

Jim

Standard antivirus software is long outdated and used only to make sure whether a file is a malware or not.

More advanced are HIPS (proactive protection) for they can protect from zero-day threats (unknown viruses).

This is nonsense... HIPS means Host-based Intrusion Prevention. Such systems utilize the following methods:

• Signature-based Detection
• Statistical Anomaly-based Detection
• Stateful Protocol Analysis Detection
  

In other words, it is using knowing suspicious signatures and some other heuristics based on existing attacks today. So, such systems may produce false alarms, and also it provides very little if any protection against new types of attacks. I don't want to say those systems are useless, but I would not rely on them very much if you have to worry about zero-day threats. And zero-day threats does NOT mean unknown viruses, it means an exploit for which there is no patch yet. Most computers that are infected by viruses are infected not due to zero-day threats, but because some software on them is not updated. While Microsoft provides automatic update, it updates only Microsoft software, while many third-party applications (or third-party components, which almost invisible to users unless they look inside the Windows registry) remain vulnerable for a long time, and this is the main cause of infection.

deaptor, would you care to provide a link to the source of your definition? English version of Wiki? Then it would be nice of you to read Russian one too before confusing others, because I think you intentionally or ignorantly confuse ID(P)S and HIPS.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
HIPS is a PROactive protection (action is taken BEFORE, not as AV do REactively - AFTER a threat is known), so it contains no signature database (but may) and doesn't detect it (but may); thus HIPS doesn't use such definitions as 'legit - illegit file' (clean - infected), but 'allowed - denied action'. Properly configured HIPS efficiency is about 100%, but such software usually requires at minimum moderate computer skills.
There're three main groups of HIPS:

1) Classic or rule-based HIPS (e.g. System Safety Monitor, AntiHook) which use a predefined rule table of allowing or denying rules or, if an undefined action is takes, - ask the user what to do and remember this new rule. Such systems make OS running in manual mode what promises very high results, but heavily relies on the user's IT competency.

2) Expert or behavior-based HIPS (e.g. ThreatFire) which analuze active applications and processes. If the application tries to do something wrong or harmful then it prompt about it and ask what to do. Also the user can make it a permanent rule and thus see only 'new' unknow or manual prompts. But if the user says 'Yes' to a malware then... It also requires both attention and exp.

3) Sandbox HIPS (e.g. DefenseWall HIPS, Sandboxie.) is a quite new attempt to minimize user interaction. They use definition of 'trusted and untrusted applications'; 'trusted' applications work as usually without monitoring, but 'untrusted' are run in an isolated virtual environment. So the user can work without a risk to infect or damage the system and, if necessary - see the log of the application activity.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Many users, such as deaptor, mistakenly take AV systems as the front-line defense, which is apparently isn't. For example, even award-winning AVs do let viri penetrate and damage the system, but my old enforced ThreatFire easily blocks *all* malwares, including new ones. The main problem is when it encounters a new 'behavior' it often asks the user what to do, but in a month it only asks a few ans sensitive questions (about new/ modified software only). One more posible drawback is HIPS must be installed unto 100% clean (not infected) system. It's worth it.

If you are so afraid then just complement your AV with a HIPS (if it doesn't have one). See threatfire.com.
For more tips see http://antivirus.about.com/od/securitytips/a/safetytips.htm

Cheers

Jim
here's a wiki article on intrusion prevention systems:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrusion_prevention_system

Properly configured HIPS efficiency is about 100%

no AV or intrusion prevention system can be 100% effective, for instance in your own description of of HIPS you talk about how Sandbox HIPS allows 'trusted applications' to do pretty much whatever they want and what if there's a hole in a trusted application? There goes your 'pro-activeness' down the chute.
100% protection against viruses and malware would be a computer on which you install all the software you need once, then disable the CD/DVD ROM and all usb ports and never connect it to the internet, just use it in this original configuration, never installing any new software on it and never using it to surf the net, now that computer would be 100% virus proof.
The vast majority of viruses and malware get copied onto computers by the users themselves that have a tendency to click on every pop-up that tells them they've just won a million dollars or that this new piece of software they can download right now can help them increase the speed of their internet connection a hundredfold. The user is the weakest link in this whole set-up. Even the best AV software is at best 70% effective. And as for HIPS, as you pointed out yourselves, these systems make the rather foolish assumption that the user knows what they're doing, it's all good in theory, but in reality after the HIPS asks the user for the tenth time about whether some weird action requested by some application with cryptic name should be allowed, most users will be just too exasperated with the whole thing and 9 out of 10 will simply disable the damn thing, after all they're trying to get some work done on their computer, they're not really that much interested in spending their precious time and energy on helping their machine to 'pro-actively' protect against 'possible' or 'perceived' threats.
So in others HIPS are overrated and no panacea, too much user involvement, my estimate would be that their actual effectiveness is perhaps 50% at best.
Now, short of cutting your machine off the internet, the second best protection against viruses, imho, is to use a really obscure OS that few people write viruses for. Btw that's the reason while Apple were able to claim their machines have no problems with viruses and malware for so long, with a 5-7% market share, most virus writers saw no point in bothering to write viruses for macs, but now as macs are gaining in popularity, the situation has started to change.

Another fly to an open mouth... First, this is Wiki, second - did you also care to read a Russian version written by one of the Kaspersky Lab IT specialists? Third, the very fist line of the provided article reads:
'***Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS)***, also known as ***Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems (IDPS)***'

Mind it. The following extract from threatfire.com might sound as an ad, but it says what I want some stubborn 'users' to be aware of:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
'PCs are under constant attack from viruses, spyware and identity theft. Every day you hear about a new threat to your PC. They're coming faster than ever before, they're getting harder to stop and traditional antivirus products are not able to keep up.

Will your antivirus software catch the latest malware that just came out today? In most cases, no, because it simply does not know how to detect it yet. But ThreatFire's ActiveDefense [HIPS] technology does, and has proven to provide up to 243% more protection when combined with traditional AntiVirus products.'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nowadays the most user-friendly HIPS is Sandbox category - they ask almost no questions; although the viri may run but sandboxed, so they are harmless.

> P.S. If some other 'user' wants to provide the same link to Wiki and share his opinion without using or even seeing a HIPS - please don't bother. At least the slightest idea is required to be biased.

Jim
That bit you quote sounds like and ad because it is an ad.
I'm not disputing the fact that by design, scanning packets in the network traffic for suspicious activities can potentially offer better protection than the traditional AV approach of detecting known virus signatures in files that have already been copied onto your computer, however, claiming that it can provide 100% protection is a bit of an overstatement. Instead of virus signatures these systems rely on 'rules' and pre-defined ' behaviours' to sort 'good' traffic from 'potentially' malicious activities and the key word here is 'potentially', as I said earlier what it all boils down to at the end of the day is user discretion, because any HIP or AV system can always be overridden by the user. Plus another question is what happens if/when malware/virus designers learn how to masquerade the malicious traffic of their viruses and malware as the 'legal'/accepted traffic of some other 'benign' applications to which HIPS simply won't react?
As for the sandbox approach, as I see it there are at least two potential problems with it:
1) can it be implemented in all modern OS's?
2) suppose a piece of malicious software is running in a sand box, so it can't really do any harm to the machine it's running on, so we're ok there, but suppose it's not really interested in harming the machine, but simply cheats the hapless user into providing information about their email account or some other personal information such as credit card details so it can then be used for various malicious purposes, would HIPS intervene with that and prevent the user for submitting all that info or would it just limit itself to making sure that the 'suspicious' app is running in a sandbox and not causing any harm to the computer, while allowing the user to get on with revealing all sorts of personal info about themselves?
Then about what about software that makes your computer a node in a bot net? Would it still be able to run in a sandbox and do its thing?