Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 
  • Country


Everything posted by AstroSkipper

  1. FYI, I checked the root cerificates for updates and noticed this: At first glance, it looks like the disallowedcert.sst (revoked certificates) file has been updated. I downloaded it and compared it with the previous version. The contents of the two files are the same. The only thing that has been changed is the file date and timestamp on the server. So, nothing new in the West. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  2. I have tested Malware Hunter in version on my system, and it is still compatible with Windows XP. Accordingly, I updated my article. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  3. Update notification! Malware Hunter has been updated on 18.09.2023 and is now available in version It is still listed to be compatible with Windows XP. Accordingly, I will update my article as soon as I can confirm its XP-compatibility. Cheers, AstroSkipper
  4. Yep! FYI, if you want to discuss modifications, changes, corrections, or anything else related to legacy extensions for UXP browsers more deeply, then you can transfer your discussion about it to my thread Extensions and custom buttons for UXP browsers - Corrections, modifications, adjustments, and special recommendations, only if wanted, of course. That thread was created by me especially for this purpose. In the first post of my thread, you will find more information about it. However, @roytam1's thread here actually aims more at his browser editions, related issues, and rather rarely extensions. Anyway! Talking about legacy extensions here is not totally off-topic, either. Greetings, AstroSkipper
  5. Months ago, I installed and checked 360 Total Security from Qihoo in the version, which I didn't like, though. I wrote about it in the old antivirus thread. Now, there is a brand new version available, 360 Total Security Maybe, this one? In any case, it has a real-time protection function and is still listed to be compatible with Windows XP. But, be attentive during installation to deselect what you don't want, if that's possible!
  6. That shouldn't really be the case, and I'm sorry about that, but I'm trying to prevent any misunderstandings, given the posts here. It is of course clear that Malwarebytes is no longer interested in old versions. They want to leave the era of Windows XP and Vista behind. If you have read my old posts about how I was treated in the Malwarebytes forum as a Windows XP user, especially by their moderators, there is no need for any further explanation. But there was also a small glimmer of hope where an ordinary member had apologised to me for his behaviour.
  7. My statement about Malwarebytes' lifetime licence was meant only as an explanation why I prefer to use Malwarebytes Antimalware Premium under Windows XP, no more, no less. This kind of licence can't be obtained anymore. If you own such licence, there is no need for any annual premium subscription, though. As far as I know, the current premium licence to be purchased is valid for all versions, i.e. also for v1 and v3. This was always the case in the past, too. So if you buy a licence today, you can also use it for MBAM v3. This is the statement I received in the Malwarebytes forum from the moderators/administrators. But, as always, the proof is in the pudding. To confirm that one has to contact the support. BTW, the lifetime licence was a great "thing of the past", though. It even works with Malwarebytes v1 and will work with future versions under more recent OSs as already mentioned.
  8. Based on my experience a few months ago, Panda Antivirus Free ran very well and did its job without any problems on my Windows XP SP3 32 Bit computer. It used very few system resources, which is very important for my old computer. I would install it again immediately if Malwarebytes one day stopped delivering virus definitions for the versions under Windows XP. Especially, when such a programme is free of charge. BTW, the main reason for using Malwarebytes is that I own a lifetime licence and can therefore use the real-time protection feature.
  9. Since you neither use nor appreciate the use of antimalware programmes, as you stated very often in this thread and in others, and since you actually have never reported new suggestions in terms of security programmes to move this thread forward, except talking about the same, already mentioned programmes or making offtopic notes, I would like to know what you are actually trying to achieve here. This is the second time you have suggested closing/locking my thread. To speak plainly, one simply doesn't do that, and it's not your job in the capacity of a simple member. In fact, it is a disregard for the hard work I have done here and the time I have spent in researching, installing, fixing, writing, structuring and posting, only to help other people who are looking for security programmes under Windows XP. Besides, I don't think you would like to read such statements, as I quoted above only from your last post, in one of your threads. Would you? And It also doesn't matter at all whether you like my thread or not. So please, reconsider your actions here! Thanks! AstroSkipper
  10. The reason is clearly stated in your quote. Forbes Advisor and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are both based in the US. The FCC's recommendation is crystal clear, and Forbes Advisor follows it. What more is there to explain? I think, actually, nothing at all.
  11. Your statement suggests that there is no explanation on the linked Forbes website as to why Kaspersky was not listed. If that's what you meant to imply, I'm afraid that's not correct. The reasons are clearly stated on that website. Here is the link which can be found there easily: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/software/best-antivirus-software/#why_is_kaspersky_not_listed_section
  12. Thank you for the link to this article! Forbes has always been a renowned and excellent source of information of all kinds. Since the list of leading companies for security programmes is kept independent of versions and operating systems, it is relevant here. The editorial implementation there of what is or is not listed is consistent with the concept of security and confirms my stance here in the thread. Thanks again!
  13. That's right. A self-protection function of an antimalware programme is actually a good thing, but it can also cause problems. Especially if you uninstall it. I have experienced this several times.
  14. Thank you for your kind words! I always try to be as fair as possible when writing articles about security programmes. I always separate objective facts from my subjective experiences in my articles. I am curious to see how AVG Antivirus Free performs in your system. The main problem in writing the article about AVG was the unfortunate fact that there is hardly any information left about AVG Antivirus Free 18.8.4084.0, and the support is a joke. Since the company behind AVG is Avast, it refers to articles and information about Avast Free Antivirus 18.8.4084.0 in all support requests. Thus, there has been no real support or corresponding information for AVG Antivirus Free 18.8.4084.0 for years. Avast could actually have made this clear in general in support requests regarding AVG, but it did not.
  15. I wrote: @anton12 "Try additionally" doesn't mean that my provided SSUAO is required. When I checked your problematic website, I tested first a SSUAO without the string Goanna which sometimes causes troubles when loading certain websites. And my provided SSUAO doesn't harm, then it doesn't really matter. Use the native one or any other! The main thing is that the website works with it.
  16. This thread is about security programs for XP that are secure. I can go one better by merging the two statements : This thread is about security programmes for XP that are secure and still work.
  17. The BSI is strict regarding security warnings. So, your assessment is correct. In Germany, cyber security is taken very seriously as I already wrote in a previous post. AstroSkipper
  18. Hello @Saxon! If you are permanently connected with your notebook to the internet and need a real-time protection, you can try Panda Antivirus Free. Here is a link to my article: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1244402 Alternatively, if you are willing to buy a license, you can try Malwarebytes Antimalware. This older version is very light on resources: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1248964 And this is a more recent version: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1244368 Cheers, AstroSkipper
  19. Thanks. That's all I ask. Just so you don't misunderstand me, I mean official warnings from the BSI, as in the case of Kaspersky. I live in Germany, and the BSI is responsible for internet and cyber security in this country. In our country, such security warnings are taken seriously. That's why we have our experts, who are supposed to protect our population.
  20. But if you want to help here, it would be very nice if you could take a stand on this post: I have not received an answer from you yet.
  21. No! First of all, there are no such official security concerns about the security programmes I already listed as it is the case of Kaspersky. However, if such a report is published and I become aware of it, I will also warn against the programme concerned. But the research you are doing is not official and therefore not relevant. I am sorry! So you'd better invest your time wisely.
  22. I had cleaned and decontaminated only the crap which was implemented by the website providing that installer. This crap wasn't a part of the original installer. I did not modify anything related to Kaspersky. Such modification you suggested are not allowed due to copyrights and especially not here in the MSFN forum. This would violate the forum rules. Read the forum rules!
  23. My opinion and my attitude to this matter is based on what I already wrote and linked in this post:
  24. You have no authority to do this. This thread is about security programs for XP that work. Kaspersky is one of them. That is not a "praise". This quote is, as you always like to do, taken out of context. If someone posts about the same programme (and by that I mean Kaspersky Antivirus) over and over again, one doesn't really have anything new to say here. I personally write about many different security programmes here. Hence, my advice: First read, then write! As you know, I am the creator of this thread, and I will fill it only with content, which I can justify to myself, thus to the best of my knowledge and conscience. And I can of course suggest whatever I want to. But I can remember very well when you demanded in one of your countless Chrome threads that no one may say anything about the age of 360Chrome and that this browser is obsolete. For that, you are right, you did not have the authority to do this. Anyway! Regarding this topic, TBH, it is crystal clear one can't reach the unteachable or motivated for other, known reasons anyway. But maybe, those who still associate anything meaningful with the term security in this day and age. IMHO, Kaspersky is simply said history, no further investigation will be done by me. And as I already recommended, Kaspersky should be avoided based on all the facts listed here and in the old antivirus thread. And this is only a recommendation and nothing else. That's why I listed Kaspersky here: Cheers, AstroSkipper

  • Create New...