Jump to content

AstroSkipper

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,565

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    462

  • Donations

    0.00 USD 

  • Country

    Germany

 Content Type 

Everything posted by AstroSkipper

  1. AstroSkipper
    No. Maybe that's what you want. But that has nothing to do with reality. One can only suggest something that exists. No. Kaspersky is spyware. Nothing is good there. This can be read in their own documents. That's it. Dr Web is simply trash. Never read any good about it. Not true. Very risky.
  2. AstroSkipper
    The McAfee Anti-Malware Engine 5800 is from August of 2015. Are you really sure that the most recent dat files for updating definitions are still compatible with this old engine? Did you try updating using the most recent dat file? BTW, the McAfee Anti-Malware Engine 5900 from February of 2017 seems to be the last compatible with Windows XP as far as I could read. All this with special consideration that the latest engine is 6710 which is of course no longer compatible with Windows XP.
  3. AstroSkipper
    The McAfee Anti-Malware Engine 5800 is from August of 2015. Are you really sure that the most recent dat files for updating definitions are still compatible with this old engine? Did you try updating using the most recent dat file? BTW, the McAfee Anti-Malware Engine 5900 from February of 2017 seems to be the last compatible with Windows XP as far as I could read.
  4. AstroSkipper
    For example, website exploits, websites known malicious or suspicious download files. However, all some months or more ago. It always depends on the user's surfing behaviour. The more risky, the more notifications. Whether they would run under Windows XP, I cannot say as they were immediately blocked by my antimalware programme and deleted after asking me what to do. In my Windows XP installation, almost nothing happens without my permission contrary to more recent Windows OSes or antimalware programmes which are designed to do what the creator decided without involvement of the user or administrator.
  5. AstroSkipper
    Of course! Various threats and of course also false positives as is the case with all scanners. But better one too many than one too few.
  6. AstroSkipper
    If I had used KY back in 2014, around the military invasion into Ukraine with subsequent annexation of Crimea in violation of international law, I also would have immediately ceased to use it on my system(s). But as I already mentioned, KY was never an issue for me due to many well-known reasons.
  7. AstroSkipper
    There is nothing wrong with a little more security, no matter how experienced you are. But it must not lead to the computer being totally overloaded. My real-time protection is always partially switched on or off as required. Web protection and exploit protection are always activated. My old computer copes very well with this.
  8. AstroSkipper
    An antimalware/antivirus programme which generates more than 1465 registry entries can't be really light on resources, IMHO. What do you actually mean by "light on resources"? What about disk, RAM and CPU load? Any values?
  9. AstroSkipper
    Regarding McAfee I never used it and TBH, I never liked it. I tested it under Windows XP many, many years ago, only for a very short time. I was glad to get rid of it completely after testing. However, I am quite surprised that your installation is supposed to get definition updates as McAfee abandoned support for Windows XP long time ago. Are you sure that your Enterprise version (8.8 from 2013? ) still gets updates? Personally, I don't believe it. That would be very unusual.
  10. AstroSkipper
    @Multibooter At this point, I would like to ask you to stop posting offtopic. No more Kaspersky stories and family difficulties! And who is a US citizen or not is of no interest here in this technical thread and is also offtopic apart from that. Same applies to your shopping list. This thread is about security programmes under Windows XP. If you have anything meaningful to contribute to this matter without digressing, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, as always: talk is silver, silence is golden.
  11. AstroSkipper
    In Germany, Kaspersky is not prohibited, but not recommended by the BSE. It is advised to stop using Kaspersky software and to uninstall it completely. Kaspersky is simply undesirable. Take a look at my list! There you will find all the alternatives I have collected so far, each of which I have documented with an article.
  12. AstroSkipper
    No. This extension is only available for Chrome browsers (now in version 0.6.0) or Firefox-based browsers supporting webextensions. For New Moon 28, you have to use other solutions.
  13. AstroSkipper
    Yep! I observed that issue, too. DASH videos don't play properly in New Moon 28 via Invidious. More codec configuration options would also be welcome. BTW, I totally forgot to mention the use of the extension uTube. If one only wants to watch single YouTube videos, for example, in New Moon 28, then this extension is really great.
  14. AstroSkipper
    @Multibooter I really don't understand what you want to achieve here. I offered you alternatives to replace your Kaspersky software, a programme which you are not willing to provide any further information about. In any case, this is not a Kaspersky discussion thread. It will lead nowhere. Kaspersky is more or less a discontinued model, as you yourself have written above. This thread is about antimalware programmes that have a perspective and can be an option under Windiws XP.
  15. AstroSkipper
    Personally, I do not really use the YouTube website due to its sluggishness although it works in New Moon 28 or Mypal 68. I have configured it so that the video is displayed in the centre of a blank page. I'm not interested in the masses of comments or the list of related videos. Loading them leads immediately to a 100% utilisation of the CPU on my old machine. And of course, I can open a video in PotPlayer with one click at any time. Basically, I'm looking for videos via the alternative front end Invidious which is much more convenient.
  16. AstroSkipper
    Did you try disabling all (YouTube) scripts except the Youtube polymer engine fixes? I have observed that some scripts do not work properly together with it.
  17. AstroSkipper
    Tried Hitman Pro. Now, I know why I didn't like it. No option for a user-defined scan when starting the tool the first time. On the second run, I got a BSOD. Not in the mood for another attempt. Malwarebytes Free, eScanAV Anti-Virus Toolkit (MWAV) or RogueKiller are much better and more convenient.
  18. AstroSkipper
    The Hitman Pro scanner has been on my internal list for a long time. I had tried it once, but was rather disappointed with the newer versions compared to older ones. In addition, the programme can only be used for 30 days, after which you have to pay then. So, it is commercial with a free trial period.
  19. AstroSkipper
    @Multibooter The fact that your offline scanner could soon stop working should not worry you too much. As I already mentioned, there are still plenty of alternatives whose scan engine is definitely more up-to-date than a scanner from 2012. Have a look at my list here: https://msfn.org/board/topic/184730-antimalware-firewall-and-other-security-programs-for-windows-xp-working-in-2023-and-hopefully-beyond/?do=findComment&comment=1244365 You will definitely find what you are looking for, even if the list is not yet complete. Maybe, Malwarebytes Free, eScanAV Anti-Virus Toolkit (MWAV) or RogueKiller? All of them are on demand AV/AM scanner.
  20. AstroSkipper
    Ok. But then it does not make any sense to talk about a version which can't be tested from whomever (in any case not from me ). And please don't misunderstand me, I am definitely not interested in any Kaspersky version, regardless of whether they are old or future. I've been through that for a long time. I never liked Kaspersky, and now, this will not change anymore in the future due to well-known reasons.
  21. AstroSkipper
    Yep! There are indeed some file hosters which are much easier to access than NitroFlare, without those extreme limitations. And I also would like to know who the creator is. Anyway! Thanks for the links, @LordGarfio!
  22. AstroSkipper
    You are talking about an ancient Kaspersky AV scanner but you didn't provide any information about its version and year of origin. Therefore, all your statements are rather vague and unspecific. Nobody can do anything with them. When talking about a particular piece of software, it goes without saying that the name, version number, date of creation and a link should be given. Otherwise, any further discussion is pointless.
  23. AstroSkipper
    Are we still talking about @roytam1's browsers here? Or are we having a fundamental discussion here about which operating system is better or worse and why one should use crappy new 64-bt OSes? The latter would of course be completely offtopic. @roytam1's browsers make it possible to surf even with older computers. Among other things, old hardware is very often only 32-bit capable. So, there are good reasons to use the 32-bit browser versions offered here. Right?
  24. AstroSkipper
    No need to use a very old AV scanner if more recent ones are available. When it comes to antimalware programmes, it is not only the up-to-dateness of the virus definitions that is crucial, but also that of the scan engine. The rule really does apply here: the more up-to-date, the better.
  25. AstroSkipper
    Finding an offline AV scanner is no problem when it comes to Windows XP. There are enough which are still compatible with this OS. I have already listed a couple of them. In your case, so there are plenty of options beyond Kaspersky, since you don't want real-time protection.
×
×
  • Create New...