Which Antiviruses are Known for a Fact to be Working on XP SP3 as of 2019?

[heinoganda]

@mo832 

A sensible solution because of MSE does not exist! That's why I would not kill my OS. I've been working for a very long time with Avast Free Antivirus (only certain modules installed) and MBAM.

Small note: Would never come up with the idea to install another virus solution at the same time in an existing virus solution, that can quickly go wrong, especially in the worst case to assume the two virus solutions fight each other.

Edited June 19, 2019 by heinoganda

[WalksInSilence]

The main problem I have with AVAST for use in this case is its actual footprint.

My reason for using MSE on a XP VM was because it was small, unobtrusive and did not conflict with anything else. My host OS is protected by a better AV but that has plenty of RAM and storage space available. My XP SP3 32bit VM does not. As it is the VM takes up 25GB+ of space on my primary drive, a smallish SSD, The last thing I want is AVAST using up the 800MB+ of space a typical, customised if not fully minimized, installation requires (main program files about 670MB + 111MB in ProgramData).

You can use AVAST with MBAM (and incidentally Spybot too) and there is no conflict but you can not ignore that it is a beast of an AV and definitely slows down a PC. That is of great concern for me when using a XP VM with only 1GB of dedicated RAM.

So whilst it is good to know AVAST still works with XP it is not anything like as unobtrusive as MSE; you will definitely notice the difference. I've used both on a XP SP3 32bit 1GB RAM laptop in the past ie. I replaced MSE with AVAST and even back then (7 years ago) the performance was affected very noticeably.

[Dave-H]

I do agree about security suites like Avast not being great for low resource and/or low powered machines.
I put it on the XP side of my netbook to replace MSE, and it did cause some problems.
Now I have Malwarebytes on it, and it's much better, but you have to pay for that to get real time scanning.

[Mathwiz]

9 hours ago, WalksInSilence said:

The main problem I have with AVAST for use in this case is its actual footprint.

My reason for using MSE on a XP VM was because it was small, unobtrusive and did not conflict with anything else. My host OS is protected by a better AV but that has plenty of RAM and storage space available. My XP SP3 32bit VM does not. As it is the VM takes up 25GB+ of space on my primary drive, a smallish SSD, The last thing I want is AVAST using up the 800MB+ of space a typical, customised if not fully minimized, installation requires (main program files about 670MB + 111MB in ProgramData).

You can use AVAST with MBAM (and incidentally Spybot too) and there is no conflict but you can not ignore that it is a beast of an AV and definitely slows down a PC. That is of great concern for me when using a XP VM with only 1GB of dedicated RAM.

So whilst it is good to know AVAST still works with XP it is not anything like as unobtrusive as MSE; you will definitely notice the difference. I've used both on a XP SP3 32bit 1GB RAM laptop in the past ie. I replaced MSE with AVAST and even back then (7 years ago) the performance was affected very noticeably.

Yes, that is true. My main complaint with AVAST is that it slows down file deletion, sometimes to a ridiculous extent. And it's a bit more paranoid than MSE, requiring some exceptions to be created (although nowhere near as bad as Symantec!)

That said, even MSE was getting to be a pain toward the end. I had to exclude browser files from it, and rely instead on MBAE, in order to get adequate performance. Ironically I haven't had to do that with AVAST yet. (Also still running MBAE, although I probably don't need to any more....)

[Bersaglio]

Is there any adequate replacement for MSE? I.e.

1. Full Windows XP SP3 support. -and -

2. Completely free and legal for business use. - and -

3. Full offline installation support (in a workstation disconnected from any kind of network). - and -

4. Easy weekly offline definitions update (from USB stick) - and -

5. Full 24x7 realtime protection in case of malicious files detected (from USB sticks or local networks/storages).

Suggestions?

[CharlieSummers]

On 4/24/2019 at 12:36 AM, bluebolt said:

Download link for BitDefender Free version 1.0.21.1109 for XP x86, great basic anti-virus engine:

https://www.filehorse.com/download-bitdefender/26767/

This may not have nag screens, but it DOES require a log-in, allowing them to tie multiple machines together. This is an even bigger privacy violation, IMHO - pass.

[bluebolt]

There is no need to use the same login for more than one machine.

[dencorso]

Well, Malwarebytes 3 (MBAM), when licensed, offers (1) and (5) and updates at least daily by itself.
I do not know any solution that provides (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5). That's why I started this thread.

[Usher]

On 6/14/2019 at 11:00 AM, Ben Markson said:

For anyone still struggling to bite the bullet by installing a replacement to MSE (so far I'm finding them all downright scary if not outright destructive and it is just reminding me why I switched to MSE in the first place) these MSE registry changes seem to do two things.

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Microsoft Antimalware\Signature Updates]
"ASSignatureDue"=dword:0000016d
"AVSignatureDue"=dword:0000016d

I tried to use similar changes for Windows Defender in XP (using only AS signatures) and added:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\WIndows Defender\Signature Updates]
"ASSignatureDue"=dword:0000016d

…but it didn't work.

Then I have changed another value:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Signature Updates]
"ASSignatureApplied"=hex:d0,b7,16,db,25,30,d5,01

…which contains LDAP timestamp - and it works! So for Windows Defender it's enough to set current LDAP timestamp there and update it when needed.

[Queroexperimentar]

I´ve installed free Malwarebytes 3.5.1.2522 running on my offline Windows xp service pack 3 computer and have downloaded from here http://downloads.malwarebytes.org/file/mbam_rules the update from 2019-06-13 and until now/today i didn´t update it, when i open the program it says on status of actualizations that is actual, is that normal?

Is it really updated with that file i downloaded?

Or it will always say that?

Because i can´t see anywere saying the age and version of the latest update on the apllication.

 

Sorry for my English.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Queroexperimentar

[CharlieSummers]

There is no need to log in at all if not for tracking and marketing purposes.

Panda pulls the same stunt. Is there any antivirus that runs on XP that doesn't require asinine things like creating multiple email addresses, and doesn't hound the user with popups advertising their paid versions?

[NojusK]

1 hour ago, CharlieSummers said:

There is no need to log in at all if not for tracking and marketing purposes.

Panda pulls the same stunt. Is there any antivirus that runs on XP that doesn't require asinine things like creating multiple email addresses, and doesn't hound the user with popups advertising their paid versions?

you could try AVG or Avast( even though they are "almost"the same) Personally i use ClamWin + ClamSentinel and the best thing is that they are good (in my opinion) and free!

[Dave-H]

On 7/2/2019 at 8:11 AM, Queroexperimentar said:

I´ve installed free Malwarebytes 3.5.1.2522 running on my offline Windows xp service pack 3 computer and have downloaded from here http://downloads.malwarebytes.org/file/mbam_rules the update from 2019-06-13 and until now/today i didn´t update it, when i open the program it says on status of actualizations that is actual, is that normal?

Is it really updated with that file i downloaded?

Or it will always say that?

Because i can´t see anywere saying the age and version of the latest update on the apllication.

 

Sorry for my English.

I'm afraid I can't help you on that, as I use Malwarebytes Premium online, so it updates automatically.
I guess you'll have more luck asking about this on the Malwarebytes forum.

[Mathwiz]

@dencorso, I wonder if this thread and the "Antivirus for XP" thread could/should be merged? They seem to be covering the same ground, even to the point that posts in one are getting answered in the other.

[dencorso]

Done!