Antimalware, firewall, and other security programs for Windows XP working in 2023 and hopefully beyond

[NotHereToPlayGames]

20 minutes ago, Dixel said:

It would then be a modded software, and this topic includes only the original versions,

That's valid.

Although a simple HOSTS file block would not be a violation.

Also, the "CVE Vulnerability" (which also exists for MalwareBytes, AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, etc!) is REMOVED COMPLETELY by a registry entry that removes the "unique ID string".

The CVE Report against Kaspersky (and MalwareBytes, AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, etc!) is NOT about Kaspersky "collecting data", it's about linking that harvested data to a unique ID string that points to "a person".

MalwareBytes has CVE Reports for the same!  So does AVG!  So does Avast!  So does McAfee!  So does Norton!  Et cetera.

Some users are okay with this sort of "data".  Doesn't Windows Update also do this?  There's no MSFN Boycott on Windows Updates.  In fact, we go out of our way to "make it work" instead.

Edited September 23, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

3 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

And by that I mean contributions that do not have Kaspersky as their content.

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:

On 4/28/2023 at 8:38 PM, AstroSkipper said:

List of programs that have recently been abandoned or should be avoided

Name                                     Version           Type    Date                Link   Reason
                                                                                                                                      
WiseVector StopX               3.0.7.0            AM+    03.06.2022    Link   Abandoned
† January of 2023                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                      
Bitdefender Antivirus         1.0.21.1109   AM+    19.04.2016    Link   Abandoned
Free Edition
† EOL: December 2021
EOS: June 30, 2022.

Kaspersky Free Antivirus  18.0.0.405      AM+    27.08.2018    Link  Should be avoided
† June of 2023

Malwarebytes                      2.2.1.1043      AM+   18.03.2016    Link   Abandoned
Anti-Malware
† May of 2022

Name                                     Version           Type    Date                Link   Reason

Cheers, AstroSkipper 

Edited September 23, 2023 by AstroSkipper

[NotHereToPlayGames]

9 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

That's why I listed Kaspersky here:

That's fair!

Though I request additional clarity.  Is your objection to Kaspersky SOLELY based on the CVE Report?  Because if so, that report is about the UNIQUE ID STRING.  Something that Avast and AVG and you-name-it have also been "slapped on the wrist" with CVE Reports.

[AstroSkipper]

8 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Is your objection to Kaspersky SOLELY based on the CVE Report?

My opinion and my attitude to this matter is based on what I already wrote and linked in this post:

 

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Noted.

And in that thread, you wrote this  --  "where I was even courteous enough to provide a very rare installer for Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, which I had previously cleaned and thus decontaminated"

So are we allowing MODDED versions or not?  Because Kaspersky CAN be MODDED to be "safe and secure" and NO LONGER a concern with identifier strings.

That is the angle I am coming from.  I have not tested yet, all I've done thus far is create 4 partitions and installed XP *three times* so I have TIME INVESTED.

IF, and it's a big IF, but IF Kaspersky (after removing telemetry and Unique ID String) is lean and mean compared to AVG, Avast, McAfee, Norton, MalwareBytes, then WE MUST consider it as the "superior" alternative for OLD HARDWARE.

Again, a big IF, but if an XP installed with Kaspersky "idles" at 5% CPU utilization and 15% RAM utilization where an XP installed with McAfee "idles" at 20% CPU utilization and 40% RAM utilization, then who in their right mind would use McAfee.

Purely hypothetically percentages at this stage.

Edited September 23, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

Kaspersky (after removing telemetry and Unique ID String)

You can't do that, it's against EULA to modify and remove parts of the programme, I already explained it. Also, I'm pretty sure it's against other Russian laws.

Find an English EULA where they explicitly allow you to do that, also you need their approval to publish their modded programme at public places such as MSFN.

[AstroSkipper]

16 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

And in that thread, you wrote this  --  "where I was even courteous enough to provide a very rare installer for Kaspersky Free Antivirus 2019, which I had previously cleaned and thus decontaminated"

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! 

Edited September 23, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

I submit that you should also consider this perspective - if, and again a big IF, but if I find "unique ID strings" in *ALL* of the security programs of this thread, does that mean that the entire thread should be shut down?

I'm not claiming that they exist.  But I do know that *ALL* anti-virus programs manufacturers have been "slapped on the wrist" throughout the many decades I have used computers for whether or not their "data mining" crossed the line on Privacy Rights.

Edited September 23, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

34 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I submit that you should also consider this perspective - if, and again a big IF, but if I find "unique ID strings" in *ALL* of the security programs of this thread, does that mean that the entire thread should be shut down?

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. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by AstroSkipper

[AstroSkipper]

But if you want to help here, it would be very nice if you could take a stand on this post:

On 9/12/2023 at 4:58 PM, AstroSkipper said:

And to contribute a bit more on topic again, @NotHereToPlayGames (you are the only one I know who uses Windows XP 64 bit) might be so nice to open the offline installer of Panda Antivirus Free on his Windows XP 64 Bit machine to check whether the same problem, @WSC4 reported here, occurred or not. No need to install it. So, don't be worried!  No raccoons in there either! 

I have not received an answer from you yet. 

[Dave-H]

14 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

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 to me. I am sorry! So you'd better invest your time wisely. Unless you have nothing better to do. 

Keep personal comments out of this thread.

[AstroSkipper]

2 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

Keep personal comments out of this thread.

Post edited! Thanks!

[NotHereToPlayGames]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

However, if such a report is published and I become aware of it, I will also warn against the programme concerned.

Thanks.  That's all I ask.  

[AstroSkipper]

23 minutes ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

However, if such a report is published and I become aware of it, I will also warn against the programme concerned.

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. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Cocodile]

I made a post which exposed Kaspersky collaboration with FSB, with links provided, it gets immediately deleted!

There was nothing political in it, just facts.