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

[Dixel]

11 hours ago, mina7601 said:

Here is the link: https://www.fileeagle.com/software/470/Process-Explorer/16.26/

Your link is outdated and doesn't work, please check and do aproper research before posting.

 

11 hours ago, Andalu said:

I would also like to try version 16.26, but it is no longer available for download.

Here is 16.22, perhaps you would want to try? 

https://www.filepuma.com/download/process_explorer_16.22-20946/

[Saxon]

On 6/26/2023 at 7:47 PM, AstroSkipper said:

Greetings from Germany to Belgium, AstroSkipper 

Dear guru AstroSkipper, hello! Would you be so kind to tell your opinion about Comodo Varanus FW, I don't see it in either of you lists (good-bad). Would it be polite to trouble you for such a personal advice, just a couple of words really, use-not use, thank you! 

PS.

As always, can't get enough of your amazing software compilation! I can't even imagine how much hard work is in it!

Edited July 7, 2023 by Saxon

[AstroSkipper]

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

As always, can't get enough of your amazing software compilation! I can't even imagine how much hard work is in it!

Hello @Saxon! Thank you very much for the kind words! I'll try to do my best. Researching and writing is unfortunately very time-consuming.

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

I don't see it in either of you lists (good-bad).

Real life and physical health are two reasons my list of security programmes is increasing quite slowly. 

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

Would you be so kind to tell your opinion about Comodo Varanus FW ...
Would it be polite to trouble you for such a personal advice, just a couple of words really, use-not use, thank you! 

Comodo Varanus! That's very funny.  I will do that with pleasure when I am back at my desktop computer. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Andalu]

9 hours ago, Dixel said:

Here is 16.22, perhaps you would want to try? 

https://www.filepuma.com/download/process_explorer_16.22-20946/

Thanks for the link even though the version that will be downloaded is 16.21 and not v16.22.
The v16.22 can be found here:
https://www.filehorse.com/download-process-explorer/37741/

I have tried the various versions and the only one in the 16.xx series that does not attempt to connect to the internet is indeed v16.22.
Attempts to connect start occurring from v16.10, until v15.40 I have not detected any.

[mina7601]

10 hours ago, Dixel said:

Your link is outdated and doesn't work, please check and do aproper research before posting.

There wasn't really a need to point that to me, I already know that myself, hence how I strikethrough the link...

Edited July 7, 2023 by mina7601

[AstroSkipper]

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

Would you be so kind to tell your opinion about Comodo Varanus FW, I don't see it in either of you lists (good-bad). Would it be polite to trouble you for such a personal advice, just a couple of words really, use-not use, thank you! 

Comodo Firewall was founded in in the United Kingdom by Melih Abdulhayoğlu in 1998. The company Xcitium, formerly known as Comodo Security Solutions, Inc., is a cybersecurity company, in the meanwhile headquartered in the USA, New Jersey, since 2004. It was a very good firewall in the past. A lot of settings could be done. I would say Comodo Firewall was rather targeting the more advanced user. Anyway! I used it in the past until I became aware of Windows Firewall Control from Sphinx. Users reported in the Comodo Forum that the last error-free working version under Windows XP has been Comodo Firewall 8.4.0.5165. More recent versions didn't seem to work properly under Windows XP although they were advertised to be compatible to this OS. That had annoyed many users. I personally never used it again after I had changed to Windows Firewall Control. But in that days, Comodo Firewall was one of the best. Unfortunately, its installation packages became bloated due to implementing an antivirus solution. These packages are called Comodo Internet Security. I don't like bloated software packages, though. Hope I could help you a bit. 

Edited July 7, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[silverni]

A real-time antimalware may be useful for novice users, but it makes little sense for users with a high level of mastery such as those who frequent this Windows XP section of the forum.
After subjecting a system to on-demand scanning by multiple antimalware, online and offline, I can consider the system safe; rechecking every time I use components that have been in the system for many years and used countless times without problems is just a waste of time and computational resources.
Since at least ten years I have been performing only periodic scans, and since the scans end regularly without reporting problems, gradually the period has automatically lengthened; and in any case, a possible infection would not create big problems and would be detected immediately.

It is necessary instead carefully monitor new grafts, external elements entering into the system.

To test new programs the procedures are well known to users of this forum: Virtual Machines, SandboxIE, other forms of sandboxes, etc.
I typically test the installation of new programs under SandboxIE, and I use two scripts to derive a report of the changes that the installation would make to the system (new or changed files, changes to registry, etc.), reports that I archive along with the program.
For incidentally, from this structural information I almost always build a portable instance of the program, which I keep off the system partition (20 GB, of which only 13.2 GB is occupied).
If the program installs drivers in the system, SandboxIE is generally not usable and it is necessary to run the test in a virtual machine; even in this case I create and keep a report of the changes that the installation makes to the system.

But today in reality the main source of infection is the Web, and the most dangerous vehicles are browsers; here the variables and defense mechanisms are virtually infinite, so I subscribe to the need posed by @UCyborg to create a new dedicated thread:
Maybe we need a thread about surviving on the modern internet without an antivirus?


Notes:
1. Similar considerations apply to Android, where the real usefulness of antimalware is even more doubtful, and many other defense tools exist.
2. I consider improper that in this technical forum are allowed expressions and positions of a decidedly racist nature, further confirmation of the well-known maxim that the first casualty of a war is truth (and common sense, I might add); but this too surely requires a dedicated thread.

Greetings
 

Edited July 7, 2023 by silverni

[AstroSkipper]

38 minutes ago, silverni said:

A real-time antimalware may be useful for novice users, but it makes little sense for users with a high level of mastery such as those who frequent this Windows XP section of the forum.

This thread was created by me for everyone who wants to use Windows XP as securely as possible. It doesn't matter whether novice, experienced or advanced user, or even expert. Therefore, antimalware programmes with real-time protection are particularly important. Unfortunately, they have become rare under Windows XP due to well-known reasons. One more reason to collect and preserve information about all available security programmes which still work under Windows XP in these days. If you are interested to create an own thread about browser security or whatever, just do it! But this thread is about all available security programmes targeting Windows XP only. 

[Vistapocalypse]

2 hours ago, silverni said:

I typically test the installation of new programs under SandboxIE

Greetings @silverni.  What specific version of Sandboxie? Some of us have experience with 5.22 (a closed source version from 2017), but I wonder if you are familiar with 5.40, an open source development that was suggested by your countryman @Sampei.Nihira in December 2020?

 

2 hours ago, silverni said:

I consider improper that in this technical forum are allowed expressions and positions of a decidedly racist nature, further confirmation of the well-known maxim that the first casualty of a war is truth (and common sense, I might add)

Agreed - and we are not really even at war (except Russia and Ukraine). 👍

[NotHereToPlayGames]

3 hours ago, silverni said:

Maybe we need a thread about surviving on the modern internet without an antivirus?

Not sure how much traction that would attract.  The end-consumer is more interested in something like uBlock Origin and "downloaded lists" doing as much of the work as possible "for them", an ideology I myself do not subscribe to.

And while I do applaud Astro's "intentions" in creating this thread, I do think that the most tech-savvy among us (the MAJORITY of MSFN Members?) do not run real-time antivirus "all the time".

I don't even run manual scans, haven't in over 20 years!

But again, I applaud the intentions of this thread.  I see it more of as an EXPANSION to the MSFN USER BASE by bringing in a NEW AUDIENCE.

I don't think it has (yet), but it has the potential to.  I don't see the intended audience being the ACTIVE MEMBERS here at MSFN.

But rather a NEW generation of active members.

[Dixel]

20 hours ago, Andalu said:

I have tried the various versions and the only one in the 16.xx series that does not attempt to connect to the internet is indeed v16.22.

I knew Process Explorer 16.22 had no hostile IP connections, that's why I suggested it to you, enjoy, I'm glad you liked it! I also think you won't miss anything important, if don't update further.

19 hours ago, mina7601 said:

There wasn't really a need to point that to me, I already know that myself, hence how I strikethrough the link...

Wow! It's even more nonsensical! So you just post spam, is this how you entertain yourself? At least you got a bit of bravery to confirm your malicious activities.

 

[Vistapocalypse]

4 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

...antimalware programmes with real-time protection are particularly important. Unfortunately, they have become rare under Windows XP due to well-known reasons.

I’m actually glad to hear you say that because firewalls and task managers are not really that interesting to me. (Granted, firewalls never got the attention they deserved in the previous thread about antivirus programs known to be working on XP, so your emphasis on them now is a worthwhile contribution.) Of course antimalware options for XP would not be quite so “rare” if legacy versions of Kaspersky or Norton’s “maintenance mode” version were not excluded.

I have been reviewing the previous antivirus thread (now locked) in recent days. It existed for several years, but interestingly enough, it didn’t reach a length of 30 pages until March 2023, so congratulations on your prodigious writing here! I came across a forgotten post from June 14, 2019 showing that Kaspersky Free 19.0.0.1088 did in fact work on someone’s XP SP3. In those days, MSFN members could actually post about Kaspersky without being harassed by multiple accounts that did not yet exist. Is it possible in 2023?

[Dixel]

3 hours ago, Vistapocalypse said:

I’m actually glad to hear you say that because firewalls and task managers are not really that interesting to me. (Granted, firewalls never got the attention they deserved in the previous thread about antivirus programs known to be working on XP, so your emphasis on them now is a worthwhile contribution.) Of course antimalware options for XP would not be quite so “rare” if legacy versions of Kaspersky or Norton’s “maintenance mode” version were not excluded.

I have been reviewing the previous antivirus thread (now locked) in recent days. It existed for several years, but interestingly enough, it didn’t reach a length of 30 pages until March 2023, so congratulations on your prodigious writing here! I came across a forgotten post from June 14, 2019 showing that Kaspersky Free 19.0.0.1088 did in fact work on someone’s XP SP3. In those days, MSFN members could actually post about Kaspersky without being harassed by multiple accounts that did not yet exist. Is it possible in 2023?

I speak only for myself, even if we leave aside your fears of Russian malicious activities inside the Kaspersky software, which do have some pretty solid base, with multiple warnings, like they say, "no smoke without fire".

I'd still not use it. especially if we talk about the 19.0.0.1088 version, which is proven to have  the infection CVE-2019-8286[62]. So not an option for any users, not only the XP ones.

The source is solid, it's not like from a random internet guy. It's scientists.

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2019-8286

[Vistapocalypse]

2 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

And while I do applaud Astro's "intentions" in creating this thread, I do think that the most tech-savvy among us (the MAJORITY of MSFN Members?) do not run real-time antivirus "all the time".

In that case, I’m part of the minority who does run real-time antivirus “all the time.” Of course I was not an XP diehard but rather a Vista diehard, and my old hardware (now in disrepair) could run Vista, a browser, and real-time protection all at the same time without any difficulty. My multicore processor never broke a sweat except when rendering video, although RAM did get a little tight sometimes (an x86 system with 3 GB). Of course I realize that the situation is different for many XP diehards, and that MSFN is still more of an XP forum than anything else (which does not bode well for its future).

3 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

But again, I applaud the intentions of this thread.  I see it more of as an EXPANSION to the MSFN USER BASE by bringing in a NEW AUDIENCE. I don't think it has (yet), but it has the potential to.  I don't see the intended audience being the ACTIVE MEMBERS here at MSFN. But rather a NEW generation of active members.

To the extent that there is a new generation of Windows XP users, they probably won’t be running XP on hardware that is 15-20 years old. They might actually prefer XP x64, and I’m not sure we even know what antivirus to recommend for that OS.

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Maybe, just maybe, too many of us MSFN Members are like the grandma I saw on the road this past Sunday.

One lane of traffic going forward through the intersection, one turn lane to turn left, one turn lane to turn right.

She makes a left hand turn from the center lane and cut me off in the process.

She can barely see over the steering wheel, I let it slide but follow from a distant two bus lengths behind.

She did it again two intersections up, she makes a right hand turn from the center lane.

 

That's us XP Users, if I may be so bold.  Too set in our ways and we will put our family through the Nine Levels of Hell before handing over the keys!

Maybe, just maybe, the family is right and we are wrong.  We are no longer safe behind the wheel.  But it's not because the car isn't safe, it's all the person at the controls.

Edited July 8, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames