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

[tekkaman]

You know I always wondered why Wilders Security Forums don't allow posts of This Antivirus Vs this Antivirus. After what I see here, now I know why. It leads to nonstop bickering. We have to allow people to make their own choices. You can't force people to like your favorite antivirus. All we can do as I said before, is list all antiviruses that work with XP. And let people decide whatever they want to use. In the end you test and decide what you want to use. 

Years ago I used to use Rising antivirus. It didn't do well in tests. But I liked it because it had a very easy to configure HIPS. You could set it to block programs from being added to startup and prevent any Browser Helper Object from being added and Prevent homepage from being changed among other stuff.. That alone helped me a lot. I used it myself and I put it on some of my clients computers. My clients were happy with it. I didn't let the thought of "If it's from China is bad" cloud my judgement. I just tested it and see if it worked. I would send malware samples to them and they were added quickly.  I used it until they discontinue the english version.

In conclusion test for yourself. Don't let anyone, not even a magazine review tell you what to use. After all, opinions can be bought. You have to test for yourself and make an informed decision.

Edited September 27, 2023 by tekkaman

[jaclaz]

Poor Cocodile, it must be tough to be prevented from flying ... these bad administrators or moderators clipping your wings...

1 hour ago, Cocodile said:

If in the future, if I'll be censored, pursued for my opinions, somehow again mistreated on this forum,

I'll have no other choice but to resort to informing the dedicated European organisations and the free EU Press.

MSFN is located in Europe and must obey the EU laws and regulations.

I don't recall any particular EU Law or regulation limiting moderation actions on a (private) technical internet forum, when/if you find the relevant one, please post a reference to it.

The dedicated organizations?

The free EU press?

I expect that both will be very interested to the injustice you are suffering.

On the other side, maybe Rule #8 needs to be integrated by a "No whining." after the "MSFN reserves the right to edit, delete or move posts made on this site."

jaclaz

 

 

[jaclaz]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

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 

Yep, the integral quote is:

Quote

Why Is Kaspersky Not Listed?

Kaspersky Anti-Virus previously maintained a top spot on our list of the best antivirus software, and for good reason. The program offers excellent protection against all types of malware, including viruses, trojans, worms and spyware. It also features a simple interface that makes it easy to use, even for beginners. However, it’s no longer on our list of recommendations.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has declared Kaspersky a national security risk. With the war in Ukraine, accusations of Russian espionage, the U.S. government banning Kaspersky products from its own systems and a recent iOS hack on its own devices, we recommend you proceed with caution if you choose to use Kaspersky.

They decided to NOT list it (which is perfectly fine) but they don't say why they removed it, they say why they recommend caution choosing it.

It is a subtle difference. (not entirely unlike the Italian and French Authorities warnings).

Talking of carrots, why we[1] don't list them anymore among vegetables?

Carrots are re-known for being a good, safe and healthy food, very good for bettering eyesight[2], and there are no known confirmed studies about any adverse affect.

However we don't list them anymore.

A friend of our cousin hates the orange colours, so we recommend caution if you decide to eat carrots.

jaclaz.

[1] a completely hypothetical "we".

[2] have you ever seen a rabbit with spectacles?

Edited September 27, 2023 by jaclaz

[Cocodile]

3 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Poor Cocodile, it must be tough to be prevented from flying ... these bad administrators or moderators clipping your wings...

I don't recall any particular EU Law or regulation limiting moderation actions on a (private) technical internet forum, when/if you find the relevant one, please post a reference to it.

The dedicated organizations?

The free EU press?

I expect that both will be very interested to the injustice you are suffering.

On the other side, maybe Rule #8 needs to be integrated by a "No whining." after the "MSFN reserves the right to edit, delete or move posts made on this site."

jaclaz

 

 

Excuse me, in what capacity do you communicate with me? Are you the "private forum" owner?

Your post proves what I wrote before, it's purely personal.

You would have to be warned or severely punished for such kind of thing!

You simply flame me, which violates the rule 7.b. 

It's not the first time I read such rude jokes towards me.

Something tells me this matter will be ignored, nevertheless, I'm publicly reporting your post to @xper,

since simple moderators don't do anything about this personal attack, I saw a moderator and a supervisor just left this topic and didn't do anything. 

In the meantime, take your time to familiarise yourself:

7.b This community is built upon mutual respect. You are not allowed to flame other members. People who do not respect personal opinions and/or personal work will be warned in first instance. If you ignore the warning and keep on flaming, you will be banned without notice.

https://msfn.org/board/guidelines/

As always, everything is recorded, despite the jokes.

[AstroSkipper]

18 minutes ago, jaclaz said:

They decided to NOT list it (which is perfectly fine) but they don't say why they removed it, they say why they recommend caution choosing it.

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. 

[jaclaz]

@Cocodile

I am communicating with you as a fellow forum member, and I am in no way flaming you[1] or  attacking your views/opinions or whatever.

I was only trying to make you aware of the possible differences between a mountain and a molehill.

@AstroSkipper

As said it is a subtle difference, the explanation is given AFTER the statement.

jaclaz

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_(Internet)

[Skorpios]

I'm neutral so I use McAfee Enterprise and Kaspersky's scanner...

---

Eugene Kaspersky is laughing all the way to the bank...
https://www.forbes.com/profile/eugene-kaspersky/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Kaspersky

John McAfee was a funny guy... RIP

How To Uninstall McAfee Antivirus

 

[AstroSkipper]

7 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I can agree to that aspect, Mr. Saxon.

Although in a more generalized sense, me thinks the thread just needs locked.  All we have is two "gangs taking their fight to the streets".  Public bickering under some guise of "I'm always right" and trying to convince the entire MSFN Membership of said "righteousness".

Glimmers of informative posts here and there, but overall just an internet version of West Side Story.

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

Edited September 27, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[NotHereToPlayGames]

That's fair, it really is!

However, why single me out?  There are at least SEVEN everyday frequent posters on this very thread that not only do not use anti-virus, but nor do they use XP.

I am at least halfway there, I do use XP.  And I did install Kaspersky and Panda.  I do like Panda more than Kaspersky.

Edited September 27, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[AstroSkipper]

15 hours ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

I do use XP.  And I did install Kaspersky and Panda.  I do like Panda more than Kaspersky.

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.

Edited September 28, 2023 by AstroSkipper

[NotHereToPlayGames]

Agreed !!!

Us XP users should be sticking together !!!  The "tiresome" part of this thread is that non-XP users are CONTROLLING the "narrative" !!!

And we "should not" enable that to go on by a Band Of Brothers mindset of going around "liking" anything and everything for the sake of "liking" anything and everything.  Just my opinion, of course.  

 

Okay, let's resume from where I left off.  I have an XP-era laptop with three XP x86 partitions.  I've placed Kaspersky on one partition, Panda on a second, I'm seeking suggestions for which anti-virus to be placed on that third partition.

Edited September 28, 2023 by NotHereToPlayGames

[VistaLover]

49 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

the main reason for using Malwarebytes is that I own a lifetime licence and can therefore use the real-time protection feature.

... Such a "lifetime" licence, IIUC, was a "thing of the past" and no-longer available from the vendor, am I right? IOW, the average XP/Vista user has to either be content with the "free" version (on-demand scans, no RTP) or "cough up" a yearly premium subscription to get RTP...

Speaking of an MBAM "premium" licence, might I be somewhat indiscreet and ask @Dave-H whether he's currently on an annual subscription plan in his XP partition?  More importantly, can someone (on XP/Vista) today order and buy an MBAM v3 valid premium licence? Their on-line documentation speaks otherwise:

https://support.malwarebytes.com/hc/en-us/articles/6003466611475

Quote

3.5.1 => Final version supporting Windows XP and Vista.

End of Sale => 19-Sep-2018

where "End of Sale" is defined below:

https://support.malwarebytes.com/hc/en-us/articles/360039022993

Quote

End of Sale: The date when an older version of our software is no longer available for sale, renewal, or public download.

Thanks for any insight!

[AstroSkipper]

58 minutes ago, VistaLover said:

... Such a "lifetime" licence, IIUC, was a "thing of the past" and no-longer available from the vendor, am I right? IOW, the average XP/Vista user has to either be content with the "free" version (on-demand scans, no RTP) or "cough up" a yearly premium subscription to get RTP...

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. 

Edited September 28, 2023 by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Dave-H]

To answer @VistaLover's question, I'm on a rolling subscription with Malwarebytes, which I renew every two years.

I actually have two subscriptions, my original one, and a free one which was given to me by my bank for increased security when doing online banking.
As I have two machines, both with Windows XP and Windows 10 on them, I use the first subscription to activate the Malwarebytes 3.5.1 installations on the two XP partitions, and the freebie subscription to activate the current version on the two Windows 10 partitions.

Unfortunately each subscription only covers three installations, so I can't quite do it all on the free subscription!

[VistaLover]

48 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

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.

... Yes, I perfectly understood that in the first place , you were crystal clear, but I used your "statement" as a basis for my follow-up question(s), "no more, no less" ; couldn't imagine that, in itself, would be a "potential problem", is it? (FWIW, I get the overall sense one should "walk on eggshells" when replying in this thread ...)

58 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

This kind of licence can't be obtained anymore

Thanks for the confirmation!

59 minutes ago, AstroSkipper said:

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.

Thanks, too, that is very comforting to know ... How does this fact make the MBAM online support articles I linked to look then?

31 minutes ago, Dave-H said:

I'm on a rolling subscription with Malwarebytes, which I renew every two years.

Thanks Dave for your detailed reply! ; hopefully, by the time you'll be up for the next renewal, you'll face no problem "re-activating" MBAM v3.5.1 on your two (thought it was just one ) XP partitions!

Cheers.