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

[NojusK]

On 4/13/2025 at 9:55 AM, AstroSkipper said:

Status reports on programmes without a version number, for whatever reason, are generally useless. It either doesn't help to call it an "ancient version". The lack of information and meaning remains in any case. 

The only reason to hide the version number is probably to prevent those AVs from suddenly stop working, as it was with Malwarebytes 1.75. It was all happy days, but once it gained enough attention, they pulled the plug... Sounds silly, but it's very possible. Of course, old Kaspersky versions might be still receiving updates due to it's popularity in it's motherland and much bigger use of old version of Windows.

[AstroSkipper]

7 hours ago, NojusK said:

The only reason to hide the version number is probably to prevent those AVs from suddenly stop working, as it was with Malwarebytes 1.75.

That's why I wrote:

On 4/13/2025 at 11:55 AM, AstroSkipper said:

... , for whatever reason, ...

Which means that it doesn't matter at all. The actual question is: What's the point of a report on an old version without a version number of a programme that does not stand for security anyways? Everyone can answer this question for themselves.  And if a manufacturer wants to pull the plug, then a few posts in some thread won't change anything. One should evaluate things in life realistically. 

Edited Monday at 06:30 PM by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Multibooter]

7 hours ago, AstroSkipper said:

.. a programme that does not stand for security anyways ...

Can you judge the quality of a specific program which you have never tested, of which you don't even know the build and version? Just food for thought, please don't take my comment in an argumentative way, I do like your many excellent and really helpful postings!

I plan to provide details publicly about this build when the Kaspersky signature server stops providing updates for me. And maybe download links. My ancient version of Kaspersky is a corporate version and the signatures can be updated from the Kaspersky server and from an update distribution folder. Updates from an update distribution folder have worked fine for various computers with WinXP, from Pentium 3 to i7, without requiring internet access.

I am archiving each signature update, so that eventually there will be a final signature update under Windows XP - but hopefully not in the near future! A final signature update may still be useful for 6 months and longer, and then virus-checking will have to move on to a more recent operating system.

The final signature update for Kaspersky Anti-Virus under Windows 98 was on 1Apr2014. Being able to update signatures under Windows XP in 2025 is pretty good!

 

Edited Tuesday at 12:44 AM by Multibooter

[AstroSkipper]

10 hours ago, Multibooter said:

please don't take my comment in an argumentative way, I do like your many excellent and really helpful postings!

First of all, thanks!  About that stuff, all has been said here. There is nothing to argue anymore. The facts are crystal clear. And common sense should not be disregarded.

10 hours ago, Multibooter said:

Can you judge the quality of a specific program which you have never tested, of which you don't even know the build and version?

Yes, of course! Besides all the facts, zero trust in this programme!  And it doesn't matter which version. BTW, I have tested it long, long time ago. But the way this programme lived its own life was unacceptable. I only allow programmes to do what I have authorised and set up. So after a short time, I deleted everything related to this programme and deep-cleaned my partition. And from today's perspective, that was a very wise decision. 

Edited Tuesday at 10:28 AM by AstroSkipper
Update of content

[Saxon]

On 4/14/2025 at 5:39 AM, NojusK said:

old Kaspersky versions might be still receiving updates due to it's popularity in it's motherland

We'd need to see some actual evidence, statistics from independent sources, fact checked researches. Until then, it's just a guess.

On 4/14/2025 at 7:05 PM, Multibooter said:

Can you judge the quality of a specific program which you have never tested, of which you don't even know the build and version?

I've never even heard of this programme before, in Belgium we don't use it, and the first time I read about it was here, but no proof of its alleged "quality" was ever provided..

 

[Multibooter]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

I've never even heard of this programme before, in Belgium we don't use it, and the first time I read about it was here

 

One attraction of msfn.org is that you can discover many little jewels here. I, for example, have recently discovered the usefulness for me of Paragon GPT Loader and OpenVPN, thanks to the helpful postings of fellow msfn members.

[Multibooter]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

... but no proof of its alleged "quality" was ever provided..

 

I can attest that my specific build of Kaspersky Anti-Virus is of top quality and is completely safe to use for virus-checking. I have used this build for 11 years, nearly every other day. I am not Russian and have no affiliation to Kaspersky or Russia whatsoever.  I am an old member of msfn, since 2008, 1k+ postings and I have never given bad advice intentionally.

One man's opinion, no more discussions about that, you're entitled to your opinion.

Edited Wednesday at 02:48 PM by Multibooter

[AstroSkipper]

I am an old member of MSFN too with 4k+ postings , and I have never given any advice without a well-founded reason.  Long story short, absolutely no trust in Kaspersky and especially in their definition updates. And this will be the case forever. The reasons for that can be read in all its detail in this thread. 

Edited Wednesday at 02:43 PM by AstroSkipper

[Multibooter]

1 hour ago, AstroSkipper said:

... absolutely no trust in Kaspersky and especially in their definition updates...

Reminds me of two expert witnesses in court, on opposing sides . I talk about a specific build, you talk about Kaspersky in general. But let's move on!

[Saxon]

12 hours ago, Multibooter said:

Reminds me of two expert witnesses in court, on opposing sides . I talk about a specific build, you talk about Kaspersky in general. But let's move on!

My mom's a criminal defence attorney. In court, you need to provide exact details, but you explicitly denied to do that, without the knowing your version we have nothing more to investigate, the court denies your application.

Added.

As for Kaspersky in general, there was an investigation here already, also by "ancient" and respected members, in this topic, about the fact it changes main Windows system files, scroll back,

Edited Wednesday at 04:48 PM by Saxon

[Multibooter]

7 hours ago, Saxon said:

As for Kaspersky in general...

Does "in general" also include "AntiViral Toolkit Pro for Windows 95 Beta by Eugene Kaspersky (C) KAMI Corp., Russia, 1992-1996"? It probably still runs under WinXP and surely is no risk. The term "in general" always implies "exceptions", so I agree with you. And I do appreciate your comments, especially from a person a generation younger than I am, who is interested in Windows XP!

The risk depends on the version and build, reflecting how Kaspersky mutated. Microsoft also mutated, and I like the old XP version of Windows.

BTW, AntiViral Toolkit Pro by Eugene Kaspersky was distributed in the US, around 1996-98, by a company called "Central Command Inc.", sounds like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Central_Command - what a mutation!

But again, I'll  move on. I personally have all I need regarding antivirus under WinXP, and there are several other topics at msfn to which I may contribute. My recent postings here were intended to share my experience of updating my antivirus program via VPN. VPN under WinXP has become recently one of my current projects of interest.

Edited Wednesday at 11:11 PM by Multibooter