after a very stressful day, i for some reason thought it would be nice to make a random forum thread about how long it takes your antivirus software to scan your furry pr0n collection. for me, Norton used to take 30 minutes, but it just expired yesterday so now avg takes around 20 minutes to get the job done. this is all done on my laptop which only has one processor. anyone else care to add on?

A few years ago I stopped saving porn. I had a tendency to hoard a whole slot of pictures and videos then never actually look at them again.

KloH0und said:
A few years ago I stopped saving porn. I had a tendency to hoard a whole slot of pictures and videos then never actually look at them again.

hell i hear you there. but if for some reason this site goes down forever, i forget how to spell 621, or i just lose my internet; its nice to have on a hard drive.....
now that i think of it i probably wont touch the damn folder even if a combination of all three happen to me. but i'm so used to saving everything new i see, i'll probably keep adding to it

I don't get viruses, I don't execute suspicious files and I don't use an unsafe browser.

Every 6 months or so, I install an anti-virus of some sort (usually ESET) just to make sure I don't have any, and then I uninstall it.

I scan with Norton every week or so and come up with nothing. I also use Norton Internet Security on Firefox so I don't have to worry. I add new stuff I like onto my portable hard drive.

Norton... Why are you still using that virus, exactly?

123easy said:
Norton... Why are you still using that virus, exactly?

Because it's protected me from other viruses for about 6 years going strong.

I keep Norton installed on both of my machines most of the time; mainly because my dad gets free copies from his office. Admittedly, my desktop went a little over 18 months without antivirus software and didn't catch any kind of malware.

I think 90% of computer security is simply knowing the threats and how to avoid them. I owe two complete reformats to viruses, so I've learned the hard way.

Although, I also don't think Norton is as bad as people make it out to be. If you fiddle with the settings enough you can get it to do what you want it to do (or not do) most of the time.

KloH0und said:
Although, I also don't think Norton is as bad as people make it out to be. If you fiddle with the settings enough you can get it to do what you want it to do (or not do) most of the time.

Except when it guts itself by detecting itself as a virus.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/dyn/wpdt2011_1_en.pdf

As you can see, Symantec does a great job of protecting systems (even if a bit too overzealously what with all those false positives, especially the user- and with their 2010 overhaul has really cut down on resources used, so you get many less enduser complaints of it bogging their computers down- But it still is quite resource-heavy compared to other AVs out there, including free versions. But even then, it still doesn't change the fact that it writes itself into your system files, and requires a special uninstaller to safely remove them (unless you really know what you're doing). It's so much better than it was before, but it's still effectively a virus that refuses to go away when you uninstall it. It's also one of the most single targetted antiviruses, with only McAfee sharing a similar spot on the list thanks to the both of them being so commonly offered with new computers. Thus they get specifically targetted to be shut down, and so you end up needing another AV just to remove that virus to get Norton up and running again, then remove the other AV because they'll clash with each other... -.- It's better now, again thanks to that 2010 overhaul; But it's still quite bad in that respect.

Klohound: Yeah, 90% of it is just knowing the threats and how to avoid them, especially running adblockers to prevent maliciously injected viruses in adscripts from running (The most comon infection method). That is the numero uno reason (And pretty much the only reason) that I call Google Chrome crap, no matter how much faster/sleeker it is than Firefox.

KloH0und said:
I think 90% of computer security is simply knowing the threats and how to avoid them.

This. It's not unreasonable to go completely without any sort of virus or spyware protection if you're not doing things that get that kind of shit onto your computer to begin with. Additionally, the best antispyware and antivirus in the world won't protect your computer if you're being completely careless with your browsing habits.

That being said, I use Microsoft Security Essentials. I honestly could do without it entirely, as I'm not sure if I've ever had any sort of warning from it (despite it being quite good at detecting malware), but since it's light on system resources, I don't mind having it around.

123easy said:
That is the numero uno reason (And pretty much the only reason) that I call Google Chrome crap, no matter how much faster/sleeker it is than Firefox.

Wait, what's the reason? It has adblock that works well. I've been using it for a few years now, on OSX, XP, and Ubuntu. No issues on any of them. I have yet to receive a virus from any source.

RedOctober said:
Wait, what's the reason? It has adblock that works well. I've been using it for a few years now, on OSX, XP, and Ubuntu. No issues on any of them. I have yet to receive a virus from any source.

They only just got Adblock Plus (which is a code combination of AdThwart and AdblockPlus) back on Dec. 20th 2010. The issue is that AdBlockPlus actually blocks scripts, thus preventing most malicious code from executing anyways because you simply don't let it; Any Chrome adblocking only hid the stuff that came up, not stopped the scripts from running. I did see some mention of an adblocker that was around in june of 2010, but no mention of scriptblocking capabilities, which is the real requirement. It's also why I no longer call it crap. :3

Every couple months I run Malwarebytes, MSE and a rootkit detector simultaneously. I once set it to start, left town for a couple days, then came back to find Malwarebytes still chugging along.

asdfzxc said:
Every couple months I run Malwarebytes, MSE and a rootkit detector simultaneously. I once set it to start, left town for a couple days, then came back to find Malwarebytes still chugging along.

Quick Scan is all you need for Malwarebytes; it's going to find virtually everything that the full scan will find, in a fraction of the time.

I don't get viruses because I use a m-*shot*

In all seriousness, Malwarebytes alone seems to get the job done; I haven't had a virus in two years at least. I also have AVG, but it isn't as effective, and I had to pay money for it >:(

Malwarebytes is for malware, not viruses. Thing is, most "viruses" people claim are just malware, these days, so they're functionally similar in most cases.

I use Avira. It does me good. I browse safely, I don't generally DO the things that get most people viruses, but speaking from experience, all it takes is one DERP moment and you are virused. Even if your'e "smarter then that".

I used AVG for a long time, but I gave up on it when I realized that while it did it's daily scan at 3am, it never actually TOLD me if it had detected anything odd. Avira does that <3

and I refused to touch norton for sheer memory of how horribly bloated it was... as macafeee for the same reason.. PLUS... well.. I once had the joy of TRYING to help out some lady who had gotten some virus.. The virus deleted all jpg/gifs, and replaced every file with a copy of the virus named something like photoofmydaughter.jpg.exe ... She was so distraght over her pictures that she made me keep LOOKING for them.... and every time I opened a folder, Macafee would helpfully go HEY A VIRUS IS IN THIS FOLDER CHECK IT OUT DUDE HOLY CRAP. Every. Single. Time. it found a virus. It was a long few hours. :( and it had done NOTHING to stop the virus from propagating in the first place. (sh'ed gotten it off of a music.mp3.exe on napster.)

oh. that wasn't the question. eer... I don't have a porn collection.

SnowWolf said:
I don't have a porn collection.

OMG...

SnowWolf said:
oh. that wasn't the question. eer... I don't have a porn collection.

i looked back up at my question and thought to myself, "why the hell did i ask this?" seeing as this thread quickly turned into a discussion about antivirus software, your post is relevant imo XD

luvdaporn said:
i looked back up at my question and thought to myself, "why the hell did i ask this?" seeing as this thread quickly turned into a discussion about antivirus software, your post is relevant imo XD

Yeah, I've been ignoring this thread because while I have a porn collection, I just run Windows Defender as my A/V. As I said in forum #22304, I've tried lots of antivirus software, and I can summarize my experiences in two points:

• Computer use habits account for 99.999% of infections.
• Any recent virus will get around any A/V anyways.

So I appreciate Windows Defender because it's unobtrusive, which is more than I can say for most other A/V software. In a worst case scenario, either I'll care enough to go through an investigation and disinfection routine, or I'll just reinstall the OS.

And I have no idea how long it takes to scan my porn collection. I'm not sure if Defender is even scheduled to do a regular sweep.

pfft.. I can't tell you how often sysmantec stops spoofing directly to my computer..

Someone doesn't /like/ me~~

ikdind said:
Yeah, I've been ignoring this thread because while I have a porn collection, I just run Windows Defender as my A/V. As I said in forum #22304, I've tried lots of antivirus software, and I can summarize my experiences in two points:

• Computer use habits account for 99.999% of infections.
• Any recent virus will get around any A/V anyways.

So I appreciate Windows Defender because it's unobtrusive, which is more than I can say for most other A/V software. In a worst case scenario, either I'll care enough to go through an investigation and disinfection routine, or I'll just reinstall the OS.

And I have no idea how long it takes to scan my porn collection. I'm not sure if Defender is even scheduled to do a regular sweep.

You should get Microsoft Security Essentials, it's exactly the same thing, but better.

tony311 said:
You should get Microsoft Security Essentials, it's exactly the same thing, but better.

windows defender is NOT an antivirus. Do not treat it as such.

For the doomsday hoarders/OP, maybe pack it all into a password-protected 7zip archive? Reduced filesize, protected in the medium-long run from unauthorized viewing, might be easier to have it not scanned by AV. You'd be able to add files to it as needed, have a folder structure, etc. Make the password "e621" and resolve not to forget just 4 characters lol. Wait a minute, maybe you'd want to do "e six twenty one" or something more complicated since it could be brute forced or w/e.

I exempt my porn folders from my virus scans.

so ha!

trfg7xz2oxps said:
Wait a minute, maybe you'd want to do "e six twenty one" or something more complicated since it could be brute forced or w/e.

How about "trfg7xz2oxps"?

Munkelzahn said:
How about "trfg7xz2oxps"?

except xkcd was right - "correct horse battery stapler" is a lot more secure than a string of characters like that.

Oh, by the way, you've already memorized the short sentence.

tony311 said:
You should get Microsoft Security Essentials, it's exactly the same thing, but better.

Aurali said:
windows defender is NOT an antivirus. Do not treat it as such.

My bad, MSE is what I'm running on my computers, not Windows Defender. Still, it's kinda like, "whatever." It's not surfing the web bareback, and I'm not convinced that even the world's best will protect me from anything serious. There's just too many attack vectors, with new ones being found pretty much every day (or every hour in the case of anything by Adobe).

GreyMaria said:
except xkcd was right - "correct horse battery stapler" is a lot more secure than a string of characters like that.

Oh, by the way, you've already memorized the short sentence.

XKCD is certainly entertaining, but Randall kinda fudged the numbers and massively underestimated the complexity of his sample password when trying to make his point.

"trfg7xz2oxps" seems like a randomly generated alpha-numeric password, which is 36^12, or 62 bits to Randall's 44 bits (146 million years to guess vs. Randall's 550 years).

Edit: There was more, but I posted and immediately realized I'd committed an egregious mathematical error, so I deleted the erroneous paragraph. I'll either redo the math later, or not care.

Throw in a couple of periods and semicolons and shit gets real.

Very real. Randall conservatively adds 16 possibilities for special character symbols, which bumps us to 52^12, or 68 bits, or 9 billion years.

But the real win is simply remembering we can used mixed case, which adds 26 possibilities for symbols, bumping complexity to 78^12 combinations, or 75 bits, or 1.1 trillion years (with very generous rounding down). Stated another way, if someone had been guessing 1000 times a second since the estimated beginning of the universe, they would only be a little more than 1% of the way there by now.

And that's just with 12 characters.

Which just goes to show that since you'll be dead far, far, far before 550 years pass, correct horse battery stapler or whatever it was is a better password since you can actually, y'know, remember it.

The problem is that even with a good password (I'll ignore the question whether or not "horse battery stapler" is a good password, since it's not even relevant), hacking it isn't a matter of trying to brute force every single possible combination.

A good example are the MD5 hashes, which are used to store passwords. Multiple passwords can share the same MD5 hash, it's not impossible that your account with the awesomely complex password shares the same hash with the guy using "1234" as his password. A collision attack makes use of that, in that it simply tries to find a password that produces the same MD5 hash as your password. There are even huge MD5 lookup tables available that allow a hacker to simply use one code for every possible hash, in stead of having to try every single code.

Of course, MD5 isn't exactly a recommended security algorithm anymore since it has a bunch of exploitable weaknesses, and other algorithm like SHA-2 avoid collisions. Still, you'd be surprised to see how many sites still use a 'broken' algorithm like MD5.

And of course, there are other vulnerabilities. No security measure is 100% hack-proof, and there are other ways to hack into a user account than simply guessing the password. And in the worst case, even if it would take a thousand years on average to brute force your password, it's just as likely that the first guess is correct.

So we mention the xkcd of simple passwords being more effective, and not the xkcd of it being far simpler to steal the password: http://xkcd.com/538/

wat about qauntam computers !!!?

trfg7xz2oxps said:
wat about qauntam computers !!!?

Then we need quantum passwords :-)

Munkelzahn said:
Then we need quantum passwords :-)

For our quantum porn.

Quantum porn? Inbe4 quantum furries; Shrodinger's Cat Shows All?

Valence said:
So we mention the xkcd of simple passwords being more effective, and not the xkcd of it being far simpler to steal the password: http://xkcd.com/538/

We also forgot to mention the xkcd about how password reuse is a bigger danger than low password entropy: http://xkcd.com/792/

Of course, that also supports the idea that a password that's easier to remember is more important than one that takes more than X billion years to guess, since being able to remember more passwords makes you less vulnerable from reuse.

Well, like everyone else I get distracted by all the status quo material out there. So I'm always glad to see someone who's thinking of bigger, better things. Someone like Jeff Atwood:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/09/cutting-the-gordian-knot-of-web-identity.html