Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: haloboy100 on July 29, 2009, 12:13:50 pm
-
Alright, so after putting up with the incredibly slow performance of my computer (though it plays games just fine), I'm thinking that this iexplore.exe virus I'm having is really deserving some attention, even though AVG says nothing is wrong. I've now officially decided that AVG is a load of balls in the oven, since it never really detected any virus I've ever had (well, I guess it has, but it's "healing" never helped at all), and the customer service is completely useless, and their so-called virus "encyclopedia" has never helped me in the entire years I've ever used it.
The only noticeable symptoms I'm having are massive system slowdown, as this iexplore.exe process has now all of a sudden decided to take up a huge portion of my CPU resources. I see spikes of up to 50 percent on both cores, and if I turn on AVG interface my CPU caps out at 100% and never recovers until I terminate AVG. As much as I terminate the iexplore.exe process (which by now I've figured out is internet explorer, even though I deleted it months ago), it keeps comming back within a few seconds afterwards. Attempting to block it using AVG's resident shield does nothing, further cementing my belief that AVG is ****.
Oddly enough, this CPU spike only started happening today. The only symptoms I've been having before hand has been this mysterious other process which was a series of numbers (beginning with 147 or something, I don't remember).exe, which I assumed was a virus as terminating has always had no consequence, and it seems to be a parent to the iexplore.exe process. The other symptom was that I would randomly hear a podcast-sounding message play suddenly, usually some guy talking about dating or his penis size. Not a good thing to have when you're showing a friend a game. This message stopped whenever I terminated the iexplore.exe process, telling me that internet explorer is infected and downloading from malicious websites, even though I deleted internet explorer a long time ago.
As of now I'm trying This (http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-xp/iexplorerexe-virus/129222.html) solution I googled regarding this. Assuming it works, I'll be needing a new anti-virus program as I'm completely fed up with AVG now.
I'm looking for the best anti-virus I can get, that's hopefully under an affordable price (let's say, about 50 bucks), and one that actually works at detecting the nasty threats. Looking for one with a good firewall, too. AVG's firewall is good, but it mysteriously disappeared a few months ago, and I think it doesn't work anymore. Perhaps it's the virus, but all I know is that it isn't really working. I'm also looking for a program that would be relatively light on resources, at least like AVG, so I can play games.
After searching the web I've found a few anti-virus programs that seem to be rather popular - Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Zone Alarm, and - believe it or not - Mcafee and Norton. I say believe it or not because I've learned from experience on friends' computers that Mcafee is full of crap and false positives, and does nothing but block internet traffic that you need instead of unsafe connections. and obviously Norton, because it is notorious for being a system hog.
So, I'm sorry to burden the community, but I don't really know anybody else with adequate computer experience to help me. Any help would be shiny. :)
-
Home users do not need to pay for internet security solutions at this time. You can get completely sufficient protection with free products; in fact some of them offer better results than many of the paid solutions. I can understand the need for accountability and support for business or enterprise computers connected to net, but other than that, free AV programs have a tendency to be more resource friendly AND more efficient at virus detection and removal.
Avast! Home Edition (http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html) is my choice for anti-virus solution when I'm using Windows of any kind.
Comodo Personal Firewall (http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/) is what I use for software firewall when I need one. Note that Comodo also offers a complete "Internet Security" package with an anti-virus program. Ignore it and make sure you install just the firewall. Comodo's firewall is awesome, the anti-virus functionality not so much.
Avast! is particularly nice because you can make it run a complete virus check at startup before the system - and any embedded viruses - are activated to the level where the virus can prevent the anti-virus program from detecting and deleting it.
Aside from that, I suggest using common sense in what you download and install on your system, as well as using a good browser like Firefox 3 along with NoScript plugin, which prevents all scripts from running except those that you want to allow. Sounds cumbersome, but I find it better than being linked to attack sites that launch an un-exitable javascript that tells me my computer needs to be scanned... :rolleyes:
...or worse, the Jumping Window RickRoll. :shaking:
-
If you elect to purchase a program, I personally enjoy TrendMicro AV and Spy Sweeper. I've had no real problems to date. I also tend to be very specific about my web browsing...
However, the truth is no one program will find all of the problems. Hackers being hackers, there's always going to be one that gets through...
-Thaeris
-
oh, don't worry...I'm very deliberate on my browsing and I use firefox, personally I think this virus is from some bad choice on torrent downloads. Anyway, I'm not asking for help on removing this virus (unless, the solution I mentioned above doesn't work, I might), I just need a good AV program. I'll try Avast! as I've also heard very favorable reviews and the nerdier folk at TVWP seem to always know what they're talking about :P
Ah yes, Trend Micro. I've heard very favorable things about that, I'll take a look into it.
Thank you. :)
-
If I'd suggest some things to avoid they'd probably be McAffe and Norton. Both tend to be very system-intensive and invasive to other programs. Conspiracy theorists will also suggest that major AV suppliers such as these also fabricate viruses distributed throughout the programs themselves to enhance revenue earned through their enterprises... Or something like that.
Personally I've never used one of the apps on my own computer, but people close to me have. And did not do well by them...
Once again, Trend Micro and Spy Sweeper have not given me such problems.
-Thaeris
-
I shall add F-Secure to the things to avoid as well, even though it's technically a Finnish product.
It's just too damn resource intensive - completely needlessly. :ick:
-
Yeah, i've heard bad things about f-secure as well.
-
Avast is the only antivirus product I recommend, and I've tried over a dozen. I run it on all my systems.
-
The only AV I'll ever recommend again is ESET. It takes up no CPU, it has resident protection, a very similar firewall to Comodo from what I can see, and it has the best heuristic and non-heuristic protection available.
-
I shall add F-Secure to the things to avoid as well, even though it's technically a Finnish product.
It's just too damn resource intensive - completely needlessly.
I'm running with F-Secure both home and work, while I use Kerio Personal Firewall at home. Kerio has been quite good firewall, while F-Secure has actually thwarted a couple of virus attacks to my home computer. But it does take resources like there is no tomorrow. I suspect my 2600 MHz Athlon cannot actually run the damn program any more.
Staying out of torrents will help protecting your computer as you don't necessarily need to download anything to catch a virus. Watching your firewall traffic log of those sites or programs like DC++ can be quite revealing.
-
How about you run your computer with a standard user profile? Viruses and malware can't do anything unless you give them permission or unless there was an existing hole in your OS of which an update would eventually come out to patch. Still a good thing to have antivirus even in user space. You'll just be doing a lot less scans if any.
-
Avast! for Windows? Hmm ... I might just replace AVG with that.
-
aVast! is nice, updates semi-frequently, bout twice a week or so, and it's saved my ass several times as it will snag infected downloads and connections to infected sites before you ever see them.
-
Well, look what happened here.
I accidently deleted a system file, but system restore helped that, and now the virus is totally gone.
and it turns out there was still a piece of AVG left in my connection settings that was preventing me from connecting to anything.I promptly deleted that and now everything is blustery and flowery.
Thanks for the help, guys.
-
I recently switched from Symantec to aVast. I'm very happy with it.
Not that I ever have virus problems anyway. :) I tend to stay in safe parts of the internet and don't torrent anything.
-
I've never had any noticeable issues with AVG myself, but to each their own, I suppose.
*knocks on head*
-
The torrent protocol isn't the problem, of course just what you may be torrenting that may or may not be virus laden.
You all have fun with your admin user accounts 24/7, i know i at least don't let anyone of my friends on my computer unless they're in userland.
-
So, I'm sorry to burden the community, but I don't really know anybody else with adequate computer experience to help me. Any help would be shiny.
Don't worry about it, people come here all the time for computer advice.
-
You all have fun with your admin user accounts 24/7, i know i at least don't let anyone of my friends on my computer unless they're in userland.
I never let people on my computer at all, knowing all nasty programs one can hide in a 1GB thumb drive and how untrustworthy a number of my "friends" are.
-
You all have fun with your admin user accounts 24/7, i know i at least don't let anyone of my friends on my computer unless they're in userland.
I never let people on my computer at all, knowing all nasty programs one can hide in a 1GB thumb drive and how untrustworthy a number of my "friends" are.
Good call.
-
Hey, let all the people you want on your computer damage free with a passwordless guest account. Try activating it some day. When i'm off my computer i just lock the session and if anyone else wants to use it, they get to login as guest.
Glad people did some pointing the person to avast.
But, a good fix to this problem is to run your computer in user space and not admin space all the time. But, a whole bunch of you wont because it's too habitually different and may seem inconvenient. In user space, there's a much more strict permission set when compared to administrator space which has a different permission set that basically says yes to everything on the system be it a virus or actual program.
So if not running in user space is because people are lazy or that it's too different to use, or you think your firewall and virus scanner combination is good enough. How much do you appreciate the down time when you eventually do get a virus because you ran as administrator all the time, or the fact that your computer got hacked giving 100% access to everything to change/delete/steal for the hacker because the administrator permission set is extremely unrestrictive because either your firewall wasn't that great or had an exploit.
Down time sucks, easy ways to minimize it.
-
Hmm. What exactly is user space? Is that when you choose the other option when you create a user account in windows XP?
Because, if I run user space, which is as safe as you say it is, and all I have to do is click yes whenever I want to do an application, I have no problem with that an all.
I once had a guest account on my computer, but since nobody ever wants to use my computer at all, I figured it's better just to be in the same room the rare time someone wants to use it.
-
Vista's User Account Control enabled one to give administrator access to certain programs and actions on a request-by-request basis while logged into a limited account, but to the best of my knowledge, XP didn't have that same luxury. (According to Wiki, previous versions of Windows didn't even contain the concept of a "limited" account.) And given how many programs tend to require admin-level access when running in XP, I'll continue to take my chances with the admin account.
-
yeah, because the only other use account option in XP is "limited", which disables you from installing and executing many programs, period.
-
If I'd suggest some things to avoid they'd probably be McAffe and Norton. Both tend to be very system-intensive and invasive to other programs. Conspiracy theorists will also suggest that major AV suppliers such as these also fabricate viruses distributed throughout the programs themselves to enhance revenue earned through their enterprises... Or something like that.
Personally I've never used one of the apps on my own computer, but people close to me have. And did not do well by them...
Once again, Trend Micro and Spy Sweeper have not given me such problems.
-Thaeris
Really? McAfee has worked very well for me.
-
My dislike of McAfee and Nortor stem less from they're supposed backdooring of viruses, and more to the fact that they are bloatware of the first order, slowing system performance by as much as 50% compared to the same system without them running.
-
But, a good fix to this problem is to run your computer in user space and not admin space all the time. But, a whole bunch of you wont because it's too habitually different and may seem inconvenient. In user space, there's a much more strict permission set when compared to administrator space which has a different permission set that basically says yes to everything on the system be it a virus or actual program.
So if not running in user space is because people are lazy or that it's too different to use, or you think your firewall and virus scanner combination is good enough. How much do you appreciate the down time when you eventually do get a virus because you ran as administrator all the time, or the fact that your computer got hacked giving 100% access to everything to change/delete/steal for the hacker because the administrator permission set is extremely unrestrictive because either your firewall wasn't that great or had an exploit.
XP isn't really ideal for running standard user account. Vista does it much better. Win7 does it even better. If you're considering Win7 to replace your aging XP, consider no more. It's that good.
-
My dislike of McAfee and Nortor stem less from they're supposed backdooring of viruses, and more to the fact that they are bloatware of the first order, slowing system performance by as much as 50% compared to the same system without them running.
The box of Norton's latest Internet Security product claims massive performance gains and consumption of far fewer system resources, but I don't know if that's been independently verified by anyone. I always thought it had a decent-enough user interface, but it utterly slaughtered our running-XP-on384-megs-of-RDRAM family system. :p
-
Avira Antivir (http://www.free-av.com/). Works for me. It's taking up 12 MB of my memory right now. The only annoying thing are the advirtisements for the pro version when updating.
It also doesn't hate User32.dll, unlike AVG :P.
You all have fun with your admin user accounts 24/7, i know i at least don't let anyone of my friends on my computer unless they're in userland.
I never let people on my computer at all, knowing all nasty programs one can hide in a 1GB thumb drive and how untrustworthy a number of my "friends" are.
My friends don't even come to my house, since it is about 30 km away from where they live :P.
-
XP and Vista are both multi-user environments. Which means you can have more than one user logged into the same system at any one time. It also means that you can temporarily utilize another account temporarily to get stuff done from within another account.
Hmm. What exactly is user space? Is that when you choose the other option when you create a user account in windows XP?
Sorry for tossing around lingo (userspace being it). Running around in userspace is lingo for using a limited permission set user account...in other words just using a user account instead of an admin account.
yeah, because the only other use account option in XP is "limited", which disables you from installing and executing many programs, period.
Don't always jump to conclusions so quickly, you don't even know what a limited user account is (if you don't know what something is, then google it). Limited user in XP is the exact same as standard user in Vista. Just different wording is all that's different. And yes, user accounts will keep you from installing programs, but you're forgetting about the accessing of admin privileges while in userspace. There's pretty much no restriction on running programs in userspace. The only reason why a program needs admin privileges is because you needed to make system wide changes such as anything in the control panel, editing system files, etc. Or that a program's specific function requires a permission that userspace cannot grant. Other than that, i run all of my games just fine from userspace as well as normal programs like firefox, instant messaging, office programs, bla bla bla.
How accessing admin privileges in userspace works...
XP does have the ability just as vista does. Just that in XP you get the similar and less automated "run as" dialog instead of the much better vista UAC. Vista and XP have different wording. They both have guest accounts which both perform the same function. But, in Vista to run as a user, when creating a user account, select "standard user". In XP when you create a user account, you select "limited user". Different wording in both OS'es for the same thing.
The way running in user space in windows is pretty cool. You set up yourself a password protected admin account, and you set up a user account. Then when running in the user account, everything administrative that happens is an approval by approval basis (it's really awesome). Basically nothing gets to be installed, nothing gets access to outside of the user account folders like my documents and the desktop (no access to core system files), and nothing gets to run amock crazily unless the administrator has approved any of this stuff.
Vista has uac, which is an annoyance if you run as an admin, but you really get to see it's power when running in user space. UAC is pretty automated, whenever you install a program from userspace, UAC pops up to give you an opportunity to temporarily access an admin account to give permission only for whatever you're doing at the time that requires admin privileges.
In XP, it's not so automated, but in general is similar to how things are in vista with uac. In xp, if you want to temporarily give admin privileges to something, you right click the icon and select the "run as" (this is similar to right clicking an icon in vista and selecting "run as administrator".
So, if you were installing firefox from userspace in vista, (without right clicking the install executable, just plain old double clicking it) )UAC would pop up, tell you what's happening and if you would like to grant permission for this program to be installed. UAC will show you a list of all of the accounts on the system that have the ability to do so letting you select one, pop in the password for that admin account, and admin privileges were given to nothing more than firefox for installation on the system. When firefox is done being installed that's when admin privileges specifically for the firefox installation end (in xp it's the same procedure...just that the runas dialog doesn't pop up automatically like UAC does....so you'd have to start out with right clicking the installable executable and select "run as").
That's how temporary admin privileges work in a multiuser OS for an approval by approval basis. After that, programs within userspace...they don't get admin privileges either, unless you right click the firefox icon in vista and select "run as administrator", which'll bring up UAC so on and so forth with admin privileges ending until you're done doing whatever needed admin privileges in firefox (of which closing out firefox after giving it admin privileges ends giving admin privileges only to firefox).
Basically nothing on your computer would get admin privileges unless you give admin privileges yourself. Means when something funky hops on your computer and tries to rewrite your registry in vista, UAC will pop up and see if you want to give permission along with a summary of whatever something funky is trying to do to your system. Like i said, if you want to do this, use whatever admin account you have, password protect it, and create a new standard user/limited (they're both the same thing, just different wording) account preferably with a password that you have to type in, but keep in mind, having your computer automatically login with a user account is much not volatile at all compared to many computers that automatically login to an admin account when a computer starts up.