- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
I did a fresh install. What programs besides MSE do I need? I tried malwarebytes but it doesn't install. Says file is corrupted.
Clean install win 7
- Thread starter AgentUnknown
- Start date
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
I'd suggest Avast or Avira as a replacement for MSE which is not a recommended program in recent AV testing.
http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html?
http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html?
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
How exactly did you do a clean install? (and why)
And MSE isn't recommended by whom exactly?
Looking at av-comparatives current 'real world' tests, they call 95% detection "non-competitive", they also talk about using Win7 as their test platform, then mention "tested against out-of-box protection", then acknowledging that Win7 has no out-of-box AV protection and Win8 has... it's just bizarre (why not just say "tested on Win7 with MSE"... footnote, Win8 comes with MSE and it is confusingly called "Windows Defender"). They then acknowledge that 100% detection doesn't mean that something is a perfect anti-virus and that it will still miss stuff in the wild (which is perfectly true), so how can they call a 95% detection rate non-competitive? Are they guaranteeing that their tests are accurate within 5% in the real world? Really?
I personally think that there's an effort to discourage people from using MSE / Windows 8 Defender. Anti-virus vendors obviously don't like the idea that there's now built-in AV in Win8, but I wonder whether AV-test/comparatives have bees in their bonnets about Microsoft becoming popular in this arena, or they're just being paid to bad-mouth it. For example, the "Which?" magazine (a publication in the UK with a generally good reputation for product testing) did an article on AV effectiveness, asking the useful question "is free protection good enough?". The article was an utter farce - they didn't document their testing techniques, and they gave every free anti-virus package low ratings and gave Norton top marks.
Back to AV-comparatives. There's also no information to what "blocked" and "user-dependent" means. Does it mean the entire malicious URL was blocked from loading at all or does it mean that the malware was detected and automatically stopped from loading on the target computer? If it's the first, then I think they need to re-establish the remit of the test. Website blacklisting isn't a very effective technique against malware. It's the first line of defence that an anti-malware package can have, but because a legitimate site can be hacked or is hosting a malicious ad banner, website blacklisting is known to have very limited effectiveness. I would rather see separate tests of each layer of defence than having the overall test skewed by one vendor's excellent site black list but possibly terrible AV engine. Does MSE / Defender even have a website blacklist?
Looking at av-test, I have no idea how they calculate the score for each category, and I would dispute their definition of "0-day malware attacks" if they think the industry average effectiveness for blocking such threats is 91%. This is what a zero-day attack is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack
The scary thing about a zero-day attack is that any Internet-connecting product is at risk from something that the vendor doesn't know about until after the attack has started in the wild, as opposed to a discovered vulnerability which is reported to the vendor and sufficient time given for the vendor to fix the problem before the vulnerability information has been published. There's nothing to stop a security product from having a zero-day vulnerability, it's just as likely as any other piece of software out there.
And they're talking about "inclusive of web and e-mail threats"... as opposed to? I would also dispute that the industry average for detecting "widespread and prevalent malware" is 100%. The av-comparatives website mentioned "95%" being "non-competitive" for threat detection, I would be surprised if any AV product was 95% effective against the total amount of threats out there, I would be quite happy if one was, let alone almost all of them!
And MSE isn't recommended by whom exactly?
Looking at av-comparatives current 'real world' tests, they call 95% detection "non-competitive", they also talk about using Win7 as their test platform, then mention "tested against out-of-box protection", then acknowledging that Win7 has no out-of-box AV protection and Win8 has... it's just bizarre (why not just say "tested on Win7 with MSE"... footnote, Win8 comes with MSE and it is confusingly called "Windows Defender"). They then acknowledge that 100% detection doesn't mean that something is a perfect anti-virus and that it will still miss stuff in the wild (which is perfectly true), so how can they call a 95% detection rate non-competitive? Are they guaranteeing that their tests are accurate within 5% in the real world? Really?
I personally think that there's an effort to discourage people from using MSE / Windows 8 Defender. Anti-virus vendors obviously don't like the idea that there's now built-in AV in Win8, but I wonder whether AV-test/comparatives have bees in their bonnets about Microsoft becoming popular in this arena, or they're just being paid to bad-mouth it. For example, the "Which?" magazine (a publication in the UK with a generally good reputation for product testing) did an article on AV effectiveness, asking the useful question "is free protection good enough?". The article was an utter farce - they didn't document their testing techniques, and they gave every free anti-virus package low ratings and gave Norton top marks.
Back to AV-comparatives. There's also no information to what "blocked" and "user-dependent" means. Does it mean the entire malicious URL was blocked from loading at all or does it mean that the malware was detected and automatically stopped from loading on the target computer? If it's the first, then I think they need to re-establish the remit of the test. Website blacklisting isn't a very effective technique against malware. It's the first line of defence that an anti-malware package can have, but because a legitimate site can be hacked or is hosting a malicious ad banner, website blacklisting is known to have very limited effectiveness. I would rather see separate tests of each layer of defence than having the overall test skewed by one vendor's excellent site black list but possibly terrible AV engine. Does MSE / Defender even have a website blacklist?
Looking at av-test, I have no idea how they calculate the score for each category, and I would dispute their definition of "0-day malware attacks" if they think the industry average effectiveness for blocking such threats is 91%. This is what a zero-day attack is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-day_attack
The scary thing about a zero-day attack is that any Internet-connecting product is at risk from something that the vendor doesn't know about until after the attack has started in the wild, as opposed to a discovered vulnerability which is reported to the vendor and sufficient time given for the vendor to fix the problem before the vulnerability information has been published. There's nothing to stop a security product from having a zero-day vulnerability, it's just as likely as any other piece of software out there.
And they're talking about "inclusive of web and e-mail threats"... as opposed to? I would also dispute that the industry average for detecting "widespread and prevalent malware" is 100%. The av-comparatives website mentioned "95%" being "non-competitive" for threat detection, I would be surprised if any AV product was 95% effective against the total amount of threats out there, I would be quite happy if one was, let alone almost all of them!
Last edited:
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
Did you delete all partitions on the disk? Is your Win7 DVD an original disc or 'other'?
Last edited:
Little tip.
When you ask for help, please be descriptive in your responses, or you will get few answers and people will not want to help you in the future.
The primary cause of infections in fresh installations is probably using pirated media. Those come with neat "pre-loaded" malware about half the time.
Other issues might include not actually reinstalling, but simply reloading Windows over another partition and keeping infected programs.
That's not to say that there is an infection, but it certainly shows some signs of that.
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
I deleted all partitions. I have a Microsoft ISO downloaded and used that to burn to a disc. This is through microsofts own site. Do I need to buy a retail win 7?
If you encounter problems like this after an install, just stop, format, and start over. You shouldn't have these issues on a fresh install and you don't want to troubleshoot a fresh install. It's not worth it. The problems may come back...after you've spent a lot of time configuring things!
There's nothing wrong with MSE. Every AV program can be defeated by a stupid and/or careless user.
There's nothing wrong with MSE. Every AV program can be defeated by a stupid and/or careless user.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
So after you installed Win7, what did you do? Where did you get your drivers from? Are other programs installing successfully?
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
How do you connect to the Internet? I wonder whether there's a problem with whichever network device driver you're using. Also, why did you wipe the computer in the first place?
Also, there are usually error codes with Windows Update, that might help narrow down the issue.
You didn't answer where you got your drivers from.
Also, there are usually error codes with Windows Update, that might help narrow down the issue.
You didn't answer where you got your drivers from.
Last edited:
blankslate
Diamond Member
- Jun 16, 2008
- 8,797
- 572
- 126
maybe there is an actual hardware problem.
we had a laptop that wouldn't take an install of win7 even after we used active killdisk to erase everthing on the HD.
Turned out that the HD was faulty and when another one was placed in the laptop the installation of Win7 and other programs went fine.
It might not be the HD but the cable from the HD to the motherboard if you're using a desktop.
the faulty HD is being used for sneaker-net duties with non critical data until it ultimately fails.
we had a laptop that wouldn't take an install of win7 even after we used active killdisk to erase everthing on the HD.
Turned out that the HD was faulty and when another one was placed in the laptop the installation of Win7 and other programs went fine.
It might not be the HD but the cable from the HD to the motherboard if you're using a desktop.
the faulty HD is being used for sneaker-net duties with non critical data until it ultimately fails.
I've run into this before too. Tossed a clean image on a PC that would just come back with all sorts of funky problems while reinstalling apps and setting up the user profile. Turns out the HD was solid enough to accept the image without failure, but once you started moving stuff around and installing stuff you hit those failure points and it all went to hell.
Swapped the drive and everything was gravy.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
Ketchup
Elite Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 14,559
- 248
- 106
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
How so? Unless you specifically select the 'format' option, a new partition is quick-formatted, which means that it barely looks at the disk at all. If all the OP did was select partitions, delete them, then select the disk for installation, a quick format is all it would have received.
Personally I think it's unlikely that this is a disk problem because I would have expected Win7 setup to have a few problems during installation, rather than the disk waiting until after the heavy disk I/O during setup to then complain when Windows Updates and apps attempt installation.
It's worth checking the event log as well for unusual errors and warnings.
We still don't have a reason for the fresh install. It's probably related to the reason for the current problems.
Based my comment on the fact that it did so poorly in the AV-Test testing:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...entials_flunks_av-test_loses_certification419
http://www.techspot.com/news/50945-...ls-bombs-tests-loses-av-test-certificate.html
Ketchup
Elite Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 14,559
- 248
- 106
- Apr 10, 2003
- 1,527
- 5
- 81
Ok I reset modem and things seem to work. iTunes mse all install. Win update has a few errors. Thanks.
Ketchup
Elite Member
- Sep 1, 2002
- 14,559
- 248
- 106
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 21,137
- 16,343
- 136
Other people suggested it might be a disk problem without instructing the OP how to do a disk check. I thought "It's possible", and "It can't hurt to try", so I provided instructions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter