My experience mirrors ky's.

I've tested and discarded far more security products over the years than I care to mention. I don't believe any  of the security products I currently use were in my war chest 10 years ago. The battle lines against the bad guys keep shifting.

There is no question there is such a thing as "too much security" and a potential for conflicts. And obsessive on-demand scans are probably not a good defensive strategy. But we do need to continually re-evaluate our options.

Thanks for the info, Hernan.

As you know, I'm certainly a believer in layered security.   But at times, I wonder when it's becomming "over-kill":   with both avast and MBAM running (checking files) in real-time, do I really need a specialized program to check files on my flash drive?

I did not take the time to read the entire thread at avast --- it's over 7 pages now --- but I'm wondering why the avast people there feel the need (weakness in avast?) for this program???

Hernan, in your case, you also have the D+ from Comodo...

But at times, I wonder when it's becomming "over-kill":

I fully agree with BugBatter.

Years ago, I was eager to at least test --- and often continue to use --- many security products.   I would routinely run scan after scan --- seemingly to the point of paranoia --- without ever finding anything [aside from tracking cookies].   I continued to keep some products around (e.g., SpyBot) long after others dropped it, out of a sense of "familiarity"/"comfort".    In SpyBot's case --- a program intentionally filled with redundancies to "insure" its protection --- I gradually gave it up piece-by-piece:  first, its SDHelper IE-Helper module, then its TeaTimer, then its scanner (as scan times on my older system rose to about 45 minutes), and finally its immunization/HOSTS-file... at which point, there was nothing left of SpyBot.

A year ago, I had occasion to reformat my older system.   Starting "fresh" --- and wanting to keep the system "crisp" --- I was very deliberate in what I decided to install.   I did not include SpyBot.   And I opted for just one alternate browser [in addition to IE].  

I have a new system now [while still keeping the older one "around'], which is MUCH faster overall.   Regardless, I don't want to install more on it than I have to, more than I will actually use.

Unless you're a total expert, or someone who wants to risk fate, we all need ONE anti-virus on our systems.   Which to select is completely up to each user.   Most of us gain a familiarity with a product, and then have a sense of comfort staying with it.   Some believe the "big name" paid products offer better protection, and don't want to risk "gambling" on a "freebie"... while others rely completely on free products.   To each his/her own.

Unfortunately, too many users believe that an anti-virus program guarantees them complete security, and then are shocked when their system becomes infected.   What they don't realize is that, if they click on infected e-mail links, or indiscriminately click YES to all prompts, they are giving permission to malware to load onto their system.

That's reason for ONE realtime anti-malware program.   I won't be "shy" here:   MBAM is the only paid program I advocate people use.   It nicely supplements the anti-virus of your choice.   And tends to catch most of the rogue programs that can slip-by [even the best of] antiviruses.  

Beyond ONE anti-virus, and ONE resident anti-malware program [MBAM or otherwise], it's all a matter of "user's choice":   what you feel comfortable with, what you believe works for you.    If you wish to install several [non-resident] anti-malware scanners... and run endless scans with them... that's certainly your choice.   But if doing so consumes all your time --- eating away at your productivity --- that's when it becomes way too much.   Unless you are totally paranoid:  for the paranoid, what I consider "over-kill" is what they deem necessary.

We often speak of "safe surfing":   avoiding questionable sites (pornography, P2P file sharing), saying this is the first step toward keeping your machine clean.   For people who do so, they may be able to get-by with a minimal security configuration.   But for those who choose to practice risky behavior, and/or for those who have actually experienced and suffered through a virus/malware infection, then additional [layers of] protection would indeed seem prudent.

So yes, there are good reviews/testing of products offered in this forum.   Joe does some excellent work in this capacity.   If you like what you read from him... or from other "regulars" like BugBatter, Iroc9555, or RedDawn... go ahead and try things.   See what you like... see what [you believe] works for you.   Choose as little or as much [non-conflicting] security as you feel you need... of course STOPPING should you encounter actual conflicts, or if you can actually "sense" your system slowing down.

[I realize I'm rambling at this point, not sure what I'm actually trying to say, so I'm just gonna stop here...]

I did not take the time to read the entire thread at avast --- it's over 7 pages now --- but I'm wondering why the avast people there feel the need (weakness in avast?) for this program???

One additional thought in reference to MCShield:   I think much of the decision on whether or not to use that program may depend on how often one uses a Flash drive [or other external storage media]... and how often (if at all) the Flash drive comes from a potentially "untrustworthy source" [by which I mean, anyone other than yourself].   Without doubt, if relatives/friends/colleagues are permitted to use THEIR Flash drives on YOUR computer, then yes, there's a clear need for such additional protection.    If however, you're the only one to access your system, and you use the same Flash drive each time [which no one else uses], you should be safe with your anti-virus program [which should have tested the files before allowing them to be saved on your Flash drive].   But yes, even in the latter case, the extra protection couldn't hurt.

dr_Bora/Borislav:

Welcome the the DeLL Forums, and thank you for your input on this topic.   Birdies are wonderful assistants.

Hello everyone...

I'm one of the programmers of MCShield. A birdie told me about this topic, so I came to advertise a bit. :emotion-2:

To begin with, what is MCS? It's a preventive tool meant to block infections that are transmitted via removable drives.

The fact is, for the last 7, 8 years I've been an active forum helper doing malware removal topics. At a certain point in time, I've noticed an irritating issue: some users kept coming back infected after a few days. You're guessing how they got reinfected?

First bobby (the other programmer) made USBNoRisk which was a helper tool and provided means to analyze flash drives and do manual (scripted) cleanup.

While testing USBNoRisk, I've had a chance to play around with a whole bunch of flash infectors and, as the time went by, I noticed that those baddies follow certain "behavior" patterns. So, if I open a flash drive, I see what's bad.

One day I got an idea: what if I could transfer that "human eye / mind based detection" to a number of algorithms? Well, that's exactly what I did.

After some testing, I realized that kind of program could be of use and released it to public. Now? We don't have millions of users, but what makes me believe all this was not a waste of time is the Stats tab (almost 300 thousand treated items, and that's not the realistic number because we started counting items with version 2). So, a few thousand active users and almost 300 k times the program needed to do something. The way I see it, those that need / use this program, definitely have a use for it.

Who needs MCS? Let's put it this way: who needs a firewall? If you're offline, you don't. Do you need it if you're connected to the internet? Yes, you do, but...

If we say that the FW is to protect us from network worms (I know it does more, just ignoring that fact now to make an example :emotion-4:), do we really need it if we use an antivirus? I mean, the AV does detect worms, right? But we still use firewalls, don't we?

To make the long story short: AV needs a signature. MCS, generally, doesn't. If you use flash drives (of any type), then you could have use for a program like this. Simply, MCS is better than an AV when it comes to this kind of infection sources (for a simple reason: it works with non active, non critical files, so it can rely on generic detections much more than an AV can).

It could be said that MCS is targeted at novice / average user, but advanced users could also spare some time (by letting MCS do what they would otherwise need to do manually). 

Actions it does? Renames suspicious files, deletes malicious files and malware related folders, restores the attributes of legit files and folders if it determines that they have been hidden by malware. So, it does a bit more that the AV does.

Potential conflicts have been mentioned... Important thing to note is that MCS is a pure user mode program which means it can't cause any real trouble.

There are no drivers that could conflict with your AV and the usage of system resources is minimal (the Drive Monitor simply waits for a new drive and than launches the Drive Scanner).

And now I'll stop writing... :emotion-1:

Borislav 

Welcome to DeLL Forum dr_Bora.

Better for the programmer to explain how an application works than an user who just is playing with it.

Thanks.

v 2.2.4.16: 25th October 2012.

- fixed an issue regarding encryption of certain quarantined files;
- fixed an issue that caused longer scan and wrong tray notification when the program was fixing a false positive.

-----

Note:   I have decided to post the update information here, in the thread where we've been discussing McShield, rather than the "daily update" thread we keep at Dell.   People who are using or testing this program should keep it updated.