It's Worth Getting - If You Don't Have Conflicts! AVG LinkScanner 2011

Bump

I tried to download it, but since I use Avast as my virus program, it wouldn't let me, says it will conflict. Oh well, sounded good.

Alwil Software products

avast! 5

Please let us inform you that it is not possible to use AVG LinkScanner with avast! 5 due to conflicts between both products. In case avast! is already installed on your computer, the presence of conflicting application will be detected and AVG LinkScanner will not be installed.

In case you install AVG Linkscanner first and then avast!, computer may crash when starting internet browser.

Quite a few software conflicts.  Is that what you meant by the 'If' in the thread title Doc?

I'm using Avira and I already have Webguard disabled because it ruins ie9 Beta performance. Doesn't crash it but slows it down and some pages won't load. Anyway, no problem with Linkscanner yet.

There are other link software you can use

McAfee SiteAdvisor

Web of Trust 

I have yet to have any conflicts with Web of Trust

I believe the conflicts may be due to the toolbar. I did not install that and Microsoft Security Essentials is chugging away with no problems, Philly.

I'd like to ask folks if they feel brave to try installation but without the toolbar.

Also, if you read the "exceptions" carefully, there are solutions for TrendMicro and ESET software.

Okay, understand Doc.

Doesn't IE 8 also do this link scan?

ie 8 does with the Linkscanner. They work together perfectly on my machine. But by itself? I've never seen it do that. Needs Linkscanner.

Linkscanner was one of the AVG features I really liked when I was using AVG's antivirus product.  Great to see them make it available stand-alone.

I have it installed and it appears to be functioning as intended in IE8 alongside MS Security Essentials as my AV/Anti-malware app (I, too, declined the Toolbar - no one should agree to any third-party toolbar, IMHO; YMMV).  Also using Simple Adblock.  Surfing the way it should be.

Side-note to DrJBHL -

I like Opera's UI a lot, as well as FF3/4 (used FF3 with IETab for a few FF-unfriendly sites for a long time), but I started having problems with page-load lockups, especially with 2 or more tabs open, in all three browsers for some reason, that would last at least 30-60 seconds and occasionally forever, while experiencing no such lockups using IE8 for the same set of websites.  Made them unusable practically speaking so I've uninstalled Opera & both versions of FF for now.  Don't know if it was MS knee-capping the other browsers with its install of IE8 or not.

Glad to see I'm not the only one it worked for, and that you too didn't install the toolbar. My suspicions might have been correct.

I've had ie9 lockup or become jerky also, and your suspicions re the betas just might be the right ticket.

Well, FF3.6.13 continues to perform flawlessly on the two other rigs which have not seen IE 8 (yet).  Just sayin...

Personally I'm of the school of thought that I like my computer resources to not be eaten up by something that may or may not actually be helping.  For instance.  Zero-day attacks/infections are most likely not going to be detected/prevented by this, so what have you done in the meantime?  Given away system resources and potentially bogged your browsing down?  Not to mention that there are better/simpler ways to protect your browser and system than running some software.   

I'd much rather do my browsing from a "limited-user account" with some browser settings off (crippled browser) and not need additional software which may or may not actually prevent something.  Browsing from a limited user account and running your browser in a somewhat crippled state can never be replaced by software.

Besides, the latest MSE update adds a lot (network traffic scanning, behaviour monitoring etc.) to an already decent anti-malware program. 

My personal opinion is that any software is just not as effective as the two things I mentioned above (limited account and crippled browser settings).  Hell, using limited accounts and crippled browsers I'd even venture to say that NO anti-malware is necessary.  I do have on-demand / second opinion scanners like Hitman Pro available for those times your just need to ease your mind, but I will never be convinced that there is a software out there that can do a better job of protecting my system than I can even if I just do the 2 things I mentioned above.  Of course I have nothing but personal experience to back that up.....and anyone on the internet can claim anything afterall......;)

...my 2 cents.

You might be interested in this, then.  http://www.threatfire.com/faqs/

I know all about threatfire and/or other products like it such as mamutu by emsisoft.  All I'm saying is that education regarding one's local security policy (accounts, priviledges etc.) and specific browser settings and what they all do and are needed for can never and in my opinion should never be replaced by "some software".

I agree. For the "Zero Day" attacks though, there's really no other protection except the behavioral/heuristic av's/am's, or EMET2 which is not for less than network administrator/IT skilled people.

• Get F-Secure - includes browsing protection toolbar, and has a cloud-updated feature which warns you of malicious sites, and flags them in google searches.
• Is an awesome all-round anti-virus product.
• Use Firefox.
• Combined with No-script/Flashblock it's extremely difficult to become infected with anything.

which is exactly why I said the following......

Doesn't protect you from getting hit with USB-infections, e-mail malware/viruses and infected files downloaded from the internet.

I used to say what you do, but I've since changed my mind about it. I will, however, not use nor recommend any "free" software available.
Getting a plain anti-virus is also useless. You MUST have a client firewall, and an engine capable of analyzing behaviour and not just rely on signatures.

Again, personally I prefer F-Secure.

I think you're missing my point or maybe I'm not being clear enough.  No malware I know of is capable of being *fully* functional without making some serious modifications to your system.  Those modifications require "elevated priviledges" not given to a "limited account" not to mention if one were to modify certain other settings in a computer system's "local security policy" it is absolutely possible to secure a system in such a way as to never need any of that active monitoring software (again....my opinion based on my own tech experience). 

Of course the above requires a fair amount of OS knowledge and many may not have that or be inclined to get there.  All I'm saying is that my "manual" approach hasn't failed me yet and continues to drive my own knowledgebase with regard to security and OS structure.  Feel free to run whatever you wish, I was only pointing out that it IS possible to achieve security and safety without the need to trust "some software".   A trust that often has come back to bite one in the proverbial ass when malware has been able to disable one's AV etc. 

the Monk

EDIT:

Obviously even I have "second opinion / on demand" scanners around (as mentioned previously in this and other threads) in the event I suspect something might have slipped in.  Consider also that running one's system the way I have described in this thread allows for easier and more complete removal of any threats which may have been able to *partially* install themselves, a luxury not afforded to those running software X, Y, Z but not having limited priviledge escalation in place.  While my on-demand and/or second-opinion scanners will be able to remove any trace elements of malware which managed to sneak past my manual approach to security, "the other" guy might now be having to deal with a *disabled* anti-malware software (and other more difficult removal scenarios).

Ah, yes - you are correct.

That is why non-admin accounts across companies world-wide constantly get infections and spread malware..

I didn't *just* talk about making accounts "limited"........I clearly state "...and modifications to one's local security policy".  

Also, most non-admin accounts at companies do in fact have some other form of "escalation" in place thanks to constant staff demands and IT staff being under pressure from upper management as to make things "less restrictive" (again......personal experience)  I'd bet that there isn't a company IT structure on this planet that is as secure as the IT manager or IT security specialist would like it to be. 

Finally, compromises in security made at the behest of managment don't speak to the failure of those measures had they been properly implemented.  For example having road-warrior notebook people be only a lowly lowly "user" on the company domain but allowing those same people to be an "admin" locallly on those same notebooks is one example of overall security-policy (not measure) failure.

The only examples I have, where users are escalated to admin privileges - are for very small firms where they don't necessarily have a local administrator at all.

You are correct, of course, in that there's a balance you must walk between usability and security - but giving local administrator privileges is really not common for firms who do have their own administrative staff.

Maybe things are just very different between our two countries.

As an alternative to Linkscanner try WOT(Web of trust) it does the same thing.

WOT works by reports of sites that are infected. Linkscanner works proactively: It will report infected sites before they're recognized by WOT. It will protect you better than WOT.