Most antivirus companies will continue to support Windows 7

Most antivirus companies will continue to support Windows 7
January 29, 2020
https://betanews.com/2020/01/29/av-support-windows-7/

 

follow the money..

 

SecureAPlus* representatives have stated, on their Forum, that they will continue to support Win7 SP1.

*SecureAPlus is a combo AV/anti-exe/whitelister

 

Webroot still supports all of these for now.

Microsoft® Windows® XP 32- and 64-bit SP2, SP3

Windows Vista® 32-bit (all Editions), Windows Vista SP1, SP2 32- and 64-bit (all Editions)

Windows 7 32- and 64-bit (all Editions), Windows 7 SP1 32- and 64-bit (all Editions)

Windows 8 32- and 64-bit

Windows 8.1 32- and 64-bit

Windows 10 32- and 64-bit

 

The simplest explanation is always the correct one.

 

Have Webroot's managers given any indication as to how long they will continue Win7 support? ("For now" seems rather too indefinite, doesn't it?)

 

The clue to the answer to your question lies in the fact that Webroot are still supporting XP six years after it's EOL.

 

The cake goes to eScan, it still supports Windows 2000 with full technical support

 

Yeah, but this is business so fair enough. As long as people are going to use these outdated systems I prefer to see someone supporting them.

 

According to MS.

I haven't done a windows security update in years, no problems.

MS need your data, that's were they get their money.

 

Windows 7 Embedded has longest run - 10/2021. at least this could mean deadline for antivirus now still support win7.
anyhow any antivirus on such systems is only able to secure the system as the system offers options to make it secure - and xp is far away from secure - neither it offers some current features - all outdated.

exactly. as long people use outdated operating systems there will be vendors delivering software - if it will be useful or not.

example - avast last suite for xp was v18 - but its buggy and was never fixed.

no BS please. you dont need an account, you dont need telemetry or consumer experience - it all can be cut down, either with tuning tools or modify the install image.

thats fatal for those people - they think they work on a safe and secured system - a complete lie. you can read here about the most nonsense combinations of security software
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/what-is-your-security-setup-these-days.111264/

 

Every time there is a new version of Windows there are holdouts that want to run the previous version despite the fact that they refused to do so when it was current. It doesn't make sense to me but everyone is free to make their own choice.

I really don't agree with the idea that they are getting any sizable amount of money from your data, but I also don't believe that they didn't have access to it prior to Windows 10.

 

Only said by people using w10, and don't know the amount of data they are giving out for free.

I tried the upgrade to 10 (for free as of now, wonder why?) it is bloatware and you need one of the many privacy tools (https://www.ghacks.net/2015/08/14/comparison-of-windows-10-privacy-tools/) just to keep it somewhat quiet.

I really have to learn Linux, have plenty of time while my w7 is rotting away. Never 10 for me.

Yes

 

It's likely nobody has any idea of how much data they are giving away for free with any device. Even more so on a smart phone. I was pretty shocked the first time I received an email from google maps showing me every place I had been in the past year. Running Windows 7 isn't going to do much to help. Linux... maybe a little.

 

You imply that Win10 is a "safe & secured system" Wrong!!! Win10 might be a bit safer & securer, but it is not unequivocally safe & secure.

I run WinXP on my desktop computer & Win7 on my laptop. I image every 2 days to a separate HD, & retain images 2+ months, FIFO. I detect nasties via a File Integrity Checker, a behavior blocker, an anti-exe, & EEK. I use Shadow Defender when doing email or internet.

It's conceivable that something might someday get past my security, but nothing defeats the ability to restore a clean image.

If MS ever produces a better OS than Win7, I'll buy it. Otherwise, I won't submit to FUD and Microsoft's planned obsolescence efforts.

 

I implied no such thing. I said Windows 7 was outdated, which it is. I won't run 7 or 10 without 3rd party security solutions. I just said that it was good that 3rd party vendors are still going to support 7 as people will still use it. I think what is implied in this discussion is that people think Windows 7 will preserve their privacy, which it will not.

 

Jack, I cited your comment because Brummelchen was adding to it by his comment.

It was Brummelchen (not you) who implied Win10 is totally safe & secure when he said , "that's fatal for those people - they think they work on a safe and secured system - a complete lie." By saying that Win7 is not safe & secure, in the context that people on Win7 should update to Win10, Brummelchen implies that Win10 IS safe & secure.

IMO, some OS are safer than others but no OS is totally safe & secure. Ergo, frequent & assiduous imaging, to a separate HD, is prudent -- no matter which OS is being used.

 

No problem, and I agree.

 

Agree !! And I thinks that a multi layer defense is more effective than Microsoft bugged and unkonwn patches.

 

I'd much rather have a patched operating system, than use a layered security setup. But each to their own.

 

bellgamin - please stop inserting nonsense i never wrote. you missed the complete point here and started arguing about windows. read this again:

people using security software on outdated system do not make such systems more secure. thats a lie.

and you started with apples and oranges about 7 vs 10. windows 7 respect same way privacy as windows 10 do.

about privacy: why installing windows when not trusting microsoft? come on, this is a very boring discussion. and i never expected any logical conclusion from those people why they use windows and moan about "privacy" same sentence.

windows already has a layered security, but most people work with admin rights so what?

 

Yes, the ideal thing is to have both. I meant that if I have to choose between patches or an higly confiigured HIPS, I would choose the HIPS.

 

but hips wont cover security flaws, it only covers known behavior - and thats the lie behind such software. exploit kits are tested against any kind of modern security software. the possibility to get hit by EK is not high for private persons, no kind of interests - phishing has more results -> ransomware to pay fee or phished account details (eg banking, ebay, amazon, visa or similar).

 

A properly configured HIPS where the user answers the prompts correctly, will make any O/S, including outdated ones like Windows 7, more secure.

 

1- A user that answers HIPS prompts correctly doesnt need one in the first place.

2- Any OS up to date is better than using a old OS with a layered security setup, especially considering Windows 10 strong native security.