Stan,


I have had eSet for a couple of years now and I have found it to be 
mostly inaccessible using Jaws (now version 17) on a Windows 7 platform. 
I would really like to be a better user of the software but my available 
time to wrestle with it is limited. Any hints or tips you or anyone else 
could provide would be very helpful and much appreciated. I've often had 
to rely upon sighted assistance and I've never felt comfortable that my 
computer is as secure as it could be if I could be more of a power user 
of the software.


A related question I have is that with eSet installed should I also be 
running the Windows firewall or is that redundant and unnecessarily 
slowing down my system? Actually, I just might have the Windows firewall 
turned off because I am running eSet. I seem to recall eSet having its 
own firewall.


I used to use Malware Bites as well but I also ran into accessibility 
issues with it. Does the latest free version have better accessibility? 
Or, is there a full version that can be purchased that has better 
accessibility?


Sorry if I sound confused and possibly having no clue what I'm talking 
about because, well, I am and I don't!


Cheers,

Duane



On 11/5/2016 8:10 AM, Stan Berman wrote:
> All:
>   
> I don't want to repeat the comments by David and go over the limit of a
> post, so I will simply say that  I agree with the thrust of David's
> comments.
>   
> First, what I've found over the years of working with malware programs is
> that they and other computer utility-type software  products are possibly
> the least accessible class of  software.
>   
> Re antivirus and malware software, I have used several over the years and
> have finally settled on ESET.  It is not perfect as far as accessibility,
> but it has been sufficiently accessible that work arounds will get me where
> I need to go and what I need to do using JAWS.  I believe ESET has some sort
> of capability to alter the page layout and accessibility/usability  by the
> user.  I don't know how this works and haven't had time to explore this to
> see what I need to do.  What I've done is to get someone to help or do the
> installation and the settings I want.  Then the only thing I have to do is
> use the various cursors that JAWS provides to do any workarounds.      Along
> the way, I read review articles and ratings comparing top malware products
> and found that ESET has been rated highly effective  in catching the nasty
> things -- this has proven to be my experience as well.  I visit many web
> sites, receive and send many email messages including many attachments, and
> have had a very good experience.  I also found that Malwarebytes to be a
> good supplement and run it as well on a schedule.
>   
> There are a couple malware publications that rate and review such products
> and one I have referred to  at times is, I think, called "Virus Bulletin.
> The first issue I found from them  was a very professional review piece and
> ESET was one of the top two by their  assessment at the time.   See:
> http://www.virusbulletin.com.
>   
> Remember that antivirus and malware programs are only part of the protection
> you need.  The other very important factor is to not open links that may be
> hiding malware,, nor to divulge important information like passwords, and so
> on.  One government agency I know indicates that about half of all
> unauthorized accesses are not from hacking , but are from social
> engineering, like tricking a user into thinking the inquiry  or request is
> legitimate.  I just had one of these messages come in and implying that I
> needed to act to stop the system from closing my account -- the mail didn't
> smell right to begin with, and as I cogitated over  it, the deadline for a
> response had already passed and my account had not been closed, so it was
> clearly a spoof.  I just reported and forwarded the message to security.
>   
> Best!
>   
> Stan
>   
>   
>   
>
>
>    _____
>
> From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Goldfield
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 12:19 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [VICUG-L] Question: Which Antivirus Program Works Well With My
> Screen Reader? Answer: You Might Be Asking the Wrong Question
>
>
>
> During my time working with and using assistive technology, I have
> participated in many discussion forums dealing with various pieces of
> adaptive hardware and software products for the visually impaired. One topic
> which often comes up has to do with the accessibility of antivirus programs
> with screen readers. Usually, someone will pose a question such as "I'm
> trying to find out what's the most accessible antivirus program which I can
> use with my screen reader?" There will be many opinions, of course, with
> people commenting on this or that antivirus package which works well with a
> particular screen reader. This is certainly an important topic and one which
> definitely needs to be addressed. I would like to weigh in on this issue and
> begin the answer to that question by saying that we might not be starting
> out with the right question.
>
> Some of the things I'm about to write regarding the subject of antivirus
> accessibility may be controversial to some and may possibly ruffle some
> feathers. This is not my intent. I'd just like to offer a slightly different
> perspective on this topic.
>
> The question we should all be asking, whether we're blind or sighted, is
> what antivirus or security solution is highly rated, according to
> independent lab tests. I realize the problem with this question is that,
> sometimes, what some may consider to be a good antivirus solution might not
> be compatible with our screen reader of choice. When we find out that
> specific solutions we might otherwise have considered don't work well with
> our screen reader, we choose one which is more accessible. Lest you think
> I'm looking down on other screen reader users, please know that I did the
> exact same thing for years.
>
> In 1999, I began using what was, at that time, a current version of Norton
> Antivirus on my Windows 98 machine. The program was well-known, was shipped
> with my computer with a free, one year subscription and was, from what I
> remember, 100% accessible.
>
> Eventually, the program's level of accessibility began to change and I
> discovered AVG 7.5. It, too, was 100% accessible and was probably the only
> antivirus program which allowed the user to change and redefine shortcut
> keys for its various functions, just as today's screen readers allow you to
> change the shortcut keys for their commands. It was amazing and it seemed
> like it was almost made for visually impaired screen reader users. I should
> note that I never once considered whether the program was actually effective
> in keeping my computer secure. As naive as this may sound, I'll admit that
> it never occurred to me to actually read objective reviews to see if AVG
> could do an even half-decent job in protecting my system. It was free, super
> accessible and had the word antivirus in its name. What more could I
> possibly want?
>
> As I'm sure many of you will remember, version 8 of AVG came along and,
> while the program was still mostly accessible, the interface changed,
> keyboard shortcut reassignment was gone and, over time, accessibility became
> a bit more problematic, although the program was certainly usable enough.
> Bear in mind that I haven't used it in several years and, if accessibility
> has improved, I'll be the first to celebrate that fact.
>
> So, like so many of us, I decided to find another program with the word
> antivirus in its title with at least reasonable screen reader accessibility.
> I found Avast 4.x and it wasn't bad. Like many blind people, I happily used
> it. Until 5.0 came around and the program was not accessible, though I know
> they've since been working on this and things have likely changed.
>
> So, I uninstalled Avast and found what I believed was the ideal solution
> with Microsoft Security Essentials. It was free, seemed light on resources
> and was 100% accessible. My problem, so I thought, was solved. Over time, I
> began to read that MSE wasn't doing as well in dealing with viruses but I
> figured, hey, I'm a cautious user. I take a lot of precautions: I update
> software regularly, adjusted security settings on my router, am careful
> about opening attachments to the point of paranoia, use a script blocker on
> most pages ... in other words, I was hardly what you would call reckless and
> used my computer as responsibly as I knew how. Of course, I knew even then
> that there was always a chance my PC could get hit by malware, no matter how
> careful I was, but I believed I was reasonably safe. Until I was hit by
> crippling malware which forced me to reformat my hard drive and reinstall
> everything, rebuilding everything from the ground up.
>
> I realize that there are many people who have found an accessible or at
> least usable antivirus solution who have never been hit by malware. I'm sure
> there are many happy users of MSE or Windows Defender who happily use their
> computer who may never be crippled by a virus. I also realize that
> corporations who deploy many different security solutions, who employ
> security experts who know a hundred times more than I'll ever hope to know,
> still get hit by malware. When it comes to computer security, there are no
> guarantees, no matter how much you know or what you do to protect yourself.
> My point is that, for years, I was content to place accessibility as a
> higher priority over safety and security and that simply isn't a mistake I'm
> willing to make again. For word processing, I use Microsoft Word, not only
> because it's quite accessible, but because it simply is one of the best word
> processors out there for what I need.
>
> I would encourage anyone considering their security needs to read reviews of
> which programs performed well with independent tests and then download a
> demo version of the program they choose; I believe most security programs
> offer a 30 or 60 day trial. If it doesn't perform well with your preferred
> screen reader, I would do a few things.
>
> First, write to the developer of the program with a clear description of the
> accessibility issues you're experiencing, with as much detail as you can
> provide. Let them know that you're considering purchasing the software but
> that you're unwilling to do so until the issues you're describing are
> addressed. If they don't respond, contact them publicly on Twitter. In
> addition, contact your screen reader developer to see if they can construct
> scripts, apps or configuration files to try and work around what you're
> experiencing. Computer security is too serious of an issue to make decisions
> based on how well the program works with a screen reader, rather than making
> the decision based on how well the software actually secures the precious
> data on your computer. I love good conversation as much as the next person
> but, if I'm trying to find a good physician, I'll choose one based on how
> skilled he is as a doctor, rather than on how articulate or eloquent he may
> be. If he's highly skilled and a good conversationalist, that's fabulous but
> I prize skill and knowledge over how much we might have in common to chat
> about.
>
> I would also respectfully ask the staff at NV Access and VFO Group to
> consider working with the developers of security software to see if
> alliances can be formed, with the goal of making these important software
> packages more accessible with NVDA, JAWS and Window-Eyes. Screen reader
> manufacturers forge similar alliances with companies like Microsoft for the
> same reasons. These alliances are what allows programs like Window-eyes to
> maintain compatibility and fabulous accessibility with programs such as
> Word, Excel and the operating system itself. When screen reader
> manufacturers say that they're ready to work with Windows 10 or Word 2016
> out of the gate, it's partly due to these necessary relationships they form
> with companies like Microsoft. I'm not criticizing such partnerships. Nobody
> denies that screen readers are useless if they don't offer great support for
> products like Outlook, Word and even Windows 10 itself. I'm asking that
> screen reader developers take this concept further and reach out to
> developers of security programs, to form similar partnerships. Having access
> to Microsoft Word is great. However, that accessibility means nothing if the
> security solutions designed to protect my Word documents isn't accessible.
>
> At this point, some of you may be wondering which program I decided to use.
> I chose Kaspersky  <http://www.kaspersky.com> Antivirus. When I had my
> computer in a local shop after it was hit by the virus I wrote about
> earlier, the proprietor said that he used this program and recommended it. I
> read a review of it in PC
> <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2460689,00.asp> Magazine and was
> convinced that it would be a good choice, considering how well it performed
> in independent lab tests. I didn't know what level of accessibility it
> offered but I was determined to make it work, even if I had to engage in a
> lot of advocacy to achieve that goal.
>
> While the program's accessibility isn't perfect, it is quite usable and I am
> able to adjust most of the program's settings. Unfortunately, the installer
> for the newer versions is completely accessible, something which I hope
> Kaspersky will soon remedy.
>
> Finally, if you'd like to talk with me and other users about what we can do
> to change the accessibility landscape of security software, I have set up a
> mailing  <https://davidgoldfield.wordpress.com/av/> list for that purpose.
> Please consider joining it and, together, perhaps we can assist in improving
> screen reader accessibility of these critical pieces of software.
>


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]