PC Tools free antivirus ??

[acr1965]

Has anyone used and/or tested the PC Tools free antivirus product? It looks like it is the same as the paid except, as stated on the PCTools site:

"PC Tools AntiVirus 3.1 now offers complete anti-virus protection with a new free version, ensuring that everyone can afford to be using leading antivirus protection. The only restriction is that the message tags cannot be removed or edited, and that personalized support is not provided."

Also, does anyone know which AV engine PC Tools uses for its AV?

Thanks.

http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/features/

[btman]

It doesn't matter, their anti-virus isn't great or anything amazing, no matter what engine.

[WSFuser]

last i read, it uses the VirusBuster engine :thumbd:

[MalwareDie]

I cannot remember what engine they use. i do remember however that they use a very weak engine and PCTools Antivirus is just not worth your time at all.

[ashishtx]

If we assume that pctools uses virusbuster engine than how pctools can release an antivirus that supports vista? virusbuster is yet to release an antivirus that supports vista. And i didn't find any freeantivirus offer on their website, i could only see a 30 days free trial offer. Please correct me if i am wrong.

[cheater87]

I noticed that it has the same bug icon as Superantispyware Thats odd??? ??? ???

[Firecat]

From first glance it seems that it is still using the VirusBuster engine. It does not yet support Windows Vista. There is a free version but it is nagware or so it seems. If you do not purchase the software within 30 days, it will work but have message tags saying that this is the unregistered version, register today blah blah. Also, the technical support services are not so good if you choose to use the "free" edition.

I will try to get more information on this product. PC Tools AV was good when they used the KAV engine but now its just getting worse and worse.

[ashishtx]

It may be an error but this is what i see on this website.


186275

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> It may be an error but this is what i see on this website.


186275 <-QUOTE}
Strange because their support pages do not mention Windows Vista support. :-\

[minacross]

{QUOTE-> ... And i didn't find any freeantivirus offer on their website, i could only see a 30 days free trial offer. Please correct me if i am wrong. <-QUOTE}
there is no free version. Only a trial one :thumbd:

[bigc73542]

there is a free version

[Big Apple]

Have looked through the site, but all I can find is a 'free' trial. Perhaps you can post a link for the Free version?

[acr1965]

{QUOTE-> Have looked through the site, but all I can find is a 'free' trial. Perhaps you can post a link for the Free version? <-QUOTE}

Perhaps the free trial becomes the free version after the trial period if you decide not to purchase?

[Big Apple]

But I can't find the text regarding the free version 3.1 Bigc posted!

[metallicakid15]

http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/features/

[bigc73542]

It seems that the trial version reverts to the free version when the trial time is up

[metallicakid15]

but is it worth installing?

[the Tester]

{QUOTE-> but is it worth installing? <-QUOTE}

An AV that uses the VirusBuster engine isn't worth installing.

[bigc73542]

I wouldn't use it at all in it's present form.

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> I wouldn't use it at all in it's present form. <-QUOTE}

i wouldnt use it even if it had kasperskys engine, think i'll stick to my doctor.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> i wouldnt use it even if it had kasperskys engine, think i'll stick to my doctor. <-QUOTE}

maybe you need a second opinion;D
lodore

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> maybe you need a second opinion;D
lodore <-QUOTE}
lol no,

well, pc tools - if i dont trust it for spyware, no way would i trust it for viruses

[lodore]

lol i wouldn't trust pc tools either.
i use dr web cure it as my backup av scanner.
lodore

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> lol i wouldn't trust pc tools either.
lodore <-QUOTE}
i love my dr.web wayyyyyy too much, just as you do with kaspersky, although it took you a bit longer to reach it. ;D

i await big things for version 5 just as you do with the advanced heuristics, its all good ;D


p.s. no pc tools software even comes into the equation :)

oh, and lodore.. nothing on tele, at least speed is on ch4, just starting now. lol

[lodore]

it did take me along time to get to have kaspersky on my main pc but its working great.
i cant wait for the new heuristic engine in kaspersky.
i also cant wait to see the new faster dr web engine,better heuristics and newer interface.
lodore

[waters]

PC Tools uses its own engine, It's using the PC Tools AntiVirus Engine which is based on another long-standing engine but is now separately developed by PC Tools. It has just passed WestCoast Labs AntiVirus certification .

[rayoflight]

{QUOTE-> I wouldn't use it at all in it's present form. <-QUOTE}
Something is wrong with "it's present form"? ???

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Something is wrong with "it's present form"? ??? <-QUOTE}
As it stands at the moment, PC Tools AV has poor detection rates. If they improve it in the future, maybe it can be usable as a product.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> As it stands at the moment, PC Tools AV has poor detection rates. If they improve it in the future, maybe it can be usable as a product. <-QUOTE}
Just curious, but what exactly makes you say that?

[waters]

Same here

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Just curious, but what exactly makes you say that? <-QUOTE}
Its not really "poor" in the sense that it lacks in signature detection, but it is based on the VirusBuster engine which, I have observed, has poor unpacking support compared to most other AVs. That by itself makes it poor in detection. Also, PC Tools AV used to have KAV engine, and compared to the earlier version, this version is very poor.

I do believe IBK tested VirusBuster in a supplementary comparative of those AVs that did not reach the standard level of certification. VirusBuster was below 80% in detection rates (it got more around 60% and 76% with DOS and OtherOS malware included in the total scores) and did not qualify for testing at AV-comparatives (at that time, June 2006).

[beads]

I enjoyed reading above where PCTools A/V works with Vista. Considering that MS has only just released the first draft of the API to A/V companies and is not final by any means. Errr... really. PCTools is good at this that they don't need to hook into the kernal like everyone else?

How much protection something like this is going to provide sounds minimal at best.

- beads

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Its not really "poor" in the sense that it lacks in signature detection, but it is based on the VirusBuster engine which, I have observed, has poor unpacking support compared to most other AVs. That by itself makes it poor in detection. Also, PC Tools AV used to have KAV engine, and compared to the earlier version, this version is very poor.

I do believe IBK tested VirusBuster in a supplementary comparative of those AVs that did not reach the standard level of certification. VirusBuster was below 80% in detection rates (it got more around 60% and 76% with DOS and OtherOS malware included in the total scores) and did not qualify for testing at AV-comparatives (at that time, June 2006). <-QUOTE}

why the hell would you go from the great kav engine down to virus bustor engine?
did kav engine cost to much to license?
lodore

[MalwareDie]

Lol I dont konw. It was one of the worst decisions PC Tools could make. VirusBuster is just crap and Kaspersky is excellent. To go from Kaspersky to virusBuster is just ridiculous;

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> why the hell would you go from the great kav engine down to virus bustor engine?
did kav engine cost to much to license?
lodore <-QUOTE}
I don't know why they made this decision, but I suspect it had something to do with their real-time scanner which was extremely heavy on resources (and they didn't use iStreams or iChecker or iSwift). Version 3.0 onwards has VirusBuster engine, and its certainly not good at all.

[waters]

No,look on their forum.I asked on this

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> No,look on their forum.I asked on this <-QUOTE}
I have looked at the PC Tools forum, but it still does not convince me well enough. They said that their AV is based on another long standing engine but now separately developed by PC Tools. The Database versions portrayed by PC Tools AV when 3.0 was released was consistent with the database version of Vexira AV (which is based on VirusBuster engine). The database versions are not consistent anymore though, so that must mean that PC Tools decided to take the VirusBuster engine and modify it independently. Also, the updates of PC Tools AV are in .vdb format and only Dr.Web and VirusBuster use this format for their updates.

[PhoenixWeb]

I'm guessing the reason PC Tools dropped KAV is because they wanted to be able to modify and adapt the antivirus engine themselves, and Kaspersky wouldn't let them do this.

If you read on their forum about the PC Tools firewall, they admit it is based on the Look n Stop firewall, so Look n Stop obviously let them play around with it and adapt it for themselves.

That is my guess anyway...

I am surprised that Spyware Doctor 5.0 with antivirus is getting such a bashing on here. Surly the combination of Spyware Doctors excellent antispyware and an antivirus in one low foot print package has to give pretty good protection?

[MalwareDie]

the antivirus is a waste. it wil just consume mroe resources and make SD even heavier than before.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> the antivirus is a waste. it wil just consume mroe resources and make SD even heavier than before. <-QUOTE}
yes it will turn in to spysweeper5x series.
unless you like bsod;D
lodore

[PhoenixWeb]

{QUOTE-> the antivirus is a waste. it wil just consume mroe resources and make SD even heavier than before. <-QUOTE}

I am currently running Spyware Doctor 5.0 beta with antivirus. I have the antivirus set to on demand so it scans when I do a spyware scan, but I have the background scan turned off as I have Antivir Personal Premium.

With this set up Spayware Doctor only uses around 10,000 KB

SDTrayApp.exe uses 1,232 KB
swdsvs.exe uses 8,192 KB

With the antivirus background scanner turned on it is still only uses around 12,000 KB.

The only problem I have encountered with Spyware Doctor 5.0 beta with antivirus is it takes ages to do a full spyware/antivirus scan. Around two and a half hours. But hopefully as it is only in beta, this will be improved before the final release.

[webster]

I think they use Dr.Web engine. Why ?

Dr.Web use winsock dll`s (or used to), and so does PC Tools AV:

From HijackThis:

O10 - Unknown file in Winsock LSP: c:\programmer\fælles filer\pc tools\lsp\pctlsp.dll
O10 - Unknown file in Winsock LSP: c:\programmer\fælles filer\pc tools\lsp\pctlsp.dll
O10 - Unknown file in Winsock LSP: c:\programmer\fælles filer\pc tools\lsp\pctlsp.dll
O10 - Unknown file in Winsock LSP: c:\programmer\fælles filer\pc tools\lsp\pctlsp.dll

Update frequency can be set to every 30 minutes. Dr.Web does that too ;) .

Two processes in memory. Runs very light here:

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/8938/pctavdq0.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> I think they use Dr.Web engine. Why ?Dr.Web use winsock dll`s (or used to), and so does PC Tools AV: <-QUOTE}No, PCTAV uses VirusBuster engine. If someone has a collection of malware with them, run PC Tools AV on those and compare the names of the detected malware with those of VirusBuster at VirusTotal. You will see a striking similarity.

[webster]

Just found out, that Virusbuster uses LSP`s too :-[

But still nice app.