CA Antivirus- Is it that bad?

[jlo]

Hi,

Just wondered why CA Antivirus is not rated on this forum. I understood it used the 'VET' av engine which used to be very good.

My Father runs CA Antivirus on his computer and its very light and updates regularly- however even though it says it has 'advanced Heuristics' I rarely see evidence of this on VirusTotal and have seen quite a few misses (Again on Virus Total) May be they concentate on more 'in the wild stuff'


Just wondered if anyone else had any other comment to add good or bad?

Cheers

Jlo

[Mongol]

From what I have seen and read it is an adequate (at best) AV program for safe surfers and free licenses for it are available around the internet. The few tests I have seen rate it around 75-80% in detection. I wouldn't pay what they want for it with so many far better AV programs available both pay and free. F-Prot and DrWEB are far less expensive and offer much better detection. Just my 2 cents...:D

[MalwareDie]

Just ditch CA antivirus. it has a low detection rae and weak heuristics. I suggest getting Avira. it has strong detection rate, good heursitics, very light on resources, has a nice intterface and GUI

[yahoo]

I would stay away from any CA products if I can. CA has too many problems with their business, management or whatever. I do not think a company like that can make really excellent products.

[Durad]

I can not recommend CA. They have nice interface and thats all. People who use VirusTotal service know that there is just 4-5 softwares that really detect malware.

IBK alos does not include it in his tests because of low detection rate.

[jlo]

OK,

I will try and pesuade him to ditch his 2 year licence, but I may have to buy him a copy of Boclean if he is not willing to ditch CA AV.

Cheers

Jlo

[Legendkiller]

CA Av isn't as bad as it is made out to be....we havent' had any latest test-data which could enlighten us on its detection-rates....and that 75-80% was a long-time ago...

But still as i said...if detection-rates are your only consideration of chosing a AV..than go for avira/nod/kaspersky..

[ggf31416]

-{ Quote: "CA Av isn't as bad as it is made out to be....we havent' had any latest test-data which could enlighten us on its detection-rates....and that 75-80% was a long-time ago...
" }-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=891307
http://www.pcwelt.de/news/sicherheit/64946/index.html

[MalwareDie]

Ya CA is really bad with detection rates around 50%.

[Legendkiller]

-{ Quote: "Ya CA is really bad with detection rates around 50%." }-
yup! very very bad..

[jlo]

Thanks for all your posts. I e mailed my Dad this thread plus the link to the tests and he had now uninstalled it and put in its place AOL Active Virus Sheild (Based on KAV) which I think will serve him very well as he is a low risk user. He is also running Zone alarm and Windows Defender.

Thanks again.

Jlo

[pipester]

I haven't used a CA product since the days of InoculatePE when it was free. Back in it's day it was a very good, dependable antivirus program. I have a friend who uses their current offering, CA's etrust antivirus because it's free with his ISP. He seems pretty satisfied, although I am working hard on trying to get him to switch, they have really dumbed down that program and I think it's level of protection has diminished over the years.

[Sputnik]

CA Antivirus is not as bad as it seems. Sure I wouldn't pay for it, but there are so many ways to get it for free (bundeled with ISP's, magazines etc etc). For a free AV it gives you a very pretty inferface, fast and light scanner.

While the ZOO detection might be lacking, the ITW detection is good. The new version 8 even showed properly detecting rootkits.

In my opinion CA is ideal for non-experienced computer users, when it can be obtained for free of course.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "CA Antivirus is not as bad as it seems. Sure I wouldn't pay for it, but there are so many ways to get it for free (bundeled with ISP's, magazines etc etc). For a free AV it gives you a very pretty inferface, fast and light scanner.

While the ZOO detection might be lacking, the ITW detection is good. The new version 8 even showed properly detecting rootkits.

In my opinion CA is ideal for non-experienced computer users, when it can be obtained for free of course." }-
i dissagree, ca is basically like a virus itself, it slows down your machine, it does things without your knowledge and the detection is poor, free or not, i wouldnt ever use this or even recommend it to an ENEMY! :dry:

to answer the thread, YES!

[lodore]

why would you use CA for free when you can get antivir classic,avast,avg and AVS for free which are all better than ca
lodore

[JerryM]

I notice that CA in not included in the AV Comparatives tests, and maybe it does not meet the criterion for testing.
Did the 50% detection figure come from here?
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=82&mnu=82

Thanks,
Jerry

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "why would you use CA for free when you can get antivir classic,avast,avg and AVS for free which are all better than ca
lodore" }-
Because some people get confused by their interface. If people don't understand the program, what do higher detection rates mater?

Understand me right, CA won't be my personal choice, but bashing the program like people do here is not realistic. There are actually quite some people out there who've been kept virus free for years by CA. And at the end of the day, that's what matters.

[Mongol]

-{ Quote: "why would you use CA for free when you can get antivir classic,avast,avg and AVS for free which are all better than ca
lodore" }-

Exactly. four available free AV's that are much better and DrWEB or F-Prot which are very reasonable in cost. So many preferable choices and so little time. Even Panda AV 2007 is 29 bucks and has proven to be lighter than I remember on my other setup and very capable..:thumb: ;D