Which of the following anti-virus are better?

[spider_darth]

Which of the following anti-virus are better?

1. AVIRA
2. AOL Active Virus Shield
3. AVG
4. ClamWin
5. BitDefender 8
6. Dr.WEB CureIt!
7. ClamAV

is it true that ClamWin and BitDefender has no real-time protection? that it can only scan when asked to do so.

And, what's ClamAV?

Btw, I'm referring to all the free versions for the ones i stated above.

[RejZoR]

Where is avast! ?

[spider_darth]

oh ya.. miss that out.

yes, include AVAST! into the list too.

1. AVIRA
2. AOL Active Virus Shield
3. AVG
4. ClamWin
5. BitDefender 8
6. Dr.WEB CureIt!
7. ClamAV
8. AVAST!

so.. which is better?

[C.S.J]

well, im a big fan of dr.web (cure it is only a free on demand scanner)

AOL shield is a lesser-feature FREE version of kaskerspy, so maybe kaspersky should be added in its place, kaspersky is very good, one of the best.

bitdefender 8 is a bit outdated, go for BD 10, another one i would recommend.

clamav, i wouldnt bother with.

--------
but, i can see your looking at free av's though, so id recommend you go to avast or AVG.

and use the Dr.Web cureit as an ondemand 'second opinion', easily done as you dont even install it, and it scans with latest definations.

[StevieO]

Having used and tested for nearly a year, both Anitivir Classic and now Premium, i can vouch for their effectiveness at detecting and preventing all kinds of nasty malware. They both have the same excellent heuristics, and malware definitions, and are light to run. The only difference is that Premium has additional spyware definitions.

For the latest indepedent AV tests and report which are highly regarded go here http://www.av-comparatives.org 13. On-demand comparative February 2007 Online results / Report

You will see how well Avira Premium did.


StevieO

[trjam]

Avira, hands down.:)

[mercurie]

AnitiViri Classic is for me. Light, effective, clean simple GUI. For strict AV this is a excellent choice.

I would add another layer of protection such as BOClean, A2, or maybe a free HIPS or behav. blocker. I will likely get shot down for this, but I think AVG, with their antispyware protection is a really good all in one choice. ;)

Edit: I use Webmail email scanner is not needed. Any sort of update problem is rare for me. (see below)

[MalwareDie]

Definitely Avira. Excellent detection rate. Frequent updating. Nice GUI and simple interface. Light on resources. ANd doesn't have the extra stuff from other AV''s you might not want.

[plantextract]

AVira aol AVS in terms of detection (you are safe with either of them).
but i see that you were reffering to free ones (so i assume avira is the clasic version), in this case AVS has the edge because it detects adware/spyware etc. also AVS has some interesting features like self protection.

[C.S.J]

avasts free version is beyond avira free, by far.

just look at the difference between free avast and paid, practically NONE! ;D

http://www.avast.com/eng/av4_version_comp.html#

how can you look at the things on this comparison and say avira free is better? avira is still bugged in my opinion.

[MalwareDie]

Avira free is still better in my opinion. it may have less update servers, an ad that appears after you update which has a varying amount of annoyance on different users, have some bugs that were not that serious, (the icon disappearign was just a very minor problem as the guard was still fully functional) the detection rate is basically the same except the lack of adware/spyware and spyware seems to becoming less and less of a threat these days anyways. And an email scanner isn't really needed.

[walking paradox]

-{ Quote: "And an email scanner isn't really needed." }-
While I agree that Avira AntiVir is probably his best all-around choice for free AVs, if he uses desktop email it might not be. Given that the vast majority of viruses are derived from emails, saying that an email scanner isn't really needed doesn't make much sense. It is misleading and inaccurate. If however one uses only webmail, then Avira's lack of POP3 scanning shouldn't be a problem. If you do use a desktop email client like Outlook, then I'd probably recommend AOL AVS as it uses the KAV engine, even though you have to sign up and you get spammed, or so I've heard.

[acr1965]

If you are looking for a free AV I would suggest you download F-Secure which is free for 6 months. Sure the free period will run out sometime in September. But you will have nice protection until then.

http://www.f-secure.com/protectyourpc/

[waters]

In detection ,antivir is the best.Avast may have same in free and paid but antivir free will protect more.Best is what is best for you,try them.

[C.S.J]

ok, lose the 3-4% of the latest on demand between avast and antivir, but with avast you get spyware scanning / PUP's.

also you get an email scanner and probably a few other things, check the avast list above, and no 'bugs' (search the forums), i think with the added spyware / pup scanning, avast adds more than the 3-4% loss on virus scanning.

oh, and avast is vista ready and performs well.

[lodore]

active virus shield,antivir of avast.
avast has a lower detection rate but it has a web shield which is one of the best http scanners in any AV. and alot of other useful shields as well in a free version. it doesnt have many problem and the newest version is lighter than the older versions.

active virus shield is just kaspersky with only file av and mail av
lodore

[Londonbeat]

-{ Quote: "ok, lose the 3-4% of the latest on demand between avast and antivir, but with avast you get spyware scanning / PUP's.

also you get an email scanner and probably a few other things, check the avast list above, and no 'bugs' (search the forums), i think with the added spyware / pup scanning, avast adds more than the 3-4% loss on virus scanning.
" }-

I agree avast! is a great choice for a freebie, but antivir classic detects a lot of what avast detects as spyware either as a trojan or heuristically (HEUR/malware, etc).

Antivir classic also has some pups detection if you enable the "Security Privacy Risk (SPR)" in the extended threat detection category. Antivir classic will also detect email threats (unless some rare memory based) with the standard file scanner.

IMO avast! is better than antivir in some ways (flawless updating being one), but it's detection level is still quite below antivir classic's.

Londonbeat

[madaro]

Going by your list my choice would be the free version of avg antivirus.

[EliteKiller]

spider_darth, as you can see everyone has a different opinion on what is best. IMHO, AOL AVS is the best freebie AV for a couple of reasons.

1) Based off KAV 6.0
2) One year license that is renewable
3) Full pop3 protection
4) Low resource usage
5) Few FP's
6) multiple updates each day
7) No spam regardless of the myths

However try a few of them for yourself and draw your own conclusion. ;D FWIW Avira free and premium do not have the same detection rates.

[walking paradox]

-{ Quote: "FWIW Avira free and premium do not have the same detection rates." }-
Not that I'm questioning the validity of this statement, but do you have proof to back it up? The only ways I could imagine it has lower detection rates are if the updates are received slower, or due to the fact that it doesn't have POP3 scanning. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the detection rates should differ.

[EliteKiller]

-{ Quote: "Not that I'm questioning the validity of this statement, but do you have proof to back it up?" }-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=954571&highlight=antivir#post954571

[the Tester]

Avira.
Although AVS should be good being that it's a KAV powered program.

[duke1959]

In order of my Favorite Free ones. (My choice for paid is AVG Pro)

Avira. Runs light with perhaps best virus detection. Nice user Interface. Many addional features. Can be set up to auto update more than once. Has some occasional update server problems.

AOL AVS. Runs light with top level virus and antispyware detection. Nice User Interface. Most featured of the four. Did auto update every two hours, but not sure since it no longer uses Kaspersky Update Servers.

AVG Free. Perhaps the lightest, improved virus detection. Two User Interfaces, laid out well I think. Some added features to it. Only one auto update a day.

Avast. Runs a little heavier than the others. Above average virus detection. Some spyware detection. Web Shield nice addition for added detection. GUI cumbersome to some. Has a few additional features. Excellent update servers set to update every 4 hours I believe.

[walking paradox]

@EliteKiller

The thread you linked to only has 3 posts concerning the difference between the free and paid version of Avira AntiVir, and only one of them provides an answer of sorts. That one is from IBK, and all he says is "in aviras case mainly only regarding spyware etc." So aside from spyware, the detection rates of other malware should be virtually identical between that of the paid and free version, with the possible exceptions of what I previously mentioned.

[EliteKiller]

-{ Quote: "The only ways I could imagine it has lower detection rates are if the updates are received slower, or due to the fact that it doesn't have POP3 scanning. Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any reason why the detection rates should differ." }-

How exactly does a slower update server, or the fact that the free version lacks pop3 protection, have anything to do with detection rates? ???

-{ Quote: "@EliteKiller

The thread you linked to only has 3 posts concerning the difference between the free and paid version of Avira AntiVir, and only one of them provides an answer of sorts. That one is from IBK, and all he says is "in aviras case mainly only regarding spyware etc." So aside from spyware, the detection rates of other malware should be virtually identical between that of the paid and free version, with the possible exceptions of what I previously mentioned." }-

I could have linked to additional threads, but I didn't think redundant information was necessary. Regardless, the detection capabilities are in fact different between the free and paid version. However the detection rates on everything except spyware/adware should be the same. Is that clear enough? :)

[walking paradox]

-{ Quote: "How exactly does a slower update server, or the fact that the free version lacks pop3 protection, have anything to do with detection rates? ???" }-When I said slower updates, I didn't mean in how long it would actually take to download the updates, but how frequently the AV would receive updates. Why this might make a difference in AV testing and detection rates should be obvious. As far as pop3 protection, or the lack thereof, I meant that this is an important aspect of how effective an AV is and how much protection it offers, and thus should be taken into account.

-{ Quote: " However the detection rates on everything except spyware/adware should be the same. " }-
This was exacly my point. See below.

-{ Quote: "So aside from spyware, the detection rates of other malware should be virtually identical between that of the paid and free version" }-

[Tarq57]

A few users liking AOL because it's based on the Kaspersky engine. One review I've read, (admittedly at Download.com, not famous for the users' skills base...)
states this (in part, originally posted by CableguyTK)

-{ Quote: "It is a slimmed down version of KAV6. Differences are the following:

-Web Antivirus has been removed. This is a necessary feature of KAV6, which immediately scans web cache and such. A big hole is left without it.

-Proactive Defense has been removed. This is a feature which scans all process requests and alerts you of them, asking for your permission to allow them or not. This is becoming the norm with security software. KAV6 has it, Spyware Terminator has it. I think it is the future of security software. It is too bad they removed it" }-

[spider_darth]

Well.. I've narrowed my choices to AVIRA, AOL AVS and AVAST!

1. I understand that AVIRA and AOL AVS has better detection rates. And, for AVAST!, it has lower detection rates. What does this mean? Does it mean that it detects lesser virus and is thus more risky as the comp is more easily exposed to virus attacks?

2. Also, AVAST! hogs resources more than the other AVs. May I know by how much more? Is it significant, such that I can feel the difference in my daily usage?

3. Though AOL AVS is a slimmed down version of Kaspersky6 and has no Web Antivirus and Proactive Defense, is it still better than AVAST free? Anti-spyware/adware inclusion has little impact on my choice as there are still many anti-spyware softwares alternatives.

4. If I install on-demand scanners such as ClamWin or Dr.Web CureIt, will any of the above AVs (AVIRA, AOL AVS and AVAST!) conflict or interfere with it? In other words, can they work together harmoniously?

[Tarq57]

Better detection rates means that a greater percentage of potential infections are detected. The only way to get an indication of this is on a site such as AV-Comparatives.org (http://www.av-comparatives.org) that test antivirus programs against a very large database of malware. (Another way would be to use identical computers, and go hunting for viruses in the wild. A bit hit and miss.)
A scanner with lesser or inferior detection rates is, therefore, riskier. How much riskier?
If you look at the difference, it's quite small. Something of the order of 2 - 6%, depending on the test. For actual everyday use, perhaps not significant. AOL wasn't tested, nor were the other freeware AV's.
I use Avast, and am very happy with it; the free (home) version has the same detection capability as the pro version. I've also used Avira in the past, and AVG, and Norton. Like Avast the best; it's been the most hassle free.(Zero hassles.) Haven't noticed it slowing down the system at all. Nor have I got any viruses.
I use CureIt now and then, as a double check (It has good heuristics) and Avast doesn't interfere. Updating CureIt involves re-downloading a fresh version of the application, 5.5Mb; there are no separately downloadable def. files.
Should you go with AOL, read the license carefully. (See attached txt file.) The screenshot is of a program called EULAlyser, having scanned the agreement, opened at one of the flagged texts. The license is, the way I read it, inviting you to be hounded by advertisers.
A lot of users here swear by Avira for its excellent detection rate, and I wouldn't (and couldn't) argue. I've just found Avast suits me better, and the protection appears more than adequate.
(Sure hope the text file doesn't take the whole page! :-[ )
EDIT Oh good, it didn't. :)

[spider_darth]

so.. it's more advisable to install AVAST! and use it together with on-demand scanners and online scanners, am i right?

any on-demand or online scanners to recommend? that is light on resources and has a relatively high detection rate.

[Tarq57]

I'm not qualified to give advice, not far off being a newbie myself, but that's been my experience.
Why not try 2 or 3 out for a week or three each, then decide which works best for you?
Any of the three (Avast Avira or AVG) AFAIK provide pretty good or very good protection, unless you're a high risk user. If you think you might be, best go for something like NOD32, which is very well thought of by the experienced folk here. (But if you are, 'tis likely the best AV in the business won't save you.)
Frankly I can't remember a demand scanner or online scanner picking up anything significant on my setup, but then it's not protected by AV only. It's a bit hardened with SpywareBlaster, S&D's bad download blocker, MVPS hosts file, and Malware immunizer. For antispy/hips I'm using SpywareTerminator. To monitor stuff Winpatrol.The other "guard dog" is Comodo firewall. Got a collection of demand scanners.
So I can't say if Avast alone will do it for you. But it's got to be a damn good start.;D

[EDIT] PS, some pretty reputable demand scanners, (spy, trojan) are Superantispyware, Asquared, AVG antispy. (virus) Cureit seems pretty good. I believe WinClam might be a standalone demand scanner with pretty good detections...not sure, though.
Online, Housecall (TrendMicro) or Fsecure.

[spider_darth]

what's the difference between on-demand scanners and online scanners?

[lodore]

on demand scanners you download and run to. (sometimes you install)
with on line scanners you go the the anti virus vendors website and run the scanners from there servers normally using IE 6 or 7 using an ActiveX control.
sometimes they use java
lodore

[acr1965]

Just for my personal information, not to stir the pot. But how does everyone compare the available free AV's verses a full-blown version of F-Secure? I suspect that it is much better than many of the free versions.

[spider_darth]

-{ Quote: "on demand scanners you download and run to. (sometimes you install)

" }-

does it mean that demand scanners are scanners which u download only when u want to use them? so one has to download it everytime in order to use it.

or.. do i have to just download once and it'll update itself. and, it's always in my comp. so, i don't have to download everytime i want to scan.

[KikiBibi]

-{ Quote: "or.. do i have to just download once and it'll update itself. and, it's always in my comp. so, i don't have to download everytime i want to scan." }-

This is correct. On demand means you have to scan to detect. Works like normal application except no real time protection.

[Hipgnosis]

I can also offer my own personal vote for Avast Home. I have been using it for several years, currently have it installed on five computers (2 of them used by teenagers) and none of them have ever been infected. I am also behind a hardware router/firewall.

I regularly read about, and consider, other AV's but thus far I have not found another free one that has convinced me the change would be unquestionably superior in all respects.

[solcroft]

Well, I suppose I'll be the dissenting voice for avast!.

The one thing I have against it is that Alwil doesn't seem all that dedicated to improving the quality of their software. Submit an undetected virus sample to them, and watch as avast! still fails to detect it four days later. AVG, on the other hand, has been improving by leaps and bounds. It's still not up to scratch as AntiVir and AVS, but at least Grisoft is showing effort. Version 7.5 improved polymorphic virus detection considerably, according to the AV-C tests, and undetected sample submissions usually get added 1-3 days later, sometimes even a matter of hours. Not to mention the great strides in detection rates and number of added samples. I'd rather put my faith with a software whose developers show interest in improving, which unfortunately is not something I can say for avast!.

Ideally you'll want either AntiVir or AVS as a free solution, but if they don't work out for you, get AVG.

[MalwareDie]

-{ Quote: "Well, I suppose I'll be the dissenting voice for avast!.

The one thing I have against it is that Alwil doesn't seem all that dedicated to improving the quality of their software. Submit an undetected virus sample to them, and watch as avast! still fails to detect it four days later. AVG, on the other hand, has been improving by leaps and bounds. It's still not up to scratch as AntiVir and AVS, but at least Grisoft is showing effort. Version 7.5 improved polymorphic virus detection considerably, according to the AV-C tests, and undetected sample submissions usually get added 1-3 days later, sometimes even a matter of hours. Not to mention the great strides in detection rates and number of added samples. I'd rather put my faith with a software whose developers show interest in improving, which unfortunately is not something I can say for avast!.

Ideally you'll want either AntiVir or AVS as a free solution, but if they don't work out for you, get AVG." }-


You do know that there is a considerable difference in detection in AVG free and AVG antimalware? AVG Pro only gets standard according to IBK.

[solcroft]

Where does IBK say that, exactly?

[DVD+R]

Ive not tried it yet, but AOL is Kaspersky, just a free version of it, Maybe I'll take a look when the Vista Version is released :)

[MalwareDie]

-{ Quote: "Where does IBK say that, exactly?" }-


He says this: -{ Quote: "AVG Free or professional would not get Advanced. AVG scored well only because AVG AntiMalware was tested, which includes the ewido engine. So, you do not longer can apply the results of the paid version to those of the free versions (except: Avast)." }-



Found here: http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=166519&page=2

[jawadde]

I just want to say that AVS is a kind of spyware...You will recieve a lot of e-mails (read spam) and your "internet-movements" will be registred.

Sorry for my englisch, im from Belgium you see :)

[19monty64]

I've been using AOL/AVS since last fall and have only recieved the activation code....no other eMail (or spam) from them or third parties. If they are monitoring my browsing-habits...I must be boring them terribly!!! lol

[plantextract]

-{ Quote: "I just want to say that AVS is a kind of spyware...You will recieve a lot of e-mails (read spam) and your "internet-movements" will be registred.

Sorry for my englisch, im from Belgium you see :)" }-
avs is kav, the only non kav part is the bundled toolbar, which you can choose not to install.
as for spam mails nothing here either.

[jaydub]

-{ Quote: "avs is kav, the only non kav part is the bundled toolbar, which you can choose not to install.
as for spam mails nothing here either." }-

Nor here. :)

[Hipgnosis]

-{ Quote: "I can also offer my own personal vote for Avast Home. I have been using it for several years, currently have it installed on five computers (2 of them used by teenagers) and none of them have ever been infected. I am also behind a hardware router/firewall.

I regularly read about, and consider, other AV's but thus far I have not found another free one that has convinced me the change would be unquestionably superior in all respects." }-

For what it's worth, I am rescending my vote for Avast. As stated above I have used Avast Home for years and thought very highly of it and felt it was protecting me. However, within the last couple days I decided to take a look at some different security measures and received some unexpected surprises.

Without going into all the details and in the interest of brevity; I removed Avast from my main PC, installed NOD32, did a complete system scan and it came back clean. That supported my feeling of security with Avast. My next test was to remove NOD32, install AOL Active Virus Shield, perform a complete system scan and to my surprise, it found a trojan in my deleted email folder. (** I am not knocking NOD32, just stating the facts)

Next I removed Avast from one of the kids computers, installed AOL AVS and again, it identified a trojan in the Internet Explorer temporary files.

Needless to say, AOL AVS is being installed on all my PC's in the next few days.

I still believe that Avast makes a fine product as evidenced by only one malware item being found on each PC thus far, obviously it could have been much worse, but for now and the forseeable future, I am going to entrust my PC's antivirus duties to AOL AVS.

[C.S.J]

they could be false positives,

either way, you cant judge a product on one or two threats found with another av.

[Hipgnosis]

I do know the email was a bogus email. When I received it I forwarded it to Paypal because it came to a mailbox I don't use with my account. Paypal confirmed it was not from them and that it was a phishing email. I had deleted it but had not removed it from the "Deleted Items" folder; so in my mind that lends some credence to AVS identifying it.

[The One]

Hi

Sounds like not a regular choice.

AVS is KAV without web scanner and without the PDM.
Avast has a minor detection rate than the others but is working fast on it and has pretty well support.
Avira has best detection rate of the three but also has a lot of False Positives.

My vote will be for Avira. Great detection, great heuristic, great support forum.

[vlk]

Hipgnosis, it sounds much like KAV detected a phishing email in your mail archive. Avast (as well as NOD32 - usually) doesn't really detect phishing emails - they're most often handled by anti-spam applications instead...

[Mele20]

Avira free is not nearly as good as Avira Personal Edition Premium on AVComparatives latest tests. But IBK says its due to the lack of antispyware scanning in Avira free that makes it not as good as the Premium version and you said that was not important to you.

I would go with Avira or AVS. I would not go with Avira if you use Nero and have a floppy drive as there is a bad bug there.

[q1aqza]

But I thought spyware wasn't tested in Av Comparatives so wouldn't the results for Avira premium still be valid for Avira free?

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "Avira free is not nearly as good as Avira Personal Edition Premium on AVComparatives latest tests." }-

What i the basis for this conclusion?

Thanks

[MalwareDie]

I thinnk he bases it on this: -{ Quote: "AVG Free or professional would not get Advanced. AVG scored well only because AVG AntiMalware was tested, which includes the ewido engine. So, you do not longer can apply the results of the paid version to those of the free versions (except: Avast)." }-


but I think Avira free only does worse on the PUPs test and any other category with spyware. I don't think the difference is really that large.