Antivir free best detection?

[gdiloren]

I read on Spyware Terminator forum that Avira was the best AV for detection and light-resource but if it detects a virus can it clean it perfectly well as Avast Home does? Who can help me decide?

[disinter1]

Yeah, don't put too much though on the hype here that antivir can't clean, every antivirus has some sort of cleaning problem here and there, but antivir free for me has always cleaned up what it caught and the detection is good if not the best, on test it beat kaspersky in rate detection many times.;D

[Antarctica]

{QUOTE-> and the detection is good if not the best, on test it beat kaspersky in rate detection many times.;D <-QUOTE}

Agree, and I prefer to have a AV with a good detection rather than a good cleaning ability.

Better to keep the bad out of your computer.:)

[MalwareDie]

If you dont include spyware/adware, then Avira Antivir does have the best detection for free antiviruses.

[RejZoR]

They include many common spywares into regular definitions too.
I've seen quiet few detected by Classic version. Some are strictly under AD-SPY group though...

[Tom_H]

True about good detection, but the free version of Antivir does not have web & email scan ;)

2 things I wouldnt be without, especially the web scan.

[RejZoR]

It's good to have it but it's not like world will come to an end if you don't have it. Especially if you use any alternate browser like Opera or Firefox...

[Tom_H]

{QUOTE-> It's good to have it but it's not like world will come to an end if you don't have it. Especially if you use any alternate browser like Opera or Firefox... <-QUOTE}

I do use firefox, but IMO. that is not enough to be secure, Firefox is no longer as secure as it was in the past.

If you wanna be safe you need web scan, otherwize you risk getting things on your comp or into temp internet files.

I mostly never run a full scan more than one time, and that is right after install.

Using kis 7.0 here btw.

[RejZoR]

Well, whatever goes into temp folder will be scanned by real-time part of antivirus. Technically speaking, HTTP scanner is just an additional layer of protection, mostly aimed at exploits but also works with regular stuff.

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE-> I do use firefox, but IMO. that is not enough to be secure, Firefox is no longer as secure as it was in the past.

If you wanna be safe you need web scan, otherwize you risk getting things on your comp or into temp internet files.

<-QUOTE}
Some people seem to swear by the Firefox/NoScript setup, which I think would be just about as good with Antivir for example, as a web scanner is. You might try that if you're without the http scanner...

[Tom_H]

{QUOTE-> Some people seem to swear by the Firefox/NoScript setup, which I think would be just about as good with Antivir for example, as a web scanner is. You might try that if you're without the http scanner... <-QUOTE}

I am with http scanner ;)

[Mele20]

Http scanners are worthless junk that just horribly slow your internet connection. I would never use one. But then I don't use Avira Guard either. I just have Avira as an on demand scanner.

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE-> Http scanners are worthless junk <-QUOTE}

I'm inclined to agree with you...

[innerpeace]

{QUOTE-> Http scanners are worthless junk that just horribly slow your internet connection. I would never use one. But then I don't use Avira Guard either. I just have Avira as an on demand scanner. <-QUOTE}

{QUOTE-> I'm inclined to agree with you... <-QUOTE}

So, are you telling me I should turn off Avasts' Web Shield? I only use the Web and Standard Shields.

ipeace

[Kerodo]

No, of course not, you should do whatever you want to do. I'm just commenting that I can do without the http scanners personally... they do however, usually take a performance toll on browsing..

[innerpeace]

Sorry, I did see you were inclined to agree with Mele and didn't actually say that you agreed with her. I was just trying to prove a point that http scanners aren't worthless.

I have to agree with RejZor that is is just another layer. If a nasty tries to dl on port 80 and Avast has a def for it, then it is caught. I can't comment on the speed reduction as my isp is very inconsistent.

Cheers, ipeace

[GrailVanGogh]

{QUOTE-> Http scanners are worthless junk that just horribly slow your internet connection. I would never use one. But then I don't use Avira Guard either. I just have Avira as an on demand scanner. <-QUOTE}

I have to ask if this an opinion of yours or have you conducted tests and if so could you post your results.

Users should just try this feature and if it works for them fine. If it does then they have another layer of protection. If not they turn the feature off.

[ugly]

{QUOTE-> Http scanners are worthless junk that just horribly slow your internet connection. I would never use one. But then I don't use Avira Guard either. I just have Avira as an on demand scanner. <-QUOTE}


IMO this a total nonsense.
Are those people from ESET , KASPERSKY , F-SECURE , ...etc , so stupid :isay: as to develop some "worthless junk" ??? :wacko: . Be serious.
An av expert opinion on that matter will be more then wellcome. ;)

[Arup]

If Anti Vir can incorporate a boot time scan and clean like Avast, its' cleaning rate should go up considerably specially on locked system files.

[RejZoR]

{QUOTE-> I'm inclined to agree with you... <-QUOTE}
I don't. Badly designed HTTP scanners slow down internet. Good ones don't.
KAV6 had bad one, BitDefender too, NOD32 was somewhere in the middle and avast! had the best one. It's all about how good it's designed.

[Mele20]

{QUOTE-> I don't. Badly designed HTTP scanners slow down internet. Good ones don't.
KAV6 had bad one, BitDefender too, NOD32 was somewhere in the middle and avast! had the best one. It's all about how good it's designed. <-QUOTE}

I only used the KAV6 one and the NOD32 one when it first came out. Both DRASTICALLY slowed my internet speed to less than ONE-HALF what I usually get. I left NOD32 because of this and then later got KAV6 and theirs was even worse. I had BitDefender but that was version 9 and it didn't have an HTTP scanner which was one reason I got it as I didn't want an AV that had one. I have not tried Avast in probably about 3 years (I don't like AV that include everything but the kitchen sink) and it didn't have one then so I have no idea if theirs would slow down or not slow down my speed and since I don't like AV that have a bunch of stuff in them I'll probably never know how Avast's would be. I'm happy with Avira precisely because it is a very no frills AV. I am not looking forward to when it gets a web scanner.

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE-> I don't. Badly designed HTTP scanners slow down internet. Good ones don't.
KAV6 had bad one, BitDefender too, NOD32 was somewhere in the middle and avast! had the best one. It's all about how good it's designed. <-QUOTE}
Sorry, but I have to disagree. In my experience, ALL of them slow browsing down, Avast included.. that's why I'm using AntiVir now instead of Avast (amoung other reasons). I have used all the above and they all slow you down, which is only to be expected with any traffic filtering...

[Kerodo]

{QUOTE->
An av expert opinion on that matter will be more then wellcome. ;) <-QUOTE}

Come on, don't make me laugh... any of the "av experts" are of course going to recommend http scanners. No doubt about it. I don't need an http scanner and I don't want one either because they slow down my browsing and they're unnecessary. I don't need to be an "expert" to figure that out..

Edit: to correct spelling...

[SystemJunkie]

{QUOTE-> hat Avira was the best AV for detection <-QUOTE}

This is then true if you also count the mass of false positives that Avira generates. For me it is not the right choice, because this uncomfortable update scheduler, you always need to run sched and too many false positives, countless false positives, especially the guard lacks a lot.

I guess best choice would be Gdata.

[ronjor]

Thread is closed per this policy. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=180128