Vista 64-bit reliable AV & security suites?

[halcyon]

Has anybody tested/trialled extensively 64-bit compatible versions of various Antivirus suites or full security suites?

I'm a long time NOD-32 user (up to v.2.7 series only, 3.0 has been getting a really bad rap) and I need to move to 64bit now for memory reasons.

At this stage I will have to upgrade to either a full security suite or just 'plain-vanilla' AV.

Candidates that I've identified (and excluded):

+ NOD-32 v3.x if it can be made realiable & reasonably fast (cpu load & disk activity)
+ Antivir AV Premium

(- KAV, twice burnt - ever shy)
(- Norton, as above, not for me - I don't like their inconsistency nor system resource usage and multiple processes approach)
(- F-Secure, as above + speed issues w/ resource usage on work loads typical to my computer)


What I'm looking for is:

- reliable
- set & forget
- no tweaking or constant meddling required. Just works
- High detection rate (naturally) against various threats
- very little system slow-down (when set to it's most protective settings)
- support (probably excludes the free ones)
- absolutely problem free on Win Vista x64 (NOD-32 v. 2.7 on XP is the benchmark)

This will be combined with (probably) a separate FW, unless a suite can be found that has a decent FW.

I can even combine two (one resident, another on-demand), if somebody comes up with a good recommendation that's not a huge resource hog. Price is of little concern, if it just works and causes no gray hair :)

What pros & cons have you found with various Vista 64-bit AV suites?

Which would you recommend and why - maybe something not included above already?

[trjam]

the best comb I really ever found was, F-Secures AV by itself and Sandboxie. I have played with a zillion combos and this was the one that meshed the best. I know of others here who use it.

F-Secures AV is just as good as the suite and after the intial load it is as light as all the rest.

[halcyon]

Thanks for the comment.

I wonder how F-Secure can be considered low on resources? Every system I've used it on, it has bogged down the system a lot.

According to Av-comparatives, it also has one of the slowest (i.e. often translates into most resource heavy) scan engines at 3.8MB/sec. That is below 1/4 of what Antivir Premium or NOD-32 manage.

I can't see how that can be considered particularly light, especially when it has three separate engines.

I don't mean to disagree with your personal observations, I'm just wondering how it would fair against the lightest/fastest of the bunch (which still perform at equal or better detection level, of course).

[trjam]

light how. Scanning time is like Kaspersky. Resource usage and slowness to the pc do not always equate. It may require more resourse usage but it didnt impact the speed of my comouter. 2008 is completly different then 2007. Now, if your computer is strapped for resources then yes, it can make a difference.

Also are you looking at resourse usage alone or detection to. It has a Hips that is one of the best and very user friendly,::) it has great rootkit detection. You couple this with something like Sandboxie and it is pretty much set and forget.

[trjam]

you could also do what I am getting ready to do later today to all 3 computers. I purchased Eaz-Fix, going reimage all 3, install Eaz-fix, load SafeSpace and enclose my web browser and email, and forget about all of this stuff. I have proven to myself it works, its free and simple and that is about it.

[kinwolf]

I run 3 AV without any problem on Vista 64, all works great.

Bitdefender AV 2008 - Light and fast. Initial bugs all fixed

Kaspesky Internet Security 7 - About the same as Bitdefender but from my experience you have to tweak the settings a bit. Great firewall.

Norton Internet Security 2008- Norton bogging down systems and using alot of ressources is officially a thing of the pass. This suite is blazing fast and light on memory.

All those 3 have no problem at all on Vista 64.

Kin

[DevilFrank]

-{ Quote: "What I'm looking for is:

- reliable
- set & forget
- no tweaking or constant meddling required. Just works
- High detection rate (naturally) against various threats
- very little system slow-down (when set to it's most protective settings)
- support (probably excludes the free ones)
- absolutely problem free on Win Vista x64" }-

Try Windows Live OneCare - it´s a native 64-Bit Suite and works fine here on my Ultimate64.

[lodore]

avast or drweb could be considered.
ive heard avast works fine on 64bit.
lodore

[Crappopotamus]

-{ Quote: "Try Windows Live OneCare - it´s a native 64-Bit Suite and works fine here on my Ultimate64." }-


oh boy -- *now* you've gone and done it..you said the onecare word.. hehe. j/k I love my $14.95 for 3pcs copy of WLOC 2.x under vista ult. x64

/bought two copies so I can delay installing the 2nd one until next year when this one runs out. Activation key is good for 3yrs on this pkg.

[DevilFrank]

-{ Quote: "oh boy -- *now* you've gone and done it..you said the onecare word.. hehe. j/k I love my $14.95 for 3pcs copy of WLOC 2.x under vista ult. x64

/bought two copies so I can delay installing the 2nd one until next year when this one runs out. Activation key is good for 3yrs on this pkg." }-

It´s a funny game to setup the Windows Live OneCare Multi-PC Management. Isn´t it? :P

[bigc73542]

-{ Quote: "Thanks for the comment.

I wonder how F-Secure can be considered low on resources? Every system I've used it on, it has bogged down the system a lot.

According to Av-comparatives, it also has one of the slowest (i.e. often translates into most resource heavy) scan engines at 3.8MB/sec. That is below 1/4 of what Antivir Premium or NOD-32 manage.

I can't see how that can be considered particularly light, especially when it has three separate engines.

I don't mean to disagree with your personal observations, I'm just wondering how it would fair against the lightest/fastest of the bunch (which still perform at equal or better detection level, of course)." }-


I am running the six month beta trial of FSIS and I must say it is running very light on my machine considering all the modules it has. If it is this smooth in six months I will surely buy it. I have it running on Vista Home Premium. AMD sempron 64 3200+/2 1024mb. ram.

[trjam]

bigc, it is one of the best kept secrets out there. Especially for detection in multiple areas.:thumb:

[lodore]

ive got to say f-secure did run well on vista when i tryed it a few weeks ago.

[bigc73542]

I had FSIS back in 2006 but it didn't run smooth like this one does. Kudos to F-Secure for there great improvements.:thumb:

[kinwolf]

Indeed when I trialed F-secure on vista 32 it ran smoothly. It's the price they are asking for the suite that turned me off though. Maybe there is some cheaper way to acquire it, but on their website it's simply too much.

The price of paying licenses for so many engines I guess.

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "Indeed when I trialed F-secure on vista 64 it ran smoothly. It's the price they are asking for the suite that turned me off though. Maybe there is some cheaper way to acquire it, but on their website it's simply too much.

The price of paying licenses for so many engines I guess." }-
i never understand this argument,

for us UK folk, its cheaper than kaspersky......

and i never hear such an argument for kaspersky. :blink:

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "i never understand this argument,

for us UK folk, its cheaper than kaspersky......

and i never hear such an argument for kaspersky. :blink:" }-

I'm not in the UK :P

F-Secure goes for 92$ for one year on their website(price for Canada). That's too much in my opinion for an AV suite.

Btw, I made an error in my previous post(corrected now), I didn't try F-Secure on Vista 64, back then I was still on Vista 32, not sure if it runs on 64?

Kin

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I'm not in the UK :P

F-Secure goes for 92$ for one year on their website(price for Canada). That's too much in my opinion for an AV suite.

Btw, I made an error in my previous post(corrected now), I didn't try F-Secure on Vista 64, back then I was still on Vista 32, not sure if it runs on 64?

Kin" }-
why not try the technology 6 month thing?
http://support.f-secure.com/beta/istp.shtml
i didnt have any problems with it.
it supports 64bit.
if you like it you can always find a cheap deal after 6months.

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "why not try the technology 6 month thing?
http://support.f-secure.com/beta/istp.shtml
i didnt have any problems with it.
it supports 64bit.
if you like it you can always find a cheap deal after 6months." }-

Actually I did try that last week on my XP Pro and there was a huge slowdown. I forgot the process that was the culprit but I had to uninstall. No biggie, it's beta. I reported the problem and I'll probably retry at a later time since that license is valid for a while still.

But back to topic, Bitdefender works flawlessly on Vista 64 :)

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "the best comb I really ever found was, F-Secures AV by itself and Sandboxie. I have played with a zillion combos and this was the one that meshed the best. I know of others here who use it.

F-Secures AV is just as good as the suite and after the intial load it is as light as all the rest." }-

Sandoboxie also Vista64, I thought only XP64?

[halcyon]

Ok, many recommendations.

Now I need to ask the nasty question:

Who has had 'issues' with any of the above mentioned suites?

Slowdowns? Incompatibilities with software? Requires lots of tweaking? Issues with getting updates? Bugs?

Also, if anybody knows of any real world tests that compare scan speed and system resource usage (other than av-comparatives), I'd really appreciate a pointer.

Thanks for all the comments!

[Ngwana]

-{ Quote: "..Who has had 'issues' with any of the above mentioned suites?...Slowdowns? Incompatibilities with software? Requires lots of tweaking? Issues with getting updates? Bugs?..Also, if anybody knows of any real world tests that compare scan speed and system resource usage (other than av-comparatives), I'd really appreciate a pointer...Thanks for all the comments!" }-


IMHO there are a few possible problem areas with 64-bit versions of Vista:

1. You may be aware Microsoft justifiably does not trust some of the security software vendors who needed to patch or hook the Windows OS kernel for the software to work. The issue is some possible illegal modifications were been made to Windows. Now that Microsoft has decided to protect 64-bit versions from that there is not enough info as to how the Suites or AVs work-around the protection by Microsoft. It seems some of the security suites or AVs run as Windows services and may slow things as Vista versions already run too many services.

2. The so-called ‘Vista Certified’ is more confusing as it seems few products have gone for that and settled for ‘Vista Compatible’ instead, it is up to the user to keep trying different products and as you already mentioned there is a few problems with some popular products and no one can tell you what product will work all the time on 64-bit systems.

3. Lastly there is possible poor adoption of 64-bit versions of Vista and due to that the feedback on the forum may be very thin indeed. I do not know of any comprehensive tests.

For my PC EAV 64-bit works flawless on Vista. Good luck. :doubt:

[Chuck_IV]

I'm using BitDefender Total Security 2008 on Vista Home 64bit and it has been great.

[Crappopotamus]

-{ Quote: "It´s a funny game to setup the Windows Live OneCare Multi-PC Management. Isn´t it? :P" }-

got 3 pc's.. guess I missed the hard part somewhere.

[Crappopotamus]

-{ Quote: "IMHO there are a few possible problem areas with 64-bit versions of Vista:

1. You may be aware Microsoft justifiably does not trust some of the security software vendors who needed to patch or hook the Windows OS kernel for the software to work. The issue is some possible illegal modifications were been made to Windows. Now that Microsoft has decided to protect 64-bit versions from that there is not enough info as to how the Suites or AVs work-around the protection by Microsoft. It seems some of the security suites or AVs run as Windows services and may slow things as Vista versions already run too many services.

2. The so-called ‘Vista Certified’ is more confusing as it seems few products have gone for that and settled for ‘Vista Compatible’ instead, it is up to the user to keep trying different products and as you already mentioned there is a few problems with some popular products and no one can tell you what product will work all the time on 64-bit systems.

3. Lastly there is possible poor adoption of 64-bit versions of Vista and due to that the feedback on the forum may be very thin indeed. I do not know of any comprehensive tests.

For my PC EAV 64-bit works flawless on Vista. Good luck. :doubt:" }-

What is EAV?

[Xenophobe]

-{ Quote: "What is EAV?" }-
Eset Anti-Virus.

[lucas1985]

EAV = ESET Antivirus = NOD32 v3.