The best antivirus

[kloshar]

Can we say that these are top of anti-virus softwares?:
- Kaspersky
- F-secure
- NOD32
- McAfee
- F-prot
- Dr. Web

Is there any other?

Thanx!

That post was made just for my friends on Mobisux.

kloshar

[optigrab]

Hi kloshar

Your question is just about the best way to receive disagreements, and unlikely to achieve consensus. Longtime readers here at Wilders would probably agree with your list in general, but there are also detractors of just about all of them too.

In the end, if eight people say that AV-whatever on your list is top-notch, and two people say "it failed to prevent an infection" or "it crashed my PC", it will be difficult to draw conclusions.

If you're still interested in compiling a list of candidates, you might want to add Norton. I don't use it, and I know it has its detractors, but I also know many, many people who give it high marks.

Regards
Optigrab

[kloshar]

Never mind! Just write your opinion.

[tahoma]

my opinion is that that is probably a list of the best avs. personally i wouldnt include nod32 or f-prot tho, but i know many will disagree :)

f-secure is only good cos it uses the kaspersky engine
several other abs using te kaspersky engine are therefore also very good, avk, extendia and a few others

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125329 date=1075388540]
Never mind! Just write your opinion.
" }-


I did (http://add.about.com/cs/foradults/a/adultbasic.htm). ::) ;D You should consider putting Norton on your list.

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125318 date=1075385275]
Can we say that these are top of anti-virus softwares?:

Is there any other?
" }-

I would put NAV and Trend Micro in there.

[subratam]

AVG
Command
Mcafee
PC-cillin
I dun mind Norton

loool (it is PC-cillin) sorrry ;D ;D

[kloshar]

Which one is Penicilin? Pc-cillin?

[groundling]

Kloshar:
I don't believe in any best.

Particularily if the "best" won't run on my operating system or I don't have the resources to run it, or the knowledge to configure it.

Or if I turn it off because it slows down my browsing, downloading etc.

Price a factor , frequency and size of updates a factor..

"Good enough for me" applies.

Might be more useful if you listed them according to what your friends typical needs are.

[mvdu]

I would include Norton if it had more live updates. Frequent updates mean a lot to me.

[sofasofe]

Well f-secure using and KAV engine but its not only reason why its very good software. Can you show me any virus that other detect and f-secure doesn't? I never heard of that, just oposite

We can include and Panda

so

F-secure > the best
KAV
Panda > it will clean any known virus from PC
NOD32 > detected Mydoom by heuristic
Norton
Avast

Dr.Web also good but to many false alarms

[noname9]

Please got to the following website ( http://siliconrealms.com/index.shtml ) and protect your favorite malware with SRs software. KAV (and clones like F-Secure) will not detect it. Kaspersky knows about this issue for a very long time and cannot do anything about it. Hackers know, too. Everybody (should) know.

Is KAV useless now? NO.
Is KAV a bad scanner? NO.
Is there a best virus scanner? NO.
Does it make sense to ask what is the best virus scanner? NO. NO. NO.

Here are some questions which DO make sense:

What are the strenghts and weaknesses of a particular scanner?
Do certain scanners complement each other?
Does a scanner offer any unique features, detection methods etc.?

[Trans]

-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125680 date=1075445734]
...and protect your favorite malware with SRs software. KAV (and clones like F-Secure) will not detect it. Kaspersky knows about this issue for a very long time and cannot do anything about it. Hackers know, too. Everybody (should) know.

" }-

...and which AV can detect it ? ;D

[scooby]

I don't think AVG or F-Prot should be on that list. I would add EZ (vet engine).

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125680 date=1075445734]
Is there a best virus scanner? NO.
Does it make sense to ask what is the best virus scanner? NO. NO. NO.

Here are some questions which DO make sense:

What are the strenghts and weaknesses of a particular scanner?
Do certain scanners complement each other?
Does a scanner offer any unique features, detection methods etc.?
" }-

Much better said than I. Agree, agree, agree. ;)

[shoe]

Mcafee Enterprise

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: tahoma link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125336 date=1075389487]
f-secure is only good cos it uses the kaspersky engine
several other abs using te kaspersky engine are therefore also very good, avk, extendia and a few others
" }-

Little mistake about f-secure, the program has 3 different engines.

And only the fact that an AV is using the kaspersky-engine is not a guarantee that the software will be automaticly very good (or very bad), there are so many other (important) facts to consider to give a judgement about an AV, and I miss them in your statement.

Ciao,

Smokey

[noname9]

IMHO, F-Secure does not merely use Kaspersky's engine but also their signatures.

This is unfortunate since KAV's signature database has been cracked (i.e., if you modify malware in a way that KAV cannot detect it there is a good chance that F-Secure will miss it, too). Sometimes, F-Secure may use its own signatures. But frequently, it does not.

For the above-mentioned reason I do not like AV software producers simply buying a license from Kaspersky and selling a KAV clone.

It is better and safer if there are many completely different scanners on the market.

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=15#msg126100 date=1075542113]
IMHO, F-Secure does not merely use Kaspersky's engine but also their signatures.

This is unfortunate since KAV's signature database has been cracked (i.e., if you modify malware in a way that KAV cannot detect it there is a good chance that F-Secure will miss it, too). Sometimes, F-Secure may use its own signatures. But frequently, it does not.

For the above-mentioned reason I do not like AV software producers simply buying a license from Kaspersky and selling a KAV clone.

It is better and safer if there are many completely different scanners on the market.
" }-

F-secure uses three different engines:

F-Secure AVP, Libra and Orion.

Therefore I think f-secure will catch almost everything, but like all other AV's, nothing is perfect, but IMO f-secure is doing a great job, and is a top-notch AV.
Maybe the best there is.

Ciao,

Smokey

[kloshar]

Which is better: EScan Virus control or BitDefender?

[subratam]

Escan -> total control to you like web scanner(pop-up,active X blocker etc), email scanner, something like NIS...
Bitdefender-> file-transfer watcher (in within machine and internet) , notifies if thrs any change in registry
you cant compare between them... both are best in their way..
kloshar its not which AV is best but what is the machine config, the user's way to use his machine.
u have been askin lot bout comparisons..
i have been trialling a lot of security softwares.. and IMHO u shud judge your own AV coz u r the master of ur habits.
every AV is good, its how u use them and in some case some are better than other but surely less good than the same.
thx

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=15#msg126281 date=1075586333]
Which is better: EScan Virus control or BitDefender?
" }-

I only can tell you: there are better AV's ;), read the threads in the anti-virus forum and make your own (wise) decision...

Ciao,

Smokey

[the Tester]

You have a lot of choices in the antivirus category.
That's the good part.
The hard part is deciding which program is the best.
Personal preference is a large factor.
The best way to decide is to trial some av programs one at a time and compare the features,update frequency,resource usage and/or whatever is important to the user.

I think that support (forum or email)is important with any security program.

[noname9]

@Smokey

"F-secure uses three different engines:

F-Secure AVP, Libra and Orion.

Therefore I think f-secure will catch almost everything,"

Apparently, F-Secure does not use all three engines cumulatively. At least, it can be easily demonstrated that an unpacked malware sample which is missed by the KAV engine + the KAV sigs will not be detected F-Secure's Orion or Libra engine.

[tempnexus]

Ok but which one is good enough to be used and still light enough on resources so one will not even notice that it's being used?

[noname9]

@tempnexus

If Kaspersky & clones are too slow for you ... why not using NOD32 in connection with a dedicated memory scanner (for the detection of trojans)? You will need an additional trojan scanner because NOD32's main strength is the detection of replicating ITW malware.

[mvdu]

I'm a KAV user - how much of a concern is this cracking of KAV's signatures? Sounds like a worry.

[noname9]

@mvdu

You are right. There is a tool which helps to reveal a major part of KAV's signature database. Not only KAV is affected but also many KAV clones like F-Secure. If you know the signature it is quite easy to create modified trojans, worms etc which cannot be detected anymore (by KAV & clones).

Therefore, you should not use KAV as your only scanner. It makes a lot of sense to use an additional trojan (memory) scanner. You may even consider to use a third on-demand (file) scanner. For example, you can easily extract a fully-functional McAfee scanner (command line version) from a each McAfee superdat file. There is a topic @ Rokop Security called "McAfee Light" that explains how to prepare the McAfee command line scanner so that it can be used in a comfortable manner. Moreover, it seems that this McAfee version comes for free ...

[mvdu]

Fortunately, I use BOClean for a resident AT and TrojanHunter and BitDefender for on-demand scanners. I guess there is no need to change from KAV, then?

[noname9]

@mvdu

Since most, if not all, scanners (including BOClean, Trojan Hunter & BitDefender) have blatant weaknesses it is exactly the right strategy to use as many different scanners as possible. This will make it more difficult for an attacker to make well-known malware undetected.

[mvdu]

Thanks for the response again - is BitDefender a good backup AV to use, or can I do better? I prefer that my backup be free.

[bigc73542]

Bitdefender free makes a pretty good backup. It seems to update almost every day.

[demoman]

LOL i know that f-secure working with KAV but i saw many times virus detected by f-secure and mised by KAV.

Also on www.virus.gr there are f-secure better than KAV for 1.2% and it is 508 viruses more than KAV of 50795 tested.

Also f-secure is old company which used f-prot engine too but always was better than f-prot.

[wizard]

-{ Quote: " quoting: demoman link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=30#msg126755 date=1075705223]
Also on www.virus.gr there are f-secure better than KAV for 1.2% and it is 508 viruses more than KAV of 50795 tested." }-

And how many out of these 508 viruses are really ITW viruses or at least how many of these are running under a modern Windows operating system? I guess the majority if not all of these 508 viruses is just really old crappy DOS viruses.

I personally think those small number of zoo-malware that F-Secure detects more doesn't really matter in real life.

wizard

[kloshar]

Why can't F-secure delete zip file? It says that infected virus is in archive, so can't be deleted.

[steve1955]

nonames post about KAV being cracked is the 1st I have heard/read of it anywhere,it just shows how easy it is to start a rumour about a product that you perhaps dont like and then let other peoples paranoia take over

[noname9]

Steve,

the tool is called SennaSpy's "AVP Offset" and it has been released a long time ago.

My post has nothing to do with paranoia and I have nothing against KAV.

It does not make sense that most hackers know about AVP Offset while many customers (like you) are completely innocent.

In summary, you need more than one scanner (even if you use KAV).

[foxsteve]

I use F-Secure + Hack Tracer on W2k Server machine a few years. F-Secure is updated automatically, Hack Tracer not. This machine is connected to internet through ZAP firewall and protected by Uninstall Manager and other utilities. This machine has not being infected by the viruses, but catches spyware with cookies.
The second machine Win XP Pro is protected by router, KAV and Uninstall Manager. ZAP is installed, but disabled - it is not necessity to use. This PC catches spyware with cookies only.
The third machine Win XP Pro is used for VPN and is protected by KAV and ZAP. It catches spyware with cookies, but one time it has caught Walsh.
Linux Red Hat and Mandrake machines protected the router only, but do not bother me - they are protected enough.

[VikingStorm]

-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=30#msg127112 date=1075790929]
Steve,

the tool is called SennaSpy's "AVP Offset" and it has been released a long time ago.

My post has nothing to do with paranoia and I have nothing against KAV.

It does not make sense that most hackers know about AVP Offset while many customers (like you) are completely innocent.

In summary, you need more than one scanner (even if you use KAV).
" }-
So your saying after 2-3 years this supposed flaw hasn't been fixed?

[steve1955]

I suggest you have a look here:-
http://forums.useice.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=401fd4a2350effff;act=ST;f=1;t=291

[nameless]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Trans link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125688 date=1075448809]
-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125680 date=1075445734]
...and protect your favorite malware with SRs software. KAV (and clones like F-Secure) will not detect it. Kaspersky knows about this issue for a very long time and cannot do anything about it. Hackers know, too. Everybody (should) know." }-

...and which AV can detect it ? ;D" }-

Why don't you tell us, Mr. Smiley Face?

[nameless]

-{ Quote: " quoting: noname9 link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125680 date=1075445734]
Please got to the following website ( http://siliconrealms.com/index.shtml ) and protect your favorite malware with SRs software. KAV (and clones like F-Secure) will not detect it." }-

Will KAV detect Armadillo-wrapped malware if the KAV real-time monitor has memory scanning enabled?

Will any other AV utility detect Armadillo-wrapped malware?
(And if so, which one(s))?

Do you know of any cases where Armadillo was actually used by some malware, or is this just a theoretical possibility?

[ntl]

McAfee does. But only to the extent it uses weak signatures taken from the resource section.

BOClean does. But I need to perform additional tests in order to make sure that BOClean does not use any tricks ;-)

KAV 4.5 monitor (mem scanning enabled) will not detect Armadillo 2.85-3.60 protected malware.

A cracked version of Armadillo was made available for download in a trojan board. That's why I assume that someone will use it ...

[kress haynes]

http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/pcutilities/pcu43.shtml
Is where i read this at. ( i bought the magizine)

In a head to head test of 48 anti-virus and trogen cleaner products

only f-secure was effective enough for me to consider useful 58,000

trogens, known (& unknown) virus's were run on 48 anti-virus and

trogen cleaner products. i dont remember what all the results were,

but f-secure caught 99.68% and was the best. i do remember norton

was in 7th place with a bit better than 92% effectivness. McAfee

placed 4th with 96.??%. it was a very thourough and convincing test

bed and a serious eye opener for me as i had been recommending

norton to my customers ( i have a computer repair business ) .

#1 was F-secure
#2 was (forgot) i think kaspersky
#3 was called Panda somthing
#4 mcaffy
#5 forgot
#6 forgot
#7 norton
#s 8-48 who cares.

hope this helps !

again the link to purchase the info i read is at,
http://www.livepublishing.co.uk/pcutilities/pcu43.shtml

[kloshar]

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59 -> KLICK

[nameless]

Both of the above two posts mention anti-virus application testing. Tests like that are a very hotly-debated issue. The main point made by detractors is that the samples included are very often non-ITW malware.

[kloshar]

I think one of the best av softwares is Panda Titanium. It can delete lot of files.

[kloshar]

And which antivirus cost the least?

[liang_mike]

-{ Quote: " quoting: sofasofe link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=0#msg125664 date=1075443696]
Well f-secure using and KAV engine but its not only reason why its very good software. Can you show me any virus that other detect and f-secure doesn't? I never heard of that, just oposite

We can include and Panda

so

F-secure > the best
KAV
Panda > it will clean any known virus from PC
NOD32 > detected Mydoom by heuristic
Norton
Avast

Dr.Web also good but to many false alarms

" }-

I also think F-Secure is the best. Panda is pretty good, too.

[Paul Wilders]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=45#msg130323 date=1076593255]
And which antivirus cost the least?
" }-

Define "costs" ;)

regards.

paul

[Smokey]

-{ Quote: " quoting: kloshar link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=45#msg129417 date=1076363678]
I think one of the best av softwares is Panda Titanium. It can delete lot of files.
" }-
The option to delete a lot of files is not important for a (good) AV.... ;)

Ciao,

Smokey

[steve1955]

I agree with Smokey the ability to delete a lot of files doesn't make a good AV(let an unsupervised 5yr old loose on a PC they can do the same,they're not a good AV either)

[jer03]

My NAV 2003 subscription expired this month. I did not want the 2004 edition. I checked all the forums that I knew about to see what would be the best replacement.

There was so much argument about the best, and even which ones were good, that I finally said to heck with it, and renewed my 2003 NAV subscription.

I have had Norton since I got my computer in 1999, and it has detected and deleted all the viruses and one Trojan that have attempted to install on my computer. I have not had a reason to change, except the evident bloated 2004 version.

I realize there are some that take less resources, but I am not able to sort through all the conflicting posts, and I know that NAV is good and has served me well.

Jerry

[shunned]

quote: Define "costs"

regards.

paul
____________________


A well placed request. Anyone care to answer the man?
Imo, if a person has to ask the cost that person really can't afford the product so may as well install a freebe.
Over the years I have seen thousands of threads identical to this one. As another poster already stated it always ends the same.
An thats the way it should be...freedom of choice its called I believe.
So define COST: Whats your machine worth to you and how do you value your time?
On my business computers there is a $600 security program just to keep out others...any others! Would I put that on a computer that can be purchased at wal-mart for $400..in certain cases yes I would. But instead I use older computers to surf the web....
DEFINE THE COST: If a person can enter into discussion on a subject such as this should not that person also take some time to learn how to protect from ever getting a virus or trogan? For eg: A vbs virus is a joke that no person on earth should ever have a problem with...but even at this late point in time not many know how to prevent this simple infection....do such people value their computer?
DEFINE THE COST: Alot of discussion on the right cure and no discussion on the right PREVENTION so excuse me but isn't that just asking for half an answer?
So yes please someone answer the man's request: Define The Cost!
The very best anti virus program made is only as good as the person using it! Poor habits makes for infections. Un-willingness to learn proper prevention. Willingness to depend on others for solutions.
An before someone gets upset an begins ranting at me....think about....take a look around the forum.....how many are asking for a "quick-fix"........thank goodness this is such a wonderful group of moderators and members.
Define The Cost: whats the value of the time used by the moderators and members helping others?
In many cases the best anti virus program..is the person behind the computer screen. Everything else is BACK=UP

[Grummy]

-{ Quote: " quoting: shunned link=board=24;threadid=20688;start=45#msg143938 date=1079240624]
In many cases the best anti virus program..is the person behind the computer screen. Everything else is BACK=UP
" }-

[Paul Wilders]

shunned,

You certainly addressed the "define costs" question for starters ;)

Be assured: there will be no ranting ;)

regards.

paul

[steve1955]

As a side issue (of sorts) if everybody was of the sme opinion as to which was the best AV
1)everybody would be using it & all others would cease exist
2)if every body used the same product wouldn't it make it far easier for the clowns that write/release malware to try and get round the defences offered by this one(best) product
So I for one hope we do disagree(to some extent)on this issue because by using a variety of products we actually do make things slightly harder for these clowns!(would use another name to describe them but I wouldn't have thought it would have been allowed)
Steve

[bellgamin]

Define costs? Why should this be necessary?

"Costs" is generally a common sense term, popularly understood as {for instance} a price of $39 is more than a price of $25. Of course, common sense isn't really that common nowadays, is it? :)

The command to "Define costs" infers that there are potential security costs beyond mere program prices -- such as compromising of one's private information, & so forth.

However, such inferences also are raised, at times, by those who are connected with over-priced products -- such as salesmen {for instance} of used cars, whole life insurance policies, extended maintenance agreements, aluminum siding, junk bonds, and the like.

In my opinion, "costs" {price differences} are a valid consideration when comparing security programs -- if all other comparative factors are fairly equal.

Also, when considering how much protection a given product provides, isn't it also prudent to consider how much protection a given individual's situation actually requires?

So I fail to see the need to wax philosophical or self-righteous when someone mentions price. It's a valid factor, I think.

[jer03]

To a statement that if you have to ask the cost you can't afford it, I must reply, "A fool and his money are soon parted."

I personally have never known a wealthy person who threw his money around.
It is entirely appropriate to ask about the cost of anything, and enter that component into the equation as to whether one wants to buy it or not.

HIgher costs do not necessarily equate to better or more secure, and that is what many of us want to know.

Jerry

[Shunned]

The superego is sub-dividable into two parts: conscience and ego ideal. Conscience tells what is right and wrong, and forces the ego to inhibit the id in pursuit of morally acceptable, not pleasurable or even realistic, goals. The ego ideal aims the individual's path of life toward the ideal, perfect goals instilled by society. In the pursuit, the mind attempts to make up for the loss of the perfect life experienced as a baby
The REQUEST to define cost was read by myself as one that lacked self-centerness an presented a question of what is a realistic goal. Whats it REALLY worth to an individual person. Should a person seek the perfect life experienced as a baby, or realistic goals?
The most intelligent man on earth works as a bartender. His vocation should not imply he is a con artist. Nor should it be implied that the posters here lack the intelligence to equate the realistic value of their time, personal documents, privacy, etc., should any of those be compromised.
Higher price, no, does not particularly imply better a product. Therefore, is it not realistic to judge the product by what it offers and not what it costs. As individuals surely they (posters)deserve the respect of having the inteligence to make rational decisions based on fact an not on groupie mentality
Each poster should as an individual define what the cost would be to theirselfs.

[Shunned]

In respect to the person who posted this topic... to keep the thread on topic...I will not comment further....

Well Wishes To All

[JimIT]

The best antivirus is the one that you're comfortable using. ;D

Having said that, "cost" has to be figured in.

An example: A good friend/co-worker of mine is a network admin for a network of about 50 computers.

The AV solution protecting his mail gateway was very inexpensive, and relatively strong with regards to signature detection--however--the timeliness of updates and heuristic detection was at best--middling.

MyDoom and Bagle were able to penetrate his mail gateway because of a lag between updates, and he had several desktops that were infected, in addition to the lost personnel productivity he suffered while having the mail server/user machines down.

The "cost" in this case was extremely steep--steep enough for him to switch vendors when his license expired--as the difference in "cost" between products was much less than this one instance of "cost" in lost payroll, and productivity.

FWIW. ;)