AV Recommendations

[Dazed_and_Confused]

I'm in the process of upgrading my system's security software. Just registered TDS-3. and a very fine tool it is. ;) Currently using AVG Free as my AV, but I've heard it's weak. I want only the best - been burned too many times. Any recommendations?

[bigc73542]

If you want the best, You might trial nod32 or kaspersky av they are both very highly thought of here.

nod http://www.nod32.com/home/home.htm


kaspersky
http://www.kaspersky.com/buyonline.html?chapter=610709&AID=7200905&PID=648344

There are other fine av's out there but these two are very popular.



url repaired==bigc

[Ailric]

You want only the best AV? Welcome to Kaspersky. McAfee is also in the same ballbark.

A good idea is to check the various AV tests, download a demo and see how it runs on your system.

Some tests/reviews:
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=62&mnu=62
http://www.virusbtn.com/index.xml
http://www.pcmag.com/category2/0,4148,4796,00.asp
http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm?PM=ss11_antivirus
http://www.av-comparatives.org/



* fixed link url to allow it to work

bigc

[steve1955]

If you are already using TDS3 I'd go for NOD,you dont really need the extra trojan protection offered by KAV, McFee,etc and NOD is far lighter on your system,but as already advised try a few of the trials and see which YOU prefer

[randy van heusden]

If you want the best in Anti-virus software, there is only one and true protection against attacks existing and those that have yet to be created. INVIRCIBLE is by far the leader and it is too often overlooked and missed as the users, testers, and media all ignore this product and totally brain washed by the Norton product which is a true night mare as it has messed up several systenms i have installed it on and to uninstall it and then manually clean the registry.

Invircible can be found at invircible.com. It is not free, but then if you want true protection against any virus, this is the product that will keep you from being burned.

i know there are other users out ther of this product and would like to hear from them and also why the media ignores this proven product which is true Anti-virus computer warfare.

Randy

[Bdiamond]

You may also wish to take a look at F-secure. I have been using it for about 18 months and have found it to be really reliable, simple and easy to use. Updates are daily or more often and it consumes relatively little of machine resources.

It probably competes in the same general category as the Kasperskyand NOD products but those details can better be described by others here who are more knowledgable than I am.

They do have a free trial period and you may wish to give it a try. It is a pleasure to use.

Bdiamond

[cpsjr]

;D nod

[Trans]

;D

[dangitall]

Folks can bash it all they want, but I've had nothing but good luck with Norton.

[spamcat]

-{ Quote: " quoting: randy van heusden link=board=24;threadid=25664;start=0#msg149504 date=1080213002]
...

i know there are other users out ther of this product and would like to hear from them and also why the media ignores this proven product which is true Anti-virus computer warfare.

Randy

" }-

This response has nothing to do with the actual effectiveness of the InVircible product as I have never used it and I am not inclined to in the future. There seems to be very little actual testing of the product that doesn't date back to the 90s, and what I have been able to find certainly is not flattering to the product with substandard results being the norm.

I would suggest that you read the following:

http://www.idg.co.nz/magazine/pcworld/may98/invircib.htm

http://www.claws-and-paws.com/virus/papers/invircib.shtml

http://www.pc-help.org/www.nwinternet.com/pchelp/lockdown/Davis/Paris.htm

http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~rslade/vess.htm

http://madchat.org/vxdevl/papers/av-oriented/ivdebunk.txt

http://www.idg.co.nz/magazine/pcworld/jul98/mailbox.htm

as these links are representative of the media opinions and the subsequent attacks initiated by the InVircible author. History has shown that reviews that provided negative feedback on the product were met with unfounded threats of legal action, lies, manipulation, attempts at personal discredidation, and other questionable practices.

Once again I have no personal experience with the product, but I believe the referenced articles can certainnly provide insight on why the media neglects the InVircible product.

spamcat
8)


url's repaired==bigc

[optigrab]

More discussion about InVircible, here at Wilders.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=14440

Note that my impression was similar to Spamcat (and neither of us were motivated to try it), though FireFighter reported on a couple of occasions he's impressed with the product.

As for the original "recommendations" request of the thread, I would add that there are a LOT of posts here at Wilders from satisfied users of NOD32, Dr. Web, KAV, McAfee, F-Secure, and even NAV. The best way to evaluate this feedback is to pore over the threads carefully. As has been writte here countless times, the best can't be determined by reported detection rates alone - there are too many other variables.

[Dazed_and_Confused]

Well, I've had problems in the past with McAffee (software conflicts), in addition to poor detection performance. >:(

I've not seen any viruses since installing AVG Free 18 months ago, but that may be a fluke. :-\ It may also have something to do with the daily update routine. What I really like about AVG is it seems to use a small amout on resources, compared to McAffee. But I've heard it much weaker at detection that most.

I've read posts here on Wilders, and NOD32 and Kaspiersky seem to be the hands-down favorite, and are both good at detection. Which of these in your opinion is the lighter and faster app?

[Ailric]

NOD32 is definitely faster and lighter than KAV 4.5. It a very good antivirus with excellent heuristics and improved unpacking. The interface is streamlined and easy to work with. Why not download a demo and give it a whirl? Just make sure you don't have another AV running.

I also recommend F-Prot for Windows for those concerned with performance. Dr. Web is also a lite performer with great detection.

KAV (and those that use the KAV engine) is king. It's unpacking, trojan and malware detection is unrivaled.
NOTE: KAV 5.0 is in beta testing now. With it's improved user interface and better resource usage, it may well be worth waiting for.

[Dazed_and_Confused]

Thanks. I'm using TDS-3, so I'm feeling pretty good about the AT protection right now. And a "light" application is important to me, so I think I'm going to try NOD32 first. ::)

[meneer]

As I stated before (but, who am I?), ojectively there is no best scanner. Perhaps NOD outperforms every other on VB tests and is the fastest around, I don't like the user interface (but again, who am I).

Pick any of the scanners mentioned here (and do not count the preference score) and try them all out for yourself. Not only do get get free protection for a year or so ;), but you get the first hand experience too.

And remember: even the best scanner can be fooled, or will get it's signatures updated a minute too late (I have to find the results of the signature publishing reaction speed of AV makers, I'll post them here later today).

-update-
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/columns/executive_tech/article.php/3316511
http://www.pcwelt.de/news/viren_bugs/37827/

[bob_man_uk]

If you want a good piece of software i definetly recomend Panda software its kind of light on resources tho the install is a long one, the virus database is now 72,000 strong and still climbing it updates whenever theres an internet connection, if you are using windows 9XI wouldnt recomend using the firewall but the rest of it is top noch stuff.

[spamcat]

Since I didn't actually make a recommendation in my earlier post:

I agree with the majority of posters in saying that there is not one perfect AV solution. Pick out some of the reputable AV solutions (most of those mentioned such as NAV, McAfee, NOD32, Kaspersky, etc. are) and try out the demo versions and see what you like. I am a NOD32 user and chose it over KAV 4.5 due to interface, resource usage (and I have a fast computer), and the fact that I have a good AT installated (BOClean).

I prefer these AV's over NAV and McAfee primarily due to the speed of virus definition updates and their model where you buy a one-year license to the product when you purchase and not just a year of virus definitions. When a new version of the product is released (ie, soon to be released KAV 5.0 or NOD32 2.0 last year) you just download and install using your current password or keyfile.

Good luck,
spamcat
8)

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: " quoting: spamcat link=board=24;threadid=25664;start=15#msg150033 date=1080305120]I agree with the majority of posters in saying that there is not one perfect AV solution.
" }-

Of course there IS a *perfect AV* -- available at any hardware store for <$5. ::)

Seriously, though, oh feline personage -- DrWeb is my recommendation. Bang for the buck & so forth. Yah

bellgamin
~~~~~~~
Even if you COULD have everything, where would you put it?

[liang_mike]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Bdiamond link=board=24;threadid=25664;start=0#msg149534 date=1080218310]
You may also wish to take a look at F-secure. I have been using it for about 18 months and have found it to be really reliable, simple and easy to use. Updates are daily or more often and it consumes relatively little of machine resources.

It probably competes in the same general category as the Kasperskyand NOD products but those details can better be described by others here who are more knowledgable than I am.

They do have a free trial period and you may wish to give it a try. It is a pleasure to use.

Bdiamond
" }-

I am also using F-Secure

[Main Event]

TDS-3 already installed? Go with NOD32, your best bet.

[njguy99007]

Hello all, I have had Nortons but with Avast AV Home edition which is free by the way, and it has auto updates or you can update anytime you like.

Here is a link in case anyone is interested, i have been using it for almost 6 months now and it caught a few naughty bad boys trying to get in.
http://www.avast.com/

Check it ouy it is better tahn AVG which i also have tried.

Nj Guy here

[Grasshopper]

Dazed_and_Confused

If there is one thing I have learned about computers in the short time I have been using them , it is that no two systems are exactly alike, what works for me may not for you .
all programs mentioned in the above posts have advantages and disadvantages, you have to find out what program works best with your system and to do that you must trial as many as you think necessary .

Good Luck
Frank

[ronjor]

F-Prot is very light on resources and the company is a pleasure to deal with.
They are still improving the program for Windows. It will unpack a zip file with no problems.
In ten years of computing, F-Prot, the DOS version, caught the only malware I have ever had on my computer.
Runs like a champ on XP.

[meneer]

So, now that's settled, Dazed_and_Confused need no longer worry.

One thing is for certain, there is no consensus in this community. I don't think that I saw etrust mentioned here, lets add to the confusion, right :)

The conclusion: there are lots of fine antivirus scanners out there. Most of the sacnners mentioned here are good in terms of detecting, preventing en correcting infections. I would say that any of these scanners are good enough. Main differences:
- detecting trojans (do you need that in an AV scanner, or will you go for a dedicated AT
- speed and update practice
- price (do you want a paid subsription or not)

I just thought of another help to compare: how about checking the virus info pages on the AV sites. Perhaps not really important to judge the scanner quality, but just some extra to get a feeling for the product.

It's up to you to pick your scanner. Make sure YOU like it. So try them all, it seems you can't go wrong with any of these scanners.

This kind of thread always looks like a religious thing, doesn't it?

[Adam]

I use Nod32 for resident antivirus memory scanning (fast and light), TDS-3 for resident antitrojan memory scanning and on-demand scanning, and KAV for on-demand "complete" scanning. I also use process guard to keep these processes running. A multi-tiered approach with overlapping heuristics and databases seems to be the most likely to protect . I keep as few processes running for resident memory scanning as possible and favor the lighter/faster ones for this.

Some considerations:

1. I use IMAP and SSL (SecureBat!) for email. Currently, NOD32 does not scan IMAP messages - you have to rely on AMON once an attachment is saved, and if it is packed, once it's open. I prefer multi-tiered protection, so scaning all email through my IMAP channel and via a plugin for SecureBat! (all of which KAV does) is useful to me. Basically, KAV does a better job of integrating on-demand scanning automaticity into email apps - and this is particularly important if you use SSL to send/receive mail as no port scanner will be able to see anything.

2. Whenever I get an attachment, I scan it with NOD advanced heuristics (since it's already been scanned by KAV). Two is better than one.

3. It's true that NOD's strong point is antivirus and its heuristics, though they are evidenlty adding trojan/worm profiles to the database aggressively. TDS-3 will pick up the slack in this area, and KAV provides a double layer of protection.

-Adam

[mikoyan]

I recommend Panda, Avast, F-Prot or Nod32. The last two are very system friendly (not system hogs), Panda has overall polished interface and nice logo ;), and Avast Home is free.

cons: F-Prot doesn't support incremental updates, Avast is quite system intensive, so is Panda and Nod32 is a little unstable.

[kloshar]

I recommend NOD32, F-secure, McAfee, Norman Virus control, Sophos and Kaspersky.

[Tinribs]

Speaking of Norman, does anyone here run it resident and have an opinion to share?
I have a paid copy of their latest fare but haven't got it installed.

Thanks
Kev
:)

[Blackcat]

Hi Kev

A number of old threads here on Norman;

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=21404

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=7485

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=12647


I have trialed it on one of my boxes here for the last few weeks and there have been big improvements to the program since I last tried it. They now have a specific e-mailscanner and the program now seems much more stable and uses less memory/resources than previously. The GUI is also easy to use and you can load/unload a number of plugins/modules which the program has.

However, despite these improvements, virus detection results are mixed; some are not so good;

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?norman.xml

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=62&mnu=62


While in other tests it can do well;

http://www.av-test.org/online/sites/os03.php3?js=0&test=2002-01&p=1

http://www.checkvir.com/index.php?CN=3.3.21.8&CIE=0

Overall, probably not up there with the big boys.

It has run very well on my computer, with no conflicts whatsoever but the on demand scanner can be very slow.

Because it has poor unpacking abilities, virus detection is not at the very top and it is relatively expensive, I decided not to carry on with the program after the trial period. But I look forward to future versions.

You would be better off staying with your usual AV programs, Kev ;)

added url tags - snap

[solarpowered candle]

I see there is a 3 yr license for $50 at http://www.tryus.dk/normanbuy.asp

[Blackcat]

Hi Robert,

This is certainly cheaper than the $76 annual license on the Norman UK site!!!!

Although you could obtain ( still obtain?) the program for free;

http://www.opistat.com/

I still think there are AV programs out there for better OVERALL malware protection.

But NVC is definitely worth considering at the cheaper price for good ITW virus detection.

Kevin, where did you buy your version from?

[solarpowered candle]

He has proberly gone for a pint down at the local :)

[hokhost]

NVC5.7 works fine here.

What I find annoying :
- the scan is quite slow,
- when you use the right click scan, you must click on the "Examine" button on the NVC GUI again.
- low on trojan detection

What I like :
- Easy to configure
- Can scan all email client (I use Thunderbird)
- I can delete Infected mail and access my Incoming Mail folder. I tried DrWeb two weeks ago, but when it detected an infected mail, the whole Incoming Mail folder was blocked.
- The use of an AT is mandatory (I use Ewido)

I do prefer Nod32, but Norman was free with my computer so ...

[Tinribs]

-{ Quote: "Hi Kev
<snip>

You would be better off staying with your usual AV programs, Kev ;)

added url tags - snap" }-


Thanks Blackcat, much obliged, I did have my doubts ;)

edit;
I dont actually remember where I got my copy from, for my company I'm sort of the official security advisor and they get versions for me to try, except despite what I tell them they dont listen anyway!!!

[Slovak]

My personal opinion is either NOD32 or KAV, you cannot go wrong with either of the two, although NOD32 is easier on system resources than KAV, and NOD32 scans alot faster than KAV too.

[Dazed_and_Confused]

Well, my 30-day trial of NOD32 is going well :) . So well that, as of this point, I'll probably stick with it without even testing KAV. Based on comments I've read here, it is just as good an AV as KAV, and less expensive to boot. I don't really need it's AT capability since I'm already running the best AT around (TDS-3). ;)