Picking AV layers - another AV question!

[steveb]

New to this forum.
I look at the AV threads, however not knowing much about AV tech. its difficult to interpret the answers.

kids system ~ xp pro, 1G Cel w/256m, standard MS products - OE & IE6 with messenger and kazaa.

Planning to install TDS3 (on demand) & outpost.
Which AV's would be better at email and resident scanning (particularly email) with GAV or Avast as a on demand scanner.
NAV, mcAfee, PC Cillin, AVG ? or other.
comments on my selections welcome.

TIA
Steve

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: steveb link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63546 date=1054230782]
New to this forum.
I look at the AV threads, however not knowing much about AV tech. its difficult to interpret the answers.

kids system ~ xp pro, 1G Cel w/256m, standard MS products - OE & IE6 with messenger and kazaa.

Planning to install TDS3 (on demand) & outpost.
Which AV's would be better at email and resident scanning (particularly email) with GAV or Avast as a on demand scanner.
NAV, mcAfee, PC Cillin, AVG ? or other.
comments on my selections welcome.

TIA
Steve
" }-

Personally, I like your selections very much. ;) I don't think you'll go wrong with either NAV, McAfee, or PC-cillin as a primary, however, if you choose Avast! as your on-demand, I would pair it with McAfee, because of Mc's record with detecting trojans and packed stuff.

NAV or PC-cillin would be my suggestion w/GAV as an on-demand. NAV and Avast! do not play together well.

I use PC-cillin w/GAV as an on-demand on my primary box, and like that setup. You might also consider using Spybot S&D on that machine and set the immunize features up since Kaazaa is on there.

*Jim shudders*

TDS and BOClean are great choices for the back door.

[Madsen DK]

Hi
NAV excellent resident & mail scanner & the same goes for Mcafee.( HAWK for email)
Mcafee is also great against trojans, only outperformed by KAV.
Trends Pccillin are also good, but i think i read somewhere, that the pop3 scanner was a little outdated, but still quiet good.
I use Mcafee VS7 on one of my boxes, and it have never let my down.
Mcafee have great heuristics too,, and especially the new 4240 engine have been a great improvement.
I wouldnt bother about AVG though. Simply not good enough IMO.
Regards
Ole :)

PS almost forgot ::) I can warmly recommend NOD 32 too

[steveb]

;D ;D
thanks for the replies

Would Avast or GAV be "a good choice" to go it alone as a primary though I understand that GAV is beta. No disrespect intended to the people who put forth a great amount of effort in these products, I'm just not familiar with the internal workings of AV programs.
Do these programs features compare to the McAfee, KAV's of the AV world or does one program do something a little better than another? giving reason to have a primary & a secondary scanner.

Steve

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: steveb link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63621 date=1054261461]
;D ;D
thanks for the replies

Would Avast or GAV be "a good choice" to go it alone as a primary though I understand that GAV is beta. No disrespect intended to the people who put forth a great amount of effort in these products, I'm just not familiar with the internal workings of AV programs.
Do these programs features compare to the McAfee, KAV's of the AV world or does one program do something a little better than another? giving reason to have a primary & a secondary scanner.

Steve
" }-

My opinion:

Avast!--The pro version is a good choice for a primary av. At this point in version 4's development, I think the "big" companies you mentioned have the edge, though, purely on consistent detection rate of ITW viruses. I would certainly say that the home version is the best free av out there right now, and I use it as a primary on one of my secondary machines, and like it very much.

GAV--Not a good choice right now, simply because of it's ongoing development. It's not quite ready for the big time, but I'm sure it will be soon, because it's being worked on by Michael virtually day and night. I don't know when the guy sleeps. GAV's unpacking and deep file scanning ability is very powerful, though. It's definitely got great promise.

Avast! has features comparable to the "big" av's. It's detection rate of in the wild viruses is stabilizing recently, as I believe it is 3 of 4 in recent Virus Bulletin tests, so Alwil seems to be putting out a great product--and they continue to refine it.

NAV, KAV, PCC, and McAfee have their act together as av's. Mc and KAV have better unpacking ability, which can help catch nasties hidden in archives and packed with runtime packers better than av's like PCC and NAV. If this machine is going to be exposed to KaaZaa, my opinion is that you want something with runtime unpacking ability, or something like TDS or BOClean running alongside your primary (my preference) that can either scan runtime packed stuff, or kill it if it gets executed. TDS can do both. BOClean can kill after execution only.

GAV can do this for you also, but my personal experience with av's that unpack and uncompress, is that they drag my system too much for my liking. That's why I run GAV as on demand only, with BOClean as my trojan-smusher.

That's a personal thing though, and there are many here who don't mind the performance hit. (Or have more horses under the hood than I do!) ;D

Again, those are my opinions. Your mileage may vary! ;D

[spy1]

It's not recommended to go with GAV as your primary AV program (not even by the developer himself).

It hasn't been submitted for testing to any of the various "av testing" organizations yet and there are still numerous issues with the RTM aspect. Pete

[steveb]

Thanks ;D
I think at this point If I use McAfee as primary ( for its unpacking) with TDS & Avast (home ver) as 2nd - would the combination of Mc & TDS be much of a system drag? (or over kill on the unpacking) or Avast & TDS a better combo? (lighter on the system but still good protection)

Steve

[JimIT]

-{ Quote: " quoting: steveb link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63751 date=1054312518]
Thanks ;D
I think at this point If I use McAfee as primary ( for its unpacking) with TDS & Avast (home ver) as 2nd - would the combination of Mc & TDS be much of a system drag? (or over kill on the unpacking) or Avast & TDS a better combo? (lighter on the system but still good protection)

Steve
" }-

My suggestion would be to trial 'em and see what you like/how they work together. That's the best way to make the decision.

I will say that using TDS in conjunction with either of those av's makes for a very formidable defense against bad guys. ;)

Good luck!

[steveb]

;D ;D ;D ;D

Thank you for your time....

Steve

[Stainless Steel Priest]

My recommendation is TDS for trojans and a combination of NOD32 backed up by Dr.Web or KAV for viruses. If you choose Dr.Web be aware that it makes a lot of false alarms with high heuristics.

[root]

I think perhaps DrWeb no longer deserves such a reputation for false positives as in the beginning. I use it resident, and have done so for some time now and I have only seen one false positive in the last month or so.
My one complaint about DrWeb is that it does not have as extensive a database of signatures as some of the other leading contenders, and perhaps it still needs a few more unpackers to equal KAV.
Don't worry Paul, I'm still a die hard KAV fan. I'm just marking time until KAV 4.5 gets released. ;D
Stainless Steel Priest, I have to say that is one of the most interesting nicks I have come across to date. You really should register. :D

[Q Section]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Madsen DK link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63555 date=1054236666]
Mcafee is also great against trojans, only outperformed by KAV.
I use Mcafee VS7 on one of my boxes, and it have never let my down.
<<PS almost forgot ::) I can warmly recommend NOD 32 too>>
" }-

Madsen - where did you get this information? In which trojan test did McAfee triumph over TDS? As for the ability of McAfee's virus defence's have you looked at any independant labs third-party professional testing? We refer to Virus Bulletin: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table

Another thing to realize is if your computer has never had a virus presented to it of course one might *think* their AV program never let them down. Even if an AV program catches some virii, how can one be sure it has caught all virii presented to their computer? Is this the case for yours? You say your computer never gives you any problems but how does it logically follow that ones AV program is good? That, friend, is known as a non-sequitur. The two statements do not follow. We mean no ill will - we are just trying to point out some things many users say but the reasons are not valid. You may like the user interface, ease of setup and use, features etc. but the thing that makes a good AV program is - Does it do the job? Can it catch more in the wild virii than any other AV program?

Just some things to think about. Use what you like but study un-biased testing for some real eye-opening information. :)

[shoe]

learn more here.
http://forums.mcafeehelp.com/

[Madsen DK]

-{ Quote: " quoting: QSection link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63971 date=1054434698]
-{ Quote: " quoting: Madsen DK link=board=24;threadid=9712;start=0#msg63555 date=1054236666]
Mcafee is also great against trojans, only outperformed by KAV.
I use Mcafee VS7 on one of my boxes, and it have never let my down.
<<PS almost forgot ::) I can warmly recommend NOD 32 too>>
" }-

Madsen - where did you get this information? In which trojan test did McAfee triumph over TDS? As for the ability of McAfee's virus defence's have you looked at any independant labs third-party professional testing? We refer to Virus Bulletin: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table

Another thing to realize is if your computer has never had a virus presented to it of course one might *think* their AV program never let them down. Even if an AV program catches some virii, how can one be sure it has caught all virii presented to their computer? Is this the case for yours? You say your computer never gives you any problems but how does it logically follow that ones AV program is good? That, friend, is known as a non-sequitur. The two statements do not follow. We mean no ill will - we are just trying to point out some things many users say but the reasons are not valid. You may like the user interface, ease of setup and use, features etc. but the thing that makes a good AV program is - Does it do the job? Can it catch more in the wild virii than any other AV program?

Just some things to think about. Use what you like but study un-biased testing for some real eye-opening information. :)
" }-

Q Section.
Sorry, i first saw this today.
I ment that, when it comes to AVs NOT ATs Mcafee was only outperformed by KAV,when it comes to trojan detection.
Didnt say that Mcafee was a better trojan detector than TDS ;)
Regards & sorry for the late reply
Ole