The latest lightest Anti-virus?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by sweater, May 27, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. iMigs

    iMigs Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Posts:
    18
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    KAV6 has a much lighter footprint then KAV5 and comes close to NOD32 with standard settings. The only anoyance I got was slow internet browsing and that some webpages didn't load (club-vaio.com for example).
    NOD32 with standard installation settings runs quite light. Using Blackspear's settings (sorry mate) also affected the speed of internet browsing.
    To resume:
    It may sound strange but using those 2 named above with web-av options enabled it turns my dual-core centrino notebook back in the 56.6k ages.

    Personally i think there has to be done a lot on web scanning technology to make it as usable as it is on level effectiveness.

    My lightweight champions are AVG and CA's E-trust but they can't be compared to NOD32/KAV6 detection rates. As a user you have to question yourself what is more important: security or speed.
     
  2. Sputnik

    Sputnik Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    1,198
    Location:
    Москва
    In my opinion Dr. Web is the way to go if you want to have a light but very capable AV.
     
  3. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,448
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    "My lightweight champions are AVG and CA's E-trust but they can't be compared to NOD32/KAV6 detection rates. As a user you have to question yourself what is more important: security or speed."

    Maybe it is just my web surf habits but I have used light "light weights" on security according to some and have not been infected. Those products would include AVG and CA and have not had an infection in many years. :doubt: So why should I sacrfice for higher priced software and slower speeds. I have a real hard time justifing it.

    Let's hope a future nasty infection does not make me change my opinion. :gack:
     
  4. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,639
    i agree with this. both of these AV run well on my comp due to their low CPU usage. f-prot in particular has low memory usage too.

    also keep in mind that different AV may perform different computers.
     
  5. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    I think the answer to this is kinda subjective (is that the right word?) It surely depends on one's system, and how the various configurations play together. The best way to see which is lightest on your system is to try the softwares out.
     
  6. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,750
    Location:
    EU
    I can't give an answer to this question yet because:

    1. I can't compare a lot AV's because I don't have that much AV's
    2. I do not know how to measure the ones I have, so please explain that to me....

    Please let me know
    TIA

    Gerard
     
  7. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,639
    1.) u can trial an AV (shareware), tho dont do it just for the sakes of posting a response.

    2.) well u can measure memory usage via the Task Manager or Process Explorer. (in task manager) just get the values for memory usage and vm size.

    im not sure about CPU usage, it may be more of a subjective observation. u could try seeing if ur comp shows any slowdown or if explorer takes extra time in reading files.
     
  8. notageek

    notageek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Posts:
    1,601
    Location:
    Ohio
    For me I think KAV 6 is light. I tried NOD32 but it slowed my computer down. I couldn't standed so I went back to KAV6.
     
  9. gerardwil

    gerardwil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2004
    Posts:
    4,750
    Location:
    EU
    Thanks WSFuser

    1. I won't ;)

    2. I know, am running PE and I can see the mem, cpu etc. but because of my answer in 1. no usefull info regarding this title.
    One other thing: Are the figures shown in PE related to the settings of your AV?

    TIA,

    Gerard
     
  10. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,448
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    ...for those of you who say NOD slows you down. How? Game play, just general surfing...pulling up emails...how? Give examples. Thanks. :)
     
  11. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Bit Defender 9 is much lighter than KAV 2006 and NOD32 on my current computer and on my previous 27 month old computer that Dell replaced in Feb. I have a copy of the Pro version. I stopped using it only because support demanded that I remove Spybot and Spyware Blaster from my computer. I removed BD instead and got KAV which doesn't mind if I continue to use my favorite anti-spyware applications.

    I don't understand the need to remove a virus before it reaches your computer. Just don't execute the file and there is no problem. A virus can't do anything until executed. I had a folder of 599 viruses sitting on my desktop for a long time. I didn't get infected and I could check the performance of various AV this way. I was amused when I was helping Road Runner (my ISP) corporate to get Symantec to get detection for a particular variant of a popular virus a couple of years ago. Road Runner uses Symantec Corp for its AV on its gateway mail servers and this particular virus kept sailing through as an attachment and on into my inbox. It was so funny how nervous everyone was from the technical division head at my local ISP franchise to the corporate person at Road Runner headquarters in Virginia regarding handling the virus and getting Symantec's attention to the matter. It was perfectly safe to receive an email with the virus in an attachment especially after these guys made me password protect the attachment. Obviously, none of them have ever tested and worked with viruses. :D

    As for KIS 2006 and NOD32 with HTTP scanners turned on drastically slowing my internet speed, I have proof. Gee, you didn't think I don't regularly test my broadband connection? I have 5 years of tests. I would have to do some real digging to find the tests that relate to NOD32 because that was some time ago. What I recall though is that I would sit and wait forever for a web page to load when the scanner was running and my speed tests reflected the severe slow down. Perhaps if I tested NOD32 today that would not happen. When I have some time, I'll test it. But I bet it will produce the same results now as before since KIS web scanner really slows my connection. As for KIS, I beta tested it for many months. Even at the end, with the webantivirus on, I was still seeing a drop from around 4.8Ms down to around 2Ms down. Since April though, my ISP has been having a bunch of problems and my normal speed has dropped quite a bit due to their problems. But for a long time, my speed was steady at 4.7-4.8Ms down on the speed tests I use and during that time, turning on webantivirus and then testing would, every time, produce the drastic drop in speed.

    I do not a see a need for an HTTP scanner. That is just a gimmick dreamed up by the AV companies to snare more users. I understand that the vendors have to keep coming up with something new to get users to buy their product instead of someone else's. But they are not needed. A good on demand scanner is very useful. A good real time scanner is also useful but not mandatory if you practice safe computing at all times and do simple things like avoid IE and use Fx instead, use the Proxomitron with current configs like Sidki's, and, of course, keep fully and promptly patched. I only used BitDefender free for about two years and that was all I needed. I never got any viruses that I didn't knowingly download for testing purposes. I think the newbie and average user definitely needs a good AV but others can do with just a good on demand scanner or use an online scanner such as KAV's for suspect files. I think an anti-trojan application, in particular BoClean, is more important and more useful. Or Process Guard full version unless one has an nVidia card with the latest drivers.
     
  12. TAP

    TAP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Posts:
    344
    I think this method is relatively not so reliable to measure the *real* values for memory usage of AV, I'm not the AV developer so I don't have the knowledge to explain the technical reasons why. As far as I can remember, I think some of our AV experts on this forum used to explain such technical reasons. :)
     
  13. TAP

    TAP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Posts:
    344
    Some technical reasons why HTTP scanner module (e.g. avast! Web Shield, NOD32 IMON, KAV6 Web Antivirus) is needed for a particular purpose.

    See vlk's reply on #29: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=126455&page=2&highlight=firewalled
     
  14. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
  15. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Oh geez...no knowledgeable user has Preview in OE turned on! One of the first things I learned years ago before I got my first computer when I was being taught about computers was to never use the preview pane. Your comment reminds me of an MVP with Outlook who responded to my recent comment to another user telling the user to turn off HTML in email as that is potentially dangerous. This MVP said HTML email couldn't possibly be dangerous and why would I think such a thing?! ARRUGH....I told the MVP to visit dslr security forum and this site and castlecops and learn something about computer security.

    As for the comment you linked to well no well informed user today would be without a router! If they are stuck with an old fashioned dialup connection then they should have a software firewall installed or at least use ICF.

    If you have some sensible reasons why an HTTP scanner is needed please share them.
     
  16. Carver

    Carver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    1,910
    Location:
    USA
    For me it is the opposite.
     
  17. notageek

    notageek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Posts:
    1,601
    Location:
    Ohio

    NOD slowed down my computer. I ytried everything to stop the slow down and it still slowed me down.
     
  18. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,639
    so basically, Mele20, youre saying that knowledge and common sense overrides the need for an http scanner? because malware are harmless unless executed? and because users having safe habits wont click on shady sites or open spam/fraudulent emails?
     
  19. arneevillar

    arneevillar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Posts:
    25
    i have been using KAV for about 2 yrs now on one machine, never let me down once, it is kinda slow though when scanning but i prefer waiting for a good scan rather than having one that scans quickly but half heartedly.

    on another machine i just bought NOD32(my personal machine btw) IMO both are terrific AV's...been using nod32 for about a week now and i'm still getting to gripes with it (gets easier as time goes by though)

    now as for which AV's i think are easiest on the average pc like mine, its gotta be...
    1.NOD32
    2.CA ez
    3.avg
    4.f-prot
    5.MY KAV!!!

    so you see, its not so much as going easy or fast but i'd rather have a well protected setup, than sacrifice a bit of performance... just IMHO:)

    oh btw hello don!!!
     
  20. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    You cannot replace a HTTP scanner. There are too many HTML exploits which activates by just displaying a webpage in the browser. Even with a fully patched IE (or even Firefox!) you are *not* secure while surfing.

    Keep in mind that those exploits execute before the file containing the exploit is saved to disk. Only after it is stored on disk, the file access scanner will catch the malware, but that is far too late.

    A very good example of this was the JPEG exploit. Without HTTP scanning, they could easily activate even if the virus scanner was able to detect the exploit.
     
  21. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Sure you can replace an HTTP scanner. I use the Proxomitron and I don't need an HTTP scanner. That is just a way to get more people to buy an AV that has one and to further clutter and bog down their computers. I also use (used) PG which provides more protection than an HTTP scanner until now since I have an nVidia card and the latest drivers and that is incompatible with PG but ATI cards and others work fine with PG as do earlier nVidia drivers.
    As for your example about the JPEG exploit, no AV provided protection in the beginning. Your precious HTTP scanner was useless. I was there at the dslreports marathon thread from the first moment. I applied all workarounds and with them and Proxo, I was fine and protected long before any AV had protection. Plus, I just switched to my VMWare virtual machines as if they got infected all I would need have done was simply click on one of the snapshots I made to instantly restore the machine to the way it was before the infection. Virtual machines are a better solution than HTTP scanners or AV in general. Some security experts are recommending that everyone get a virtual machine instead of using AV and AT and anti-spyware applications and you can get the server edition from VMWare for free.

    AV resident is needed only for the beginners and average users. A trojan detector is far important these days than an AV or instead of BoClean one can use PG or similar for rootkit protection which is the big worry these days. I have never had a virus sent to me in email in the over seven years I have had a computer (except for test viruses that I requested from someone who has a large collection). I'm very careful to whom I give my email addresses. I don't visit porn sites, gambling or warez. I use Fx and the Proxomitron and did not use a realtime AV for two years recently on my main computer. I just practiced safe computing and used BD free which is just an on demand scanner. I never encountered a single virus or exploit. I don't use IE and that solves 90% of the problem. Everyone should use Proxo with Sidki's and any other configs that are protective and useful. I click on exploits posted in the Security forum at dslreports and Proxo kills them or renders them harmless or PG warns me of suspicious activity. (Of course, now with these nVidia drivers requiring memory access for everything PG is not very useful). If an exploit tried to execute from a webpage, Proxo, PG or BoClean would stop it. If it was something so new that none of my defenses would get it, I would know before most anyone and would be extra careful and would follow and participate in whatever thread was started at dslreports security forum. I lived, breathed and ate the humongous thread on the JPEG exploit from the first post...that is how I spent New Year's eve...I canceled on a dance party to stay glued to my computer. :D It is possible but highly unlikely that I would ever be a victim of an exploit on a malicious website and not worth the drastic slowdown of my broadband connection to have an HTTP scanner for that one in a billion chance that I would ever need it and that it would be able to even detect the exploit if I encountered it early on.
     
  22. Inspector Clouseau

    Inspector Clouseau AV Expert

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    1,329
    Location:
    Maidenhead, UK
    Now please don't tell me that everyone is searching the net for years and is willing to get AV knowledge. More than 80 percent DO NOT CARE and they DO NOT WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME MAKING THEIR MACHINE SECURE WITH 5000 DIFFERENT TOOLS. The average user finds this annoying because he just wants to use his machine. So the result out of this is that a lot of machines are not secured because it's too much work for the user. You CANNOT compare YOURSELF with other users which are happy if they find the power on/off button without the user guide. That is the important fact! Not you as a single person! If you spend 5 years or more active in security forums then you probably don't need any AV at all if you stick to the rules. But how many people do have the time (or how many are actually interested to do so) ? There's a life after computer stuff! Believe it or not, but i know enough people which don't kiss or stroke nor pampering their machine. It's just machine for them!
     
  23. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    711
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Is it true that the more definition updates you download for an antivirus the more heavier it becomes :D

    Someone said to me once, the more stuff you put on your HDD the heavier it becomes :D
     
  24. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,448
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Would not my BoClean have taken this one out? In fact most of these HTTP scanning infections been nabbed by BoClean?
     
  25. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,448
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    This is so true! I look into this stuff and listen here because I find it fascinating and enjoy reading the forums and want to learn, but I am not the typical I am sure, When I talk to others about what I am learning and say, you can do more then just keep going with what came on your machine when you bought it. Eyes glaze over and some nearly yawn in your face. When I explain it is your data your family pictures etc. that are at stake. They act like lambs going to the slaughter. You do not have to be an expert but you better go find one. And pay attention ;)

    I have always said get an: AV, AT, FW and some sort of Spyware protection built into one of the others is ideal to reduce confusion and multi programs like you mentioned and then use your head before you exercise the mouse finger. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.