Best AV, Schmest AV!

Pardon the play on words, but reviewing the most recent reviews of AV software, one gets the impression that there are two clear leaders depending upon what you most need to protect yourself against: NOD32 if you want protection against the most vicious and recent little devils brought into being out there - and even some that many not deserve the name - and KAV if you want protection against known entities and don't care to speculate much about definitions. I realize that the reasoning process prefers categories and generalizations to vacilation and deep analysis, but for the sake of discussion, would you consider the above a valid conclusion?
Here's one of the bases for it:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Comments?

jlowell

 

ronjor,

Thank you for saving me the trouble; I hadn't realized that there might be a need for modification. Its all in knowing your way around it would seem.


jlowell

 

Yes I would but Bitdefender is bidding to become a front runner as well.

 

Hi jlowell,

If someone is looking at it purely from the perspective of detection capabilities, then it is possible to make a very strong case for KAV since KAV is detection upwards to 99% of the malware out there, plus it has very rapid response on any new malware that is discovered. NOD32, as you indicated, has demonstrably one of the best (possibly the best) heuristic engines, for detecting new malware - though its overall detection rate is somewhat lower than KAV across all types of malware.

However, if you read the various threads on this forum, there are other variables that must be addressed by each individual when choosing an AV, e.g. cost, resource usage, compatibility with other system software, availability for a specific platform, support, performance, usability, etc.

Each user will weigh each variable, and hopefully come up with an AV that best suits their needs. Personally, when working with friends who are having problems with infections, I usually start with KAV and see where it goes from there. But everyone has a slightly different perspective on what is important for an AV, so naturally you will have a reasonably large selection of AV products to choose from.

Cya around,
Rich

 

Says who? You? One site? Please... The leader is a very subjective thing, and certainly including NOD32 in the mix is subjective to your opinion.

How do you define leader? Sales? Then Norton wins.. Detections? Then KAV wins. Lightweight? Then DrWeb or VBA32 win. Heuristics? a few win.

Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo.

 

Asking for coments is fine but remember, nod has a forum here so take replys as such.

 

SDS909,

You say:

"Declaring a 'Leader' without the conditions of the lead and varied and diverse data to substantiate this claim is pretty bold and irresponsible imo."

There I go again, citing reliable sources and being utterly irresponsible. Will the need for change ever impress itself sufficiently upon me? The whole thing is reprehensible, particularly so since I'm held in such high regard by known experts.

jlowell

 

I have to disagree with this premise. It seems to me that the clear objective of an AV product is obvious and measuring how well an AV accomplishes its objective should not be based on its sales, how 'light-weight' it is, or whether it uses a virus definition database, heuristics, or voodoo.

As I see it, the real problem in determing the best AV is the same problem as with any test. The test or benchmark is only as good as its construct and accuracy. Therein lies the difficulty.

Just my $.02 worth...

 

I use the best av that Is available at this time in my opinion even though I am a low risk surfer. But as to an overall best av, that is very subjective as to what is best for each individual. What I consider the best av might not be for someone else due to cost, resource usage or complexity in configuration. Or their may even be other reasons as to why. But just choosing one antivirus program to be the best overall is an act in futility, there is no such thing IMO.

bigc

 

Hi Bigc,

Very true indeed. A AV can have the best overall dectection on the planet, but if a user cannot use it, then it is for all intents useless to that user. There are many factors that render an AV more or less suitable for a given person. I always try to remember that everyone looks at things from a different colored lens.

Rich

 

I use the best AV in the world.. Common Sense..

Seriously, in actual tests i've performed, Safe'n'Sec as the *ONLY* protection on a PC and I was unable to effective pass it, and infect it. That is with on-demand scanning new files I recieve, and relying on its ID type protections incase I missed something.

The point is I guess, the best AV is pretty relative.

 

Hi SDS909,

I am guessing that you are referring to the version of SnS + BitDefender. Yes, I have also found this kind of multi-prong approach to security is extremely effective. I use, as you know, KAV+Ewido+ProcessGuard+RegDefend and nothing has ever gotten past this defense on any of the machines that I have installed it. It is very powerful. But no matter how good a defense may be, there is always a hole lurking somewhere, so I use caution when surfing. I am certainly no maniac surfer.

As for "commonsense", I would need to have it defined before I can recommend it so someone. Conceptually, it may be more difficult to grasp than the concept of "the best AV".

Cya around,
Rich

 

Generally in business it is considered good practice to flatter and persuade your potential customers, not attack them. i don't think you made a sale here.

 

Uhh, I don't sell anything. You must have me confused with someone else.

I can't be the only one that gets sick of these "I proudly proclaim XYZ-AV to be the best because of XYZXYZ reasons!".. I mean come on, it is like a rite of passage for newcomers to post something silly like this or something. They are gettin' old.

 

Veterans also seem to post stuff like that from time to time but that's just enthusiasim. I haven't been here that long myself. As for it getting old imagine how a moderator must feel reading some of our stuff. Thousands of posts. For us newer guys it seems like finding the Holy Grail when we find a program that does what we need. As we gain experience with various security programs and read the posts of more experienced posters concerning the programs they use we'll tone it down. And yes I did have you confused with someone else. Sorry but I thought you were associated with the company obviously that is not the case.

 

The Hammer,

You say:

"Generally in business it is considered good practice to flatter and persuade your potential customers, not attack them. i don't think you made a sale here."

You certainly got that right! Let's be charitable and just say that SDS909's strengths aren't inter-personal. I'm told that strong purgatives and larger sized underwear can help in cases like this though. Either that or prayer and hourly sessions in front of a mirror solemnly promising himself that, just for today, he won't embarrass himself by being such a schlemiel.

jlowell

 

I'm absolutely not embarrased. But i'd be embarrased if I came to this forum and proclaimed av-comparatives as cool and new, and the best source of all things AV.

 

OK folks, could we please keep the discussion focused on the nominal topic of the thread and leave the personal jabs aside? Thanks.

Blue

 

The best AV is the one I'm using, untill I'm convinced otherwise anyway.

It's the same for everyone else I bet.

 

I know that many people have reccomended using common sense before.....but in one aspect of reality all common sense (as it applies to security) really appears to be is the knowledge level of a particular user on how best to keep the computer secure at a given point in time.

In my opinion, reccomending "common sense" as a one all, be all approach is just as bogus as telling someone to load up their computer with so much security software that the computer is at a virtual standstill.

Different solutions apply to different situations. The level of knowledge of the computer user is one consideration. For someone that is highly educated in computers....well, they might need virtually no security software because their level of knowledge is so high that commonsense helps them avoid many dangers.

For other users who have no education or little education.....well they might need a whole lot more security software on their computer to overcome their lack of knowledge/judgement.

It might be one persons path to load up their computers with security software as a noob and as they educate themselves over weeks, months, years drop their security software requirements down to virtually nil.

We are all on different paths and to me the percentages are extremely low that someone will find a "one all, Be all" approach. The reasons why there are so many AV's is because there is no AV that provides the best solution for all.

It is just my opinion but usually the "who is number one?" have three types of people. Those that I consider of lesser knowledge will argue about how the software they use is number one. The ones of greater knowledge don't argue which one is the best but mostly focus on feature comparisons and then there are the people that are in between....They will compare features and then argue their software is number one.

But of course this is just my opinion and it is subject to change with time.



Starrob

 

Hi Starrob,

I agree. In the interest in helping someone, I would neither recommend "commonsense" (it has not concrete defintion that someone can act upon), nor would I recommend "hardening your system" (also undefined and quite open-ended). As an alternative, I would recommend, for example:

1) avoiding porn sites
2) avoiding the use of P2P
3) avoid downloading applications from untrusted sites
4) avoid opening attachments
5) avoid linking to sites direclty from email

I think these are more concrete suggestions that can be discussed. But notice, each one of these are "avoid" and require judgment - as does the use of many software tools, and thus subject to mistakes and errors. So no approach is perfect.

Hope you are enjoying yourself in Singapore!

Cya,
Rich

 

For some terms "hardening your system" I agree would have to be broken down naturally, but the assumption normally is that someone who is a regular here knows full well what to do.

If you don't know what to do, feel free to ask.

As for common sense, I notice you have zero problem in comining up with fairly effective list, despite not even being close to being an expert on computer malware.

If you can do it, I don't see what's so uncommon about it.

Of course, there are users below even your level, but here's where we rely on you to educate them.

 

Hi Anon,

Yes, my point is that there is a difference between articulating a specific list and using generalized terms. What is interesting about an actual list, as opposed to generalized terms, is that a list can be discussed and problems with the list can be uncovered. There is nothing in my "commonsense list" that cannot be disputed because they all require "judgement". In other words, there is no perfect recommendation - not even "commonsense", commonsense being one of the most imperfect since it is both undefined and requires the imagination of the reader. Even worse is "hardening of the system" which not only requires imagination but a leap into the stratosphere for most new users, who ostensibly would be the type of persons asking the question.

There are all kinds of expertise required by an "expert". Some of them would be understanding of the problem in question, ability to articulate a solution, listening skills, patience, empathy, communication skills, etc.

Cya,
Rich