List of Free Antivirus (Realtime Scan + Threat Removal + English Interface)

If you 're happy with it, that's the important thing. I didn't do any in-depth use of it either. One thing that i saw, it that it could use a better layout in the GUI. I found myself more times thinking "where was that option i saw?". I also didn't see an obvious button to manually update nor did i see how often it updates. Although i didn't try right clicking on the systray icon to see if i can manually update from there. At any case, i 've no idea what its update frequency was. Considering that later i tried BitDefender and it was also spiking when browsing, it's not bad for a freeware.

A "companion AV" is an interesting idea, as long as it doesn't cause double lag and conflicts.

 

I stand corrected, it updates every 1 hour and can manually do so too.

 

This is why Lavasoft is so slow in the first scan. It writes on the disk a LOT.

It wrote down 1.68 GB of cache:



Writing is slower than reading, even on SSDs.

 

Good to hear AdAware is improving, but can we trust it? I know I read the newer owners had shady pasts, something to do with adware which is ironic.

 

Adaware is very good; i recommend it

 

Here's one of the stories: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/11/lavasoft_has_new_owners/

 

Thanks for that, i had no idea. Now where did i put my Avast?

 

I don't see any real reason not to use it just because of that. Corporations always look for new sources of income and if running an antispyware/antimalware program is their thing then so be it. Toolbars and other crap is so widespread these days many only detect most of normal ones under PUP. Unlike in the past where they nearly all detected them as malware or adware.

 

how about ZoneAlarm?

 

After the IoBit story (which was revealed only because they became sloppy), i don't trust anyone in security even remotely connected with this:

"Netspyprotector.com is listed on the reputation analysis site MalwareURL as a site offering access to rogue software. Although the Netprotector domain is now privately registered, its contact page still shows it as belonging to MP3 Networks Ltd at its Caribbean address.Both of these domains are hosted at 63.243.188.110. Other domains hosted at this IP include error-doctors.com, which McAfee calls a high-risk, malicious site, due to marketing/merchandising practices. "


Because not always people get sloppy like Iobit did. Besides, it's a good excuse to put back Avast free.

 

Apart the differences in the engine speed, here's why Avast finishes the first full scan way faster than Lavasoft:

For the same amount of data that Lavasoft wrote down 1.68 GB of cache, Avast wrote down 338 MB:

 

Mini list of main stream/most tested free Antivirus products

Figured that all those testing agencies focus on different aspects and weight them according their own standards (e.g useability, speed etc). What when I use their test results, to somehow determine the infection risk without knowing that one is being infected?

VB100/RAP:
Proactive (is preventions), reactive is detection (e.g. after infection). VB100 says nothing about repair capabilities, but any user would still have a clue to do something about it (not becoming a victim of financial fraud or a zombie in a bot network).

AV-Test:
I just looked under the rating scores of detection and repair and took the averages of the last two months. E.g. Avast scores a 5 out 6 for protection, while the figures beneath it are sept: 96%, 98%, 100 and oct: 100, 98, 100), so averages on (first dectection=protection) 98,7%.

AV-ORG:
Just averaged the infection chance of detection and user dependant response.

When looking at VB100 last 12 entries, AVAST entered 12 and failed one. Avira entered 11 and failed none, AVG entred 12 and failed 2, Fortinet entred 9 and failed 1, so these mini-sample test (also punishing for false positives), sort of matched the ranking of these three test of more or less independant testing agencies (VB100, AV-Test, AV-Org).

I also looked at MSE and Panda, but they were not included in all teste. On the infected without knowing risk factor they did not score better than Fortinet, also their VB100 participation is less as Fortinet (MSE 4 with no fail and Panda 2 with no fail).

I crown AVAST free as the best choice for average Joe/Jane users in search of a free AV. Avast is also the only one who participates with their free product in all tests.

Have fun critizising this point of view who shoots first

P.S. The table should read WHEN encountering a malware, the average risk of infection is 1,28%. The chances of encountering malware in real life is LOW. Take for instance the flashback virus on Mac's (considered to have no AV's). When a Mac's life time is on average four years there are 60 million Mac's used now world wide (source) while there were thought to be 650.000 macs being infected with Flasback malware (source). The chance of encountering an malware is about 1%, chance being infected with a top tier free AV is less than 1% multiplied bij 2% = 0.02%. The chance of dying before the age of 14 is also 0,02% (in EU, USA, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) to place these "MALWARE RISKS" into perspective. Agreed the chance of winning SOMETHING in the christmas/new year lottery is way less. Maybe these stats could be a trigger to spend your money on charity in stead of the old years draw of your national lottery).

 

Perhaps another "squeeze of the lemon" could have the data answer the question:

" What AV gives the least chance that I have an undetected / unknown infection?"


- perhaps the maths is "Not Prevented and Not Detected"; that is ...

Unknown Infection (%) ~ {"Not Prevented", as a %} * { "Not Detected", as a fraction}.​

Taking "Not Prevented" [as a %] as....

24% for both AVG and Avast; 12.5% Avira​

Taking "Not Detected" [as a fraction] as ....

0.030 for Avast ; from 1 - [{97+98.7+95.5}/300] ;​

0.040 for Avira ; from 1 - [{97+94.2+97}/300] ;​

0.044 for AVG ; from 1 - [{96+96.5+94.5}/300] ​

Then, Avast, for example has a johari window [blind spot] of 24 * 0.03 ~ 0.7%;
Similarly, Avira ~ 0.5% , and AVG ~ 1.0%.


Conclusions:

Avira has better prevention, and only slightly worse detection then Avast, with the overall result that Avira (at 0.5% johari) is a marginally better performer than Avast (0.7% johari).​

But honestly all that can really be said is that both are good performers....with the "leader" between the two varying with the number of tests considered. ​

Certainly, no prizes for AVG today.​

- cheers,
feandur


- a further thought, or 2......

1% does not seem much...but multiple by, oh, 95 Million Exploits;​

I put it to you that a free AV is best and only to be considered together with a suitable zero day security app' - such as defence wall on x32bit, and say Exploit Shield on x64 bit. ​

 

I don't know, I'm using the newest version of Unthreat and in my opinion, it works better than the older version- it doesn't slow down my computer at all while running and I think it's detection rate has improved.

 

The 95 millions types of malware is not relevant for the infection. The infection chance is based on the windows of opportunity of infection (threat gates). It is not relevant how many forms of malaria there are in a region, when there are very little malaria flies to spread them. One type of malaria with a huge number of malaria flies is much more dangereous (it allways helps to put things in real worlds perspective).

End of 2011 there were around 600 million websites of which 1,5 million were infected. These 1.5 million are the windows through which those 95 million virri are spread. So my window of infection opportunity through web is say 1.5/600 = 0,25% Also number of estimated email accounts was over 3 billion end of 2011, so taking 3 circles of connected networks my colloborative email account exposure does not exceed say 8 million (200*200*200, assuming one has on average 200 contacts by mail e.g. LinkedIn & Facebook), so windows of opportunity for malware to be delivered by e-mail is 8.000.000/3.000.000.000 = 0.26%

In Nepal there are three operators acting from Kathmandu flying in little aeroplanes, offering Mount Everest sight seeing by air. On average two planes crash each year. Due to whether conditions there are around 200 days on which they can fly out and see the Mount Everest. So 600 flights yearly of which two crash is a crash chance of 0.3%. Considering the fact that one has to book at least three days in advance to get a seat, 0.3% in real life (even considering it might kill you) is no big deal.

My 1% was fairly high. This was high because the 1% was deriviated from the Apple world. "Applers" think they are untoucheable through superiority. Ordinary people using ordinary OS-ses have infection chances of maximum 0.25% - 0.26% either through web or mail. The security paradigm that a boutique/exquise OS has a security advantage, because it is less attractive than an OS with a big market share, is true from the perspective of the OS. Through the eyes of the user (as in the game theory) it only has security disadvantages. When chased by a lion I rather be in a crowd with 10.000 people than in 10. The chances for me out running another human in a herd of 10.000 will be higher than in a group of 10 people. From my point of view I do not have to out run the lion, I just have to be faster than one of the others in the group. As long as there are people using XP and a lot of nono's (security wise) on Windows7, I have no reason to worry (see my sig without AV).

Bottemline: why should the 0.25% to 0.26% chance of malware infection trigger paranoia, considering the fact AV's are able to reduce this chance by 97 to 98 percent (so below 0.001%). Be honest, how many of you ever faced an "in the wild infection"?

Cheers Kees

@ Feandur I was impressed with your math, so wondering what calculation you will bring to the table now

@Others, this may seem as the Ministry of Silly Logic, but Wilders is not the real world in terms of average Joe or Jane. We are crazy security enthousiasts who like to throw rocks at their own windows, just to be assured it will hold

 

Firstly that site is down, and secondly the ratings from SiteAdvisor are often wrong.

 

Seifu Kees1958:
I bow to you master, you are correct...

Infection ~ (my PC's johari) * (my PC's exposure window);


So: -
Taking "my PC's johari" ~ 0.5% - 1.0%;

Taking "my PC's exposure window" ~ 0.25 - 0.26 %

gives - say, a maximum of about 0.2% [1 : 500] chance I have an infection living happily on my PC if I only use a free AV and nothing else.

Now, that "system risk" is further lessened if the user is careful with using the system...
If my son, sharing the PC, visits risky sites 500 times c.f. myself visiting Wilders forums 500 times (sad isn't it) then the chance of 'realising' the odds of being infected are an order of magnitude less.

The risk, though small, is there. It just behoves the user to learn how to manage that risk......

Which is when Wilder's Community comes into the picture.

- cheers,
feandur

 

Agree,

When I first started to join Wilders, experienced members told me so. At first I thought well that is an advice which is not very helpfull. Tell me which applications and counter measures are the best. Then they told me "there is no objective best, ony a best set which matches your usage and risk pattern". Again I thought what a useless advice that is. Years later I have to admit they were right (as you allready state so). So agree

Regards Kees

 

Please add BitDefender Antivirus Free to the first post of this thread.

http://www.bitdefender.com/solutions/free.html

It certainly deserves to be there.

 

Rejzor, since you are the unofficial Avast expert in the forum, what's the status on Avast free's stability? I 've been having some weird issues lately, but i am not sure whether it was related to Rollback Rx (Rollback does weird things alright, but not sure if it was all its fault) or to Avast free... I am currently without antivirus and i am hesitant to put back Avast.

 

I only had one extremelly rare BSOD issue few months ago but that was solved quickly. Other than that, no problems really. There are some issues with Win8 but since they are changing the net engine code for avast! 8 i think that will get fully resolved as well. Not that there is any massive issue with it really...

 

Thanks, i will put it back then. Because i went to Avast forum and saw a pinned topic about BSODs and i was a bit scared. I did have BSOD too, but at the first versions. Besides i don't run 8 and i only run File Shield and BB.

 

In VB RAP test "Lavasoft" stands for Ad-Aware Total Security, which is based on G Data.

 

Is there a non-cloud version of the new Bit Defender for free, to be used as proactive + on demand scans?

 

No sir. But if there was it would have been mentioned?