AOL Active virus Shield vs Avast Home

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by besafe, May 3, 2007.

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

    besafe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    222
    I know that AOL Active Virus Shield is a stripped down version of Kaspersky and has outstanding detection rates (better than avast). But despite lower detection rates, avast also has a web shield, network shield, and an IM shield.

    So which program do you feel provides more complete protection?

    Note: Please limit the discussion to these 2 programs.
     
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    avast home, its not stripped down, you lose no protection.
     
  3. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    I think AOL AVS provides better protection. Avast sometimes is slow on adding signature even for ITW samples.
    Lots of shields can't help if the AV doesn't have a signature.
     
  4. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Agree, just beware of AOL.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2007
  5. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    AOL AVS = better protection
    avast = "more" protection

    both are good choices
     
  6. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    While I have not used AOL AVS, I have used Avast Home. It might be that AVS gives better protection in some areas, but I am not convinced that it is as good as Avast Home.

    Of the two in question, I would go for Avast.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  7. duke1959

    duke1959 Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Posts:
    1,238
    I like both AV's, but detection rates aside, if like me you're a sucker for nice Interfaces, then Active Virus Shield might make the better choice.
     
  8. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    For complete protection.....avast. For lightness and speed.....AVS.
     
  9. KDNeese

    KDNeese Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Posts:
    236
    I have used both, and believe AVS to be the better of the two, mostly because it essentially Kaspersky without all the bells & whistles. One thing I am confused about, however, is how the web shield operates. AVS is not supposed to have a web shield, butI have noticed it monitors the web pages much the same way NOD32's IMON did. Looking at my network connections, I see AVS listening at ports 1027 & 1110. When I bring up the GUI, I notice that AVS is monitoring every file that is opening on the website (which is exactly what I used to observe with NOD32 IMON). I guess I'm confused as to the advantage of the "web shield" function in Avast and the full version of Kaspersky. Does the web shield really add any more protection? In a practical sense, I really don't think it does. As for not trusting AOL - maybe I wouldn't trust them, but I don't think Kaspersky would allow AOL to drag their name in the mud. I haven't received any marketing emails, etc of any kind from AOL.
     
  10. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Might be reverse.
    Avast is trouble free on most of systems.
     
  11. 19monty64

    19monty64 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Posts:
    1,302
    Location:
    Nunya, BZ
    Might be reverse, I had more probs with Avast (loading@start-up) than AntiVir(up-dater issues), but with AVS I dLo'd eicar just to hear from it.
     
  12. Code_Blue

    Code_Blue Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Posts:
    23
    New guy, 1st post.

    Realtime I currently use Avast 4 Home, along with ZAP7 (expires soon, considering CFP), SpySweeper (also expires soon), Spyware Terminator, Comodo BoClean, Winpatrol free, Spyware Blaster and Spyware Guard.

    My ISP offers McAfee V. 10 AV, FW and AS, but I have removed these based on mediocre reviews.

    I have a dual core processor with 1GB of Ram so my system is not slow but I do not want more software than I need. I would prefer to use freeware but have no problem using a mix of paid and free.

    Finally, as you can likely tell, I am very new at this so I would appreciate any constructive advice, even if it to point me toward a more appropriate forum.

    Thanks in advance
     
  13. besafe

    besafe Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Posts:
    222
    I am not sure where your post ties in to comparing Avast to AVS, but here is my advice:

    1. Comodo is a good firewall, so if ZAP. If you tire of paying for ZAP, switch to comodo V2. I would wait for a while until trying Comodo V3. It is going to have HIPS and you will want them to get the kinks ironed out before putting it on your PC.

    2. Spysweeper is a rock solid program, but bloated in my opinion. With Winpatrol and Spyware Terminotr, you probably don't need it.

    3. Boclean and Spyware Blaster = Great

    4. Spyware Guard might offer suplicate protection to winpatrol, not sure. May consider removing.

    Overall I think you are overloaded on software and could probably remove a couple applivcations. You may consider trying a sandbox application if you want another layer of security that is different than what you have.
     
  14. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    get a router with built in firewall.

    get your avast home installed.

    simple as that ;)
     
  15. the Tester

    the Tester Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2002
    Posts:
    2,854
    Location:
    The Gateway to the Blue Hills,WI.
    To Code Blue,
    Switch to Comodo Firewall and keep the rest.
    Especially if you are on dialup.
    You may want to consider an alternative web browser (Opera or Firefox).
     
  16. Code_Blue

    Code_Blue Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Posts:
    23
    Thanks Folks,

    I am planning on letting the Spysweeper lapse as well as the ZAP7. I like Avast so far (but what do I know other than it has not crashed my computer?).

    I have used SandBoxie for a sandbox and will start to do so again as it adds a different layer, and I usually browse in Opera or Firefox 2, using IE only when needed.

    I guess with Avast 4 Home, Comodo FW, Spyware Terminator, BoClean and Spyware Blaster...along with alt browser and the sandbox, I should be good?

    My concern was that I was leaving an area vulnerable even with so many applications being used as well as duplicating where I did not have the need to duplicate.
     
  17. Bluenile

    Bluenile Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    122
    Location:
    UK
    AOL Active Virus Shield:

    Kaspersky updates every few hours (compared to Avast updates 1 or 2 times a day at best, but less at weekends)

    Nicer user interface than Avast

    Uses less resources than Avast

    Better detection rate than Avast (In my experience)

    Scheduled scans available (Not on Avast Home)

    Scan time (with 'Scan only new and changed files' selected) is at least 10 times faster than Avast.

    etc etc.... :D
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2007
  18. amix

    amix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Posts:
    7
    Location:
    Budapest/Hungary
    I am a hapyy NOD32 user and will renew my license soon. Before I do so I decided to test some of the free offers around. I have chosen avast! first, because it gives complete protection (including web-shield). I liked the program. I liked the fact, that after installation it did a first scan of my computer before boot and that it has a some sorts of a checksums database, in which it stores signatures of already scanned and unchanged files. Very good!

    However, it crashed my system (BSDO) about 15 times that day, and each time it was in connection with Firefox, which is the most unstable program here anyway and indeed sometimes does a BSDO. But since I installed avas! the crashes would not stop.

    Since I have uninstalled avast! and put Active VirusShield on my machine all runs smoothley. I like the interface of AOL's offer, but the on-demand scan is extremly slow (I guess it is extremley thorough as well) and documentation could be better. However, as it seems, I need to uninstall AVS soon, since I did not find any way to have some files excluded and it gives me false positives every 2-15 minutes (the same files), partially on software, that I have written myself (in Javascript) and partially on files, that I installed knowingly and which are harmless (VNC with the VNC server open only to IPs within the LAN).

    It is really killing my last nerve.

    So, all in all I liked the avast! more in functionality, while I like AVS more in user interface and appearance.

    Luckily there is NOD32 :)
     
  19. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    The VNC detection is not an FP (it's a riskware detection) so the rest you mention might not be either. Disable the third malware catagory (Potentially dangerous software), click apply and reboot, you will probably find the detections are gone.
     
  20. amix

    amix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Posts:
    7
    Location:
    Budapest/Hungary
    Yes, you are right. That was subjective ;-)
    No, since I have written that myself. It's a Javascript, that downloads a web-page. Not too uncommon on a Windows system with WSH enabled, I'd say. Whatever, the real problem is...

    that this is exactly what I do not want to do. I want warning for "dangerous software" but I want to be able to exclude some.
     
  21. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    hey amix,
    your best bet is to find a cheap box version of kav so you can exclude program you know are safe but still get the warning about other programs.
    plus you get a nicer tray icon:D
    also proactive defence and webav
    lodore
     
  22. Macstorm

    Macstorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,531
    Location:
    Sneffels volcano
    AOL Active Virus Shield
    *without any doubt*
     
  23. vlk

    vlk AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Posts:
    618
    You can send me a couple of files from the \windows\minidump folder for analysis. Most BSOD's can be analysed quite easily.

    BTW did you try to contact avast technical support with this (or post on the avast forum)? I'm sure there'd be a way to resolve the issue.


    Cheers
    Vlk
     
  24. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I'd use Avast. I'd use anything other than something from Kaspersky. No one should use KAV. The risk of chkdsk stalling for long periods and eventually not being able to run at all in some cases (and some claiming disk corruption along with chkdsk damage) is just too great to justify using KAV or ever recommending it to anyone. It is not just a handful of users with the problem either. I suspect a lot of users have the chkdsk problem and just aren't aware of it...yet. We know the problem is caused by ISwift placing metadata (NTFS-identifiers) on the files. Chkdsk is an essential Windows tool and to risk having it not work properly or not be able to work AT ALL when NEEDED is not a risk that users should be asked to take. There are too many other excellent AVs out there and other ways of protecting one's computer.

    Even if you are/were a very careful user of KAV and immediately disabled ISwift and IChecker in the GUI, and NEVER ran a full scan, you will still have the ckdsk problem because it turns out that you cannot disable ISwift for the file checker unless you turn off Self Protection and then disable it in the Registry. That explains how I got the problem since I knew to never run a full scan and to immediately disable ISwift and ICheck when I installed KAV 2006 but I didn't know that I had to disable ISwift in the Registry rather than in the GUI.

    There are now 18 pages of posts in the KAV forum thread on this problem. There are two new threads at dslreports on the problem (one is partly on this problem and the other was started by an angry KAV user who just discovered chkdsk is ruined for him by KAV). Yet Kaspersky continues to stonewall and refuses to provide users with a tool to remove the data attached to files by ISwift. Shades of how Kaspersky stonewalled with the ADS fiasco with KAV 2005 but finally provided a tool to remove the ADS tags from files. That tool won't work with the current problem and the chkdsk problems are forever even after you remove KAV. The only solution is reformatting, reverting to a clean image, or going through unbelieveable contortions (see Dantz's posts for details) to "clean" the entire file system of the metadata put on the files by ISwift.

    What is even more disturbing is that KAV 2007 continues to use ISwift to place that data on files and to mislead users into thinking they can disable ISwift in the GUI but you cannot for the file checker.

    AOL AVS is just as dangerous to use as is KAV itself. Also, do not use ZoneAlarm AV as that is Kaspersky also.

    Evidently, according to a post early in the KAV thread, the developers have known of this problem (although they have officially denied it) since the early beta of 2006 and they consider the problem to be something Microsoft has to fix. Evidently Chkdsk can't handle these large files and Kaspersky thinks they shouldn't have to come up with another way of speeding up KAV's notoriously slowing scanning rather they feel Microsoft should fix Chkdsk to accomodate Kaspersky's NTFS-identifiers. I suppose it is this attitude is the reason why we users who are affected by this have no tool with which to remove the damage that remains even after we uninstall KAV.

    http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=14995
    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18580442-The-Best-Free-Antivirus-Program
    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18608452-Kaspersky-You-lost-me-at-ISwift
     
  25. Hythloday

    Hythloday Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    Does a computer user still need chkdsk? When you use FAT32 it may be handy to remove lost clusters but for NTFS users I don't know. KIS indeed slows down stage 2. It lasts some 30 seconds before it starts.

    But what is a good virusscanner? That depends on the system you use, I think. When I used Windows 98 SE or ME Norton Internet Security was fast and reliable. But when I used Windows XP NIS was a disaster. I changed to AVG Pro and certain shields did not function properly so I got my money back. Then McAfee, a fast program until I installed Virusscan Plus which slowed down my system considerably. Now I use KIS and am quite happy.

    I have used Spysweeper and ZoneAlarm. Some versions worked very badly on my system, others perfectly. A lot depends on the system and software you use.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.