Best av besides mcafee/kaspersky?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Simon Phoenix, Apr 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Phoenix

    Simon Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Posts:
    152
    I use spywareblaster but mcafee can't run becuase it needs active x, therefore I need another av.

    Any suggestions?

    I don't run a AT at resident, only on demand.
     
  2. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    nod32 of course :rolleyes:
    but really the new beta is excellent also arcavir is very good and doesnt hog the system. and dr. web is an excellent av very low resources but i have seen a few false positives with it.
     
  3. abhi_mittal

    abhi_mittal Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    887
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I think Bitdefender is a good product with regular updates, good scanning engine and decent resource usage. It also has good heuristics detection.

    Avast Pro is also recommended by me. Its good!


    Abhishek
     
  4. SDS909

    SDS909 Guest

    Dr.Web is my AV of choice by a longshot.
     
  5. Simon Phoenix

    Simon Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Posts:
    152
    thanks for the replies guys, how is avast regarding trojans?
     
  6. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Posts:
    6,012
    Location:
    on my zx10-r
    decent i feel ; not the greatest though
     
  7. hollywoodpc

    hollywoodpc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,325
    This may be a bit off topic but , I want to ask . Would you mind telling us what you use as your personal criteria in determining which AV to use ? Everyone has differing criteria and I am curious about Dr. Web . Thanks in advance
     
  8. SDS909

    SDS909 Guest

    Well for one I have my own testbed here of 54,000 samples. I like how DrWeb scores. But that isn't my overriding factor. I demand the absolute lightest possible in an AV. I have powerful machines, but I cannot have an AV grinding me down, crashing some programs, or interfering with ANYTHING.

    4 years, and countless hours testing, and nearly 20 different licensed AV products it has come down to DrWeb as the only product i've found that just doesn't conflict with anything I do - whether than be gaming or burning or whatever.

    Excellent protetions + super lightweight + NO conflicts or issues and DrWeb scores big for me... Before anyone mentions NOD32, yes, I tried it.
     
  9. mr.fo

    mr.fo Guest

    I would have agreed until a few days ago. Just recently tried Bitdefender 8 Standard trial and found, (Application.NTSniff.110) trojan which NOD missed. I realize not everything is perfect, nor will I abandon NOD. Bitdefender is low on resources and scans quicker, but it doesn't scan in Safemode.
     
  10. hollywoodpc

    hollywoodpc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,325
    Thanks for the info
     
  11. Chris12923

    Chris12923 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    1,097
    ArcaVir_2005 is good for me and NOD32 as well. Opinions only of course.

    Thanks,

    Chris
     
  12. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 5, 2005
  13. Benvan45

    Benvan45 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2004
    Posts:
    556
    As most viruses are spread through e-mail nowadays, it's important for me, that an AV scanner handles infected mails as good as possible. So, I've been running the Eicar Mailtest ( http://www.webmail.us/testvirus ) with many AV programs and for me Dr. Web scored best. I'd say......just try for yourself and see which programs really disinfect bugger all. Dr. Web tackles almost all infections, without asking questions (depending on configuration). Works perfect for me.

    Everybody is always talking about the No. 1 scanner (Nod32), but when doing the Eicar Mailtest.........to me it was hopeless.
    I think a scanner should be triggered rightaway when an infected mail is found. With Dr. Web, everything is dealt with, archives included and that's my criterium for using this great scanner.
    There are many scannners that will popup, but don't deal with the infections right away and trying to delete an infection is a disaster.
    Kav detects fine, but removing an infected mail is another story often.

    Good luck....... ;)

    Putin
     
  14. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    I agree about NOD32's limitations when it comes to email scanning and other scanning. It can't hold a candle to Kaspersky 4.5 personal (not 5.0 which is greatly inferior to 4.5) or to McAfee Enterprise latest version. NOD32 is for those who want IMON to stop stuff and who aren't interested in a strong AMON or a really fine on demand scanner. Its appeal is mostly to newbies currently as they are the ones obsessed with IMON catching stuff and they don't care how IMON slows their box horribly or about the serious risks in using IMON HTTP scanner. It's for those who can't be bothered to practice safe hex and use an excellent on demand scanner.

    If you only use an on demand scanner, I have found that Bit Defender free is outstanding. It updates about twice daily, is very fast on right click scanning. It has been my AV of choice since I left NOD32 after two years last September.
     
  15. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    As much as I hate to say this, if I wasn't going to run KAV 4.5 or McAfee I would probably choose Norton. Forgive me. :'(

    Rich
     
  16. Alec

    Alec Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Posts:
    355
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I guess I have some questions about this original statement. SpywareBlaster doesn't block all ActiveX components, it only blocks those that have been deemed to be malware. McAfee the standard program requires ActiveX? Or is this some sort of online scanner? To be clear, many normal, standalone programs install COM automation server objects (which are basically ActiveX objects)... it's just that the label ActiveX is usually associated with such COM objects that can be downloaded and installed via the web. I guess my point is that I'm not really sure I understand your conflict. Are you absolutely sure that you need to dump McAfee? :doubt:

    @ Mele20: Nice to see you haven't lost your knack for unwarranted over-generalizations and misinformation. :rolleyes:
     
  17. wildman

    wildman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2,179
    Location:
    Home on the range.
    o_O I also utilize Spywareblaster an active x. I have never had a problem with either. I do have an older machine, an am using Windows98. You might want to do some further investigating before you try another product, especially if you are going to pay for one.

    Thanks
    Wildman
    o_O ;) :eek:
     
  18. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii

    Ummm...it's nice to see that the NOD32 fanatics are still in such fine form. :(Thank you for confirming for me exactly why I am so happy to have nothing to do with NOD32). I actually had begun to like this site again until today. :(

    As for McAfee, yes, it uses ActiveX and IE to update. That is why I won't use it. The enterprise version doesn't have all the junk that the home user version has but it is not available to home users unless their employer uses it and they are allowed to put it on their home box as well as the work box. The enterprise version is outstanding.
     
  19. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Good to see you spreading misinformation and uneducated opinions still. At least things are consistent with DSLR.

    Guess I and a lot of experienced and knowledgeable folks here are newbies :rolleyes:

    My guess is that you still have a configuration issue if you're running into problems with IMON. I have only seen a post from one other person with that issue. I still maintain it's user error/incompetence.

    BD is a solid AV, I'm a licensed user, however it has a greater impact on my laptop than I prefer. Nice OD scanner though.

    Wait for KAV 6, seems to have great potential. I think there is a beta coming out in the near future. They pulled the alpha/prebeta to fix a few things.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2005
  20. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    I have been trying out NOD32 and upto reading this thread was quite pleased with it, however having run some of the email tests mentioned there is about a 50% failure in finding the virus and is making me reconsider this. There is also of course the price of the licences for 2 machines which will also have bearing.
     
  21. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    DrWeb is one that i've trialed the last couple of weeks and came away with a very positive impression, very light footprint and they have a Dr.Web for Windows, Home Edition [2-user license, 1year] $56.90, even more to save in the two year license. Try it as Putin says. :)
     
  22. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    And this 2-user license which Don has found works out at only £30!!!

    I would be interested if this price also excluded VAT, as I have renewed my Dr Web license several times and have never been charged this dreaded Tax!!!! :D

    But even with VAT, this is still cheaper than the prices you were quoted for NOD.

    However, price is not always the best factor in deciding which AV to choose ;)
     
  23. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    Thanks Don

    I did try Dr. Web recently and initially I liked it, then it seemed to become more invasive and slow things down. So I got rid of it, however it does not remove cleanly (at least in my case) and left an active dll which caused problems. It was not until I installed LooknStop that I found the culprit. I am wary of trying it again. Thinking of BitDefender at the moment.
     
  24. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Hi djg05,

    As an frequent AV tester, I know it is very important to try and remove all remnants of a previous AV before installing the next trial one.

    If you are continuing your trials, I would suggest that you use something to monitor the install of each AV so that you can carry out a relatively clean removal of each one.

    If you have no imaging/restore programs to use, consider using Total Uninstall to take a snapshot of your system to help later with a clean removal. You can then use a good registry cleaner to mop up any remains.

    Edit. And the free version of Total Uninstall is still available on the main site.
     
  25. tazdevl

    tazdevl Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Posts:
    837
    Location:
    AZ, USA
    Are you sure there is a failure? If the file is an archive, it won't be caught until it's opened up. Though my guess is that a Manual Scan would catch it.

    Different philosophy from some other AVs that unpack everything. NOD32 deals with things when they become a threat.

    Other thing to consider is that you don't have NOD32 configured properly. I'd recommend reading Blackspear's thread and use his settings.
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=37509
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.