Computer Associates AV?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by jeff221, Feb 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jeff221

    jeff221 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    I tried Norton AV 2006 and it was not really what I liked. After uninstalling it, my computer speeded up immensely. However, I am again without an AV product.
    I noticed that not too much is said about CA's EZAntivirus. Is this a good product?
     
  2. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    It is a pretty fair av. it runs light and updates everyday. give it a trial and see how you like it.
     
  3. jeff221

    jeff221 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    Ok, thanks bigc73542!
     
  4. jeff221

    jeff221 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    Sorry to bother you guys again, but this question has been bugging me ever since i used Zonealarm Pro. What would be an example of a light but protective firewall?
     
  5. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I use Kerio 2.5.1 it is probably the lightest, but it needs to be tweaked a bit. really zone alarm free is a pretty good firewall and it runs fairly light.
     
  6. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
    ca is pretty good.. but if your going to use p2p then your need kaspersky or even norton
     
  7. jeff221

    jeff221 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Posts:
    5
    How is the Kaspersky AV in terms of system slowdown, mem/cpu/basic resource usage and such? Would it be better or worse than Norton? Also, would KAV and Nod32 be ok for something such as Bittorrent?
    Sorry for all these questions but I dont know much about security.

    **EDIT**
    Final question, where can I find Kerio 2.5.1? What kind of settings need to be changed?

    Thanks to everyone for the help.
     
  8. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,779
  9. betauser2

    betauser2 Guest

    Kerio can be found here http://www.321download.com/LastFreeware/page7.html#Kerio Personal Firewall

    Never used it so can't tell you about the settings.

    You don't have to repeat "last question" keep them coming, the community is great in this forum.

    Nod32 uses the least system resources amongst the top AV's and has great heuristics.
     
  10. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
    kav is #1 in terms of antivirus
     
  11. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
  12. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
    :) didnt know
     
  13. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    No problem;)
     
  14. joter

    joter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Posts:
    163
    Location:
    Greece
    Returning to the main question, I have tested the new CA Etrust Antivirus 8.0.
    It has a fantastic web interface but the same fair OLD engines and much MORE recources. (about 60K !! on my system).

    Regards
    joter
     
  15. Unity

    Unity Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    112
    Location:
    Toulouse ~ France
    err wait , 60 k are a lot more ressources to you ? or maybe you meant 60 meg or something ?
     
  16. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I am not seeing near that amount of usage
     

    Attached Files:

  17. PCJohn

    PCJohn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    101
    You can try it one year for free when you are a microsoft customer.

    http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/

    Exclusive offer for Microsoft customers. Free 12-month software subscription to CA's eTrust EZ Antivirus. Valid for new users only. Limit 1 per household. Not to be combined with any other offer. Annual subscriptions can be renewed after first year at current renewal rate. Computer Associates reserves the right to retract this offer at any time.
    *ICSA Certification means the software must detect 100% of "in-the-wild" viruses. See www.icsa.net.
     
  18. joter

    joter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Posts:
    163
    Location:
    Greece
    sorry of course I ment 60 MB ! for version 8.0.

    joter
     
  19. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    imo every bigger company which can afford to pay the participation fee for icsa tests is able to get certified due detecting just the limited list of itw-samples, so i would not base an opinion about a product only on the detection of viruses listd on the wildlist.
     
  20. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    On the other hand, if an AV repeatedly does really lousy (fails) against wildlist, then I *assume* it would be wise NOT to use that AV. Am I correct in this assumption?
     
  21. IBK

    IBK AV Expert

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Posts:
    1,819
    Location:
    Innsbruck (Austria)
    i would say: depends :D
    depends e.g. if they got the wildlist samples in advance or not. :p
    sorry, but my opinion about the itw-list is gone bad over the time, i am not much convinced about it lately... :(
     
  22. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    Yes, i would second that. Let's speak very frankly - there's NOTHING in the wildlist (maybe except the Kriz Virus because of speed reasons for crypto attacks, but this is a very old virus and detected anyway from everyone) what is even SLIGHTLY difficult to detect. So basically the wildlist test doesn't state how "good" an antivirus engine is, but how good the team behind it is. Lemme explain it a bit more: You have nearly all modules tested there. If you make a mistake then your product fails. On-Demand Scan, On-Access Scan, ItW-Malware, False Positives, Crashs. That's basically all. You have some "beside" tests of poly-malware (which isn't ItW listed), some Macro stuff etc. But you do not need to detect 100% in the other categories to get this Award. ItW Set without f/p and without any problems during on-access scan and on-demand scan are the rules. (Just as a example here)

    So the conclusion of this all is:
    This reflects more the Diligence and Coordination of the Teams.
    This is also very important to create a successful product of course.
    I mean it can always happen that you make some small mistake - let it be a false positive or - in the KAV-Clone Szene that you forgot to test the Floppy Access (You have to provide some things for the KAV SDK by yourself, it's not only the gui, so you can have bugs there which haven't to do with KAV)
    That's also the reason why some KAV-Clones failing even when KAV gets this award. As i said before, this has NOTHING, ABSOLETLY NOTHING to do with the virus database. Some of the KAV-Clones having also a own scan-engine with a own virus database. If this Engine produces a false positive that's it.

    A good QA and regulary tests (not only 5 minits before the VB test starts) is the key to success. And (most important) to have a "eye" for such widely spreaded malware. Most of the fails in the VB tests with misses were not because it missed the main executable ( the worm as it comes into your email inbox ) but because it missed some components. For example a worm is dropping a Backdoor Keylogger DLL. You have to replicate this worm and/or proper analyse it with a disassembler to know that it will drop this file. Some of the files dropping (or downloading) components only under special system environments. An "excuse" oh we didn't know about it doesn't count here.

    Conclusion 2: It also reflects how serious/exactly a VirusLab is working. Including just the main worm is "quick and dirty", but including all proper components of this worm/malware is the right way. Because such a component might already run on a customers machine when you issue the update - so if you do not proper replicate then your AV Solution will detect the Worm, but not the dropped (and already running) backdoor keylogger component for example. Gotcha?

    8^) H.B.
     
  23. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    Kapersky is immensely superior to Norton..especially when detecting ad/spyware/trojans. Also quite a bit lighter in resource usage.

    Stick with KAV, or NOD32, or Bitdefender.
     
  24. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    That is just not true. I would definitely recognize KAV as the best in signature detection, over all the other popular AVs, but "immensely superior" is a bit of overstatement, IMHO, in comparison to the latest version of NAV. I have several Gigs of malware samples and both AVs {NAV and KAV} that I have tested ..
     
  25. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England
    But "real world" usage...compare the percentage of Mcafee and Symantec rigs that get infected, against the percentage of KAV or NOD32 rigs that get infected. It's a rediculously slanted scale...years in the field have shown me. I see it all the time...all_the_time. That's why I laugh at most "lab controlled" comparison tests. There's a HUGE difference between them, and actual end user environments.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.