Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by trjam, Nov 27, 2006.
my 2 cents would be for KAV...
NOD for the present.
It's a toss up between KAV and NOD32. Slight edge to KAV.
You know my answer to this one, Dr.Web of course, it's a pure, unadulterated antivirus product, covering all the vectors of infection, with adware/spyware detection to boot. A utilitarian tool, plain and simple.
router and dr.web is a good combo, for stand-a-alone AV, id choose this aswell.
Probably Clam or AVG. Antivir is ok too.
clam is not even close to protection you..... its poor detection, very poor... i assure you.
AntiVir PE Classic.
Avast is excellent, has network module so even if nasties creep in through your router, you are fully protected.
Pretty much every test with it included. It's free though, but so is AntiVir and it doesn't stand a chance against that ATM.
I don't care abut "independent" tests. Besides, methinks Clam is the only anti-virus that is purely free-only and open-source. I bet you a herd of goats that if it were to become a "commercial" product, its detection rate would soar.
My point is that at the present time it is only good for second opinion with regards to on-demand scans............hence any other free AV (AntiVir, Avast, AVG or AOL avs) is better for the normal (practicly all) users.
I find opensource great, but i'm not one of those that believe just because it is opensource it is great (or even any good)..
I dont know Don. I mean if it became a commercial product and didnt beat Kav in tests, well, it is a "Herd of Goats."
well this week, i got a yahoo virus through my email, so check this.
~removed scan results per our policy on this matter....Bubba~
also, i most say... i never open zip attachments, but if i did... users of antivir free version would be infected here.
Your key qualifier is if, and it's a massive one.
An AV requires constant updating by a dedicated staff. Sure, they could be volunteers, but how about injecting some level of realism here? This type of product is an inappropriate one for open source aside from the educational and learning benefits, which alone do warrant its existence. However, it's simply not a viable solution relative to other free options. For an open source security solution to be viable it simply cannot require constant/daily updating and attention.
OK guys, I take it back.
Although I like Clam and it does its job. Can it detect everything out there? Surely not. How difficult is it to change a file so it's not detected by anti-virii? Not that difficult.
Antivir Premium light and efficient
Dr.Web Antivirus, it's useful and practical.
So now I want to know who gets the herd of goats?
Let's stay on topic and away from the herds! OK? Thanks.
Separate names with a comma.