Top 10 Anti-Virus products

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Technodrome, Mar 13, 2005.

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

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Umm...thats not 100% true chaos.

    NAV has improved a lot in the past three years - and it has VERY good in-The-Wild detection and reasonably good zoo detection - its not that bad at all.

    About CPU and RAM usage - I did find CPU usage to be slightly high for any AV.

    Weekly updates are bad of course :'(

    I'm not sure, but I think NAV has VERY poor unpacker support o_O

    KAV has THE best ITW+Zoo malware detection of all the AVs out there, NOD32 has an excellent heuristics engine.

    Regards,
    Firecat
     
  2. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Oh, hi bellgamin,

    I'm glad someone realizes this. For a time I lived in Iran, and I would walk to the corner store to by groceries. Alot of the stuff was sold by the kilo, other stuff on specials, and then others just priced per item. The first time I saw the store keeper pick up an abicus, I almost laughed. Then he used it. I'm telling you there is no way you or me or anyone could perform the calculations as fast with a calculator. Lately, I noticed my brother has an abicus tucked in a corner by his desk. I plan on securing it for further analysis. Little keypads, hard to read displays,dependence on electricity, and passive participation of the user. Yes, that's progress.

    - HandsOff
     
  3. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    ...Okay, and another thing, that strikes me as a real, functional difference, that may actually have an impact is scanning in the safe mode, and scanning from a boot up disk without windows even being loaded.

    I was recently playing with Bit Defender. At first I liked it. It has a slick interface. Then I tried running it in the safe mode. It didn't seem to want to run.

    NAV can scan in the safe mode. Probably most can, I don't know because I never thought to check.

    What's even better is that you can boot from the NAV cd and do a scan without even loading windows XP.

    People can decide what is important to them, but some issues have more impact than others. Bit Defender has more definitions than any other major AV. Thats great! Only, in the safe mode it has zero.


    Okay, let me see, how does it go...I guess I am going to bow out now as this is likely to turn into a flame war...plus, I got the last word!

    bye

    - HandsOff
     
  4. chaos16

    chaos16 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Posts:
    1,004
    And as well Nod32 doesn't have a very user friendly interface like others.
    If it has a userfriendly interface it would be more used than it is now.
     
  5. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    I wonder whats wrong with NOD32 inetrface!? It's far better than any other.
    All functions are sorted very logical,all settings are in appropriate places,it doesn't look like some Win 3.1 app (*kreh* AVG/AntiVir *kreh*) and you can even switch from green GUI to default Windows themed style.
     
  6. Howard

    Howard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Posts:
    313
    Location:
    Wales, UK
    I agree - NOD32's interface is easily my favourite and the best I have ever used. Unfortunately it has become commonplace to argue that any software that requires the exercise of even one brain cell is too difficult for ordinary people, i.e., lazy software reviewers.
     
  7. maddawgz

    maddawgz Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Posts:
    1,316
    Location:
    Earth
    my opinion for what i'ts worth..Symantec is a big old hog!..pc cilian..detection is medioka!! but has a nice interface selling point?. kaspersky was like a big virus in my pc!! avg is a claytons antivirus bit like not the real deal..and if ya to stingy to pay for a AV and u will always end up with viruses !! Mcafee is ok..but once agian uses high CPU! ..as for F-secure that updates to the full package not sure y? and again pc hog... Nod32 is the winner for me..and it removed a trojan just fine..so not sure y that was mentioned? .and is light on my cpu..what more duz one want?.. nothing is going to protect u 100% anyhow..but least with nod32 has good features!! Reviews are like statistics to me never reliable!! at the end of the day choose what's best for ur pc !! MD
     
  8. dougjp

    dougjp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Posts:
    4
    I've been lurking for some time as my NAV2003 expires in about 3 weeks and was initially wanting to find a better AV than NAV. However recent results at reputable places running sufficiently large tests, like AV Comparatives and Virus Bulletin, plus being able to get NAV2005 for about $ 12- net after rebate, has me heading towards NAV2005. Seems like everyone else is much more expensive that performs as well. My wife's computer uses NAV2004 which doesn't expire for 6 months.

    Two questions.

    - What top AV's grant a licence for two computers at the price of one purchase? Used to be commonplace, not anymore it seems.

    - All this talk about NAV bloatware, yet I can't find ANYTHING which puts its resource use to the test compared to other top AVs IN THE REAL WORLD. As an example of what I mean is, when do resource use differences become even noticeable on an average (1 gig SDRAM) computer? If I'm running a few browsers, an e-mail program and a few other programs, is there any need to care about it?
     
  9. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,934
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I have used several versions of Nav antivirus and really don't have any complaints except that the earlier versions scanned fairly slow
     
  10. ls4smith

    ls4smith Guest

    IN RESPONSE TO THE "DOG". I HAVE BEEN READING DIFFERENT FORUM SITES AND HE SEEMS TO START TROUBLE IN EVERY SITE I GO TO. TO THE REST OF YOU, KEEP POSTING. WE, THE NEWBEES, ARE LEARNING ALOT.
     
  11. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I hope it wasn't my comment that prompted the one critticle of "Dog". His humor can be pointed at times but I appreciate everything he has commented on. Well, almost everything...but I deal with that in due time!

    I actually ment that I saw his point. As I defend "my" AV it starts to feel a little to much like a battle. I have learned quite a few things in this thread that are positive.

    And one HUGE negative. you guys and your Norton AV resources bull! Do you guys have rocks in your heads? Do you listen to people that actually can click for task manager and say the total of NAV processes is less than 23 mb of memory usage, and my explorer with two windows open is using over 33 mb. This is chump change guys come on. Part of the reason is do to my settings, no doubt. And detection, you guys wish it were bad but in fact it is good. very good.


    Okay, no offense anyone. Just my er..ah...humble opinion.


    BTW- agree with bigC ---from personal experience---Norton used to be too slow and that has gotten quite a bit better, [while at the same time many others have gone in the other direction ..] the part in brackets is not BigC

    HandsOff
     
  12. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,325
    Location:
    US
    I believe this forum is starting to "mellow" a little bit in regard to Norton but it is disturbing to me that a couple of weeks ago a regular to this forum had to PM me a question about Norton – he was afraid to post his question in the AV forums because he was afraid of getting flamed for his choice of Norton. This is sad and not what Wilders is all about. Take care.

    Acadia
     
  13. mikel108

    mikel108 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Posts:
    1,057
    Location:
    SW Ontario, Canada
    Acadia,

    Thank you so much for this post. I too, hide behide a veil, as to which AV I purchased. I would never post what it is on the board as others would surely bombard me with negative comments. It was not actually my first choice in AV's, but I recieved a really good deal, and it was one that my wife was comfortable with.
     
  14. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Well, that went better than expected. I don't really mind the flames but some of the specific complaints don't hold water. Though I'm used to it now, I was really put off by the interface and the arrogant and condescending take it or leave it attitude that the help files seem to project.

    Now after having used it and NPF2003 for quite some time I see it as a wolf in sheeps clothing. It gives you intelligent choices and then hides them and glosses over them and "recommends" some pretty off the wall settings. I recommend that you disregard Norton's recommendations and seek the answers elsewhere.

    And as a public service I will remind you that if you have System Works and NAV bundled together, you can go to add and remove and remove the individual system tools. That's what I did. I think the best tool of the lot was the one that found invalid shortcuts. Its system (registry?) check found stuff too, but I was afraid to use it, so I cut everything away but the AV. That might have something to do with why I don't understand all this talk about resources hog. Doh! Now it makes sense.

    Still, for such a crowded competitive field, its hard for me to understand the half-hearted user guides and ambigous cryptic interfaces.

    By the way, I got hold of paid version of another A/V and tried it recently. I don't think its in the top ten, but again I am puzzled. I'm going to have to start reading about some of these other A/V's in the forum because I am definitely not seeing anything that has impressed me much. And is it true NOD32 does not have a trial? It's pretty much the last great non-yellow hope.


    - HandsOff

    -
     
  15. NAMOR

    NAMOR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Posts:
    1,530
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  16. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,024
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Trial version of NOD HERE.

    The new beta is out and is worth a try, as it is very stable, IMHO.

    But check out Blackspear's recommended settings for this AV.
     
  17. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I'd like to try it. The only version I ever used was one I downloaded from what I thought was a legitimate source. It was sort of weird. It did not install perminently. Instead, it would install, give you access to the settings, run a scan, and do whatever specified with what it found. Then, poof, it was gone.

    That seems like it would be a hassle, but actually, no. It installed in less time than it takes Add and Remove Programs to "populate" its list of programs, that's for sure. And it carried with it no overhead. I could disable NAV, install-run-saygoodbyeto NOD32, and then reenable. That is precisely they type of A/V backup that I'd be willing to pay for. But then I came to have my doubts about if it was an approved version. I decided to lay low for a couple of years and then divulge my secret.

    Well, here we are!


    - HandsOff
     
  18. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Acadia & mikel198,

    Obviously, nobody should be gratuitously taken to task for their choice of product. We all have our preferences, and some of them are not driven by performance results on selected tests. As the authors of www.av-comparatives.org stress, all the AV's in that test have already gone through a vetting process, they are all very viable selections, and their set of tested AV's is not a comprehensive selection of viable candidates one might consider.

    The simple fact of the matter is that Norton is a very decent AV selection, anyone who makes a blanket statement that Norton is a poor choice is wrong, there is no other way to put it. Some folks have stability issues, for them another option may be preferred. This is true of many AV's. It does consume resources, but my own impression is that this aspect is in the same league as KAV. On a fast machine, it's not a factor. NAV update frequency is also occasionally cited as a problem in that the standard cycle on the automated side is weekly, although it is clear that many do not understand NAV's update protocol. I don't agree with it, but saying the automated one is weekly regardless of the malware threat situation is, again, wrong. A quick examination of support boards would reveal a large number of threads revolving around NAV problems. This is certainly due in large measure to NAV's market share.

    It would be my hope that everyone is comfortable discussing their choices in these forums. Sometimes we have to reign in the more heated discussions, and we try to do that when it occurs, but we also strive to walk gingerly in that regard since the heat-of-the-moment comments are often self-corrected by other thread participants as the discourse progresses.

    Blue
     
  19. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    HandsOff,

    That does sound to be a bit of a non-standard package that you have there.

    As for the install then goodbye options, some of the on-line scanners come rather close to that these days. A number of them are fairly comprehensive packages. Many require IE since they use Active-X, but if you are at a reputable AV site, that is not an issue.

    Blue
     
  20. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    You won't get any such comments from me, use what works for you, and if you change your mind, you still won't have as many anti-viruses as our Wilders resident AV Tester ~ BigC ;) :eek: :D :cool: :ninja:

    :D :D :D
     
  21. Ianb

    Ianb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2004
    Posts:
    232
    Location:
    UK
    Norton made errors with the 2004 edition and the mud has stuck (unfairly imho). Detection wise it is still top 3 and 2005 and Corp9 editions are as light as a feather.
     
  22. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,565
    Could someone explain these tests please. In the Anti-Virus Comparative tests they come out within a few percent of each other, but in the Retrospective/Proactive they are mostly low scoring except for a couple. Maybe I am looking at it wrongly.
     
  23. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi all,

    I was a Norton user for many years (as long as I could remember), but as time went on, it seemed to be getting more and more porous (real viruses and trojans were getting through), so I decided I needed to change. I settled on KAV 4.5. It has been working very well for me and the only piece of malware that somehow got through (but not installed) was the Java.exploit trojan (I have no idea how it got on my system), which really has been neutralized by the latest version of Sun Java. I judge this to be excellent when compared to my previous experiences with Norton. Coupled with this, is KAV's seamless daily updates which also make me feel more secure.

    While I would consider Norton AV again in the future (I never say never), I believe that there may be some real-world problems with their scanning engine. Possibly these have been fixed in their latest release. I am always very supportive of companies that try to make their products more complete and competitive. The less malware there is out there, the better it is for all of us.

    Rich
     
  24. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    This has been my approach in the past, however, for efficiency it is an order of magnitude worse than NOD32 v.Etherial. For one thing, the Microsoftish assumption of constant internet access does not always apply. If I were to get another machine right now I would completely isolate it from the internet, and use this one for downloading. It isn't just paranoia here, I am curious to see how much could be stripped off of the o/s without all the software and updates necessary for internet/network capability.

    But also, two things have happened recently. The online scans are much slower than they used to be. Also Microsoft has begun buying up some of the players. I wouldn't be surprised if the providers intentionally slow down the scans to discourage people from using them as an alternative to purchasing an installed version.

    By the way, that is not such a good idea. Consider: An on-line scan is ONLY capable of detecting a virus AFTER it has infected your computer!

    I may have to try and pick up a few viruses before I try NOD32. Evaluation was much easier in the "good old days" when scanning my achives was sure to provide many opportunities for virus removal.


    - HandsOff
     
  25. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    The details are explained in the FAQ, which is available from the comparatives test results page.

    Basically, the on-demand test is what we typically think of as an AV test. A large collection of malware samples are collected, a group of AV's are selected, installed, and updated with the most recent definitions, and the malware collection is scanned. The malware collection will be comprised of a mixture of live (i.e. out there and infecting people) and zoo (samples which, in principle, have yet to escape "captivity") samples. A certain percentage of the test suite is identified by each package, and the results are usually reported as a global % identified, generally with an additional breakdown by malware type.

    The proactive-retrospective test attempts to probe how well an AV is at identifying malware with which it has no experience. This is a way of trying to quantify how well an AV performs in a zero-day situation (i.e. the first few hours of a malware release when signatures simply do not exist). This is done by collecting a group of AV's, obtaining definition file updates on a fixed date, then starting a malware collection period during which new live and zoo samples are collected. After the collection phase, the same scanning of the collection is done as in the on-demand test. The difference is that the definitions file is out of date (it is the one obtained prior to the collection phase) and reflective of what the scanner could handle prior to the appearance of any of the malware samples. The results of this test are generally quite lower than the demand test since validated signatures are unavailable for any of the malware samples tested.

    That is the short description. They are very different tests probing very different aspects of AV performance.

    Blue
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.