What's the pros and cons of the AntiVir?

I am just wondering what's the pros and cons of the latest Avira Antivir (free and paid) antivirus. In the past I have tried this out on my pc...coz I've seen it has good ranking in the antivirus tests. It's light and has fast scanner...but the only flaws I have found out is that it updates very slow...as I am in dial-up so when browsing the web while it is updating really has an effect on my surfing speed. So I have no other choice but to uninstall it and change to other "fast updating" anti-virus.

I forgot what version I used in the past, and havent' tried yet the latest but I doubt that it still act the same way. Did it now updates fast?

 

Look at this same page for a post about Antivir

 

Hi sweater...

I'm assuming your previous experience with Antivir was from the sixth version, If you install version 7, the first thing you'll notice is that HBEDV, now Avira, has completely done away with the old DOS look and sports a modern interface, even if it is a bit spartan.

The free (or "classic") version still comes without a POP3, web or P2P scanner but from what I've seen, the basic realtime scanner is quick on the draw. The only bug I've heard about lately with the software is something in the code causes the realtime scanner to take up more memory than usual.
That is covered in more detail here...

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=130848

and here...

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=130419

The updater is, as you know, its biggest drawback and it is still the case with version 7, although the download servers seem more reliable now. It is still a pain with folks who are using dial-up. Downloads, at the time I was using it a month or two ago before I uninstalled it, were rather large and lengthy. That hasn't changed. The worst aspect of it all is that rotten notifier that pesters you constantly to pay them money for the premium version. If you have XP, you can block it using settings in the OS. Avira, in version 7, made sure that the notifier was practically impossible to get rid of

There is no denying that Avira is probably the best free scanner out there but there are certain tradeoffs.

Hope this helps

Best Regards...

 

Well main and the biggest con for Free version of AntiVir is stupid 24 hours only update check interval. Everything else is very good.

As for Premium version, i think there's nothing wrong with it.
It's very good overall and they also improved detection significantly.

 

Hi Rejzor, u just ned few minutes to add extra update at whatever interval and u can add as many as u can. It has been discussed so often.

 

And it has also been discused so often that such way of tricking the program is crap.

 

I don,t know it how good it works but on dial up I don,t need it.

 

The few attempts by malware to get on my computer have come through email. It seems a real disadvantage that the free version does not include pop 3 scanning.
Those of you who use it, how do you protect incoming email?

Thanks,
Jerry

 

Your mail is scanned when opened, also an attachment will be scanned when you do something with it, like copy, move, open.....etc. etc.
I prefer a mail scanner also, as things are caught before reaching your harddisk, but to be honest......it will be caught when doing something with the mail and attachments.

 

Hi Benvan45,

Thanks, that is not as vulnerable as I imagined.

Regards,
Jerry

 

If you read mails in txt & do not open unknown attachments, you do not need mail scan in AV.

 

I am really thinking of switching to 'free' Avira Antivir Classic at the moment, as I am beginning to think it is not doing anything less than the 'big' names right now. I am wrestling with Nod32 at the moment and I'm beginning to find out things about this scanner that I surely don't like. It let me down when badly needed and that really disappoints me badly. It should be one of the 'best' scanners.....but I'm beginning to doubt that more and more!

 

Right you are and therefore Avira Antivir Classic is a great scanner and very light etc. Updating goes like crazy here on DSL.

 

Do you have NOD32 set up using "Extra Settings for Nod32"?

 

Yes I do......and I'm just having too much trouble lately. See the post about the SmitfraudFix.zip......etc. Had trouble with trojans a while back also and reported the whole thing different times, but never ever got a reply!

 

I once got an email from a friend whose system had been penetrated, and so I had no reason to think it was infected. As it turned out my AV stopped it when I clicked on it. I would have opened an attachment if it had one. I assume that Avira free would have stopped it when I would have opened the attachment.

I note that some emails always forward as an attachment. I am not sure why that is the case.

What is reading in txt as opposed to what?
If in txt, can you see photos? What do you give up?

Thanks,
Jerry

 

Reading in txt is the opposite of HTML. HTML is vulnarable for virusses etc. and plain txt isn't. In txt you can't see photo's. I always mail in plain txt and when I want to send a photo......hang it on the mail as an attachment.

 

sweater

Just manually update it a few times a day when you have something else to do.It's definitely the best of the freebies so the hassle is worth it.When discussing the matter of email scanning, just use a program like the below to view and delete email right on the server.Safer and faster than downloading it all on to your system.

http://www.poppeeper.com/

http://www.eprompter.com/download.htm

I've reduced my spam using these from 25/day to 5/day.

 

Mail scanners are just middle security checkpoint. File scanners are always on guard even for mail born stuff (if they don't exploit the mail software directly).

 

Do you then consider Antivir as safe as an AV that does scan email in and out?

FWIW I do use Mailwasher Pro. Is that about like the programs you mentioned, tobacco?
I do not download many emails, as I have trained Mailwasher to delete most, and show others as "not to me" or "blacklisted."

Antivir has such high detection rates that I am tempted to use it on my laptop instead of Avast, which I am presently using. I also have Ewido Plus, which I think offsets Avast's weakness in trojan detection. It runs well on my system, and seemingly has less problems than Antivir.

Thanks,
Jerry

 

Either a scanner can detect a virus or it cannot detect it - those are the only two possibilities; so why do you think it makes a significant difference from the security point of view whether it has a mail scanner or not?

If an AV has a mail-scanner it will intercept and scan the mail before it reaches your HD, without the mail scanner it will intercept and scan the mail as it is written to HD. The important thing is the detection rate of the AV, not whereabouts the detection occurs. A good AV without a mail scanner will always be safer than a mediocre AV with a mail scanner.

A mail-scanner is more for convenience than anything. But if you use web-based mail like Yahoo, Hotmail etc a mail scanner is irrelevant since it cannot even scan the mail at all. In that case mail will be scanned by your AV through the browser like any surfing.

 

JerryM

I've never used that program but it appears to have the same capability.I just decided to make every call on whether its spam or not myself using one of the programs i mentioned instead of relying on software to make that call.That way, its my own fault if i deleted a legit email.

 

To me, it is a significant difference whether it gets to my HD or not.
It seems better to me to intercept it first than to canch it with a scan.

Jerry

 

Why? When you are surfing, bugs are written to your HD before they are intercepted by your AV, so why should it be different for email? If you stick with that opinion then you would have to insist on only using an AV with a web-shield.

But you ARE catching it with a scan - a realtime scan - whether you have a mail guard or not! The only difference is that the mail guard will block it, instead of it being deleted - the end result is the same; except that with deletion you will end up with a quarantined copy, which might in itself be useful to have.

 

You may very well be right, and just as safe. I am not smart enough in computers to come to the same conclusion. I guess that is the reason I use KAV 6 on my main computer.
If it is on your computer it does not seem as secure to me as preventing it from getting there.

Again, I admit a lack of detailed knowledge, but that is why I do not want to trust an AV that would let malware on my computer when there are those available that do not.

Best,
Jerry