Full Version: whats the best antivirus?
in your opinion what is the best antivirus software to use for xp home. i need to buy one and thought i'd ask around before making a commitment. thanks
QUOTE(http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=69&mnu=69)
1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28%
2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%
3. F-Secure 2005 version 5.10.450 - 97.55%
4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.518.8 - 96.75%
5. Norton Corporate version 9.0.3.1000 - 91.64%
6. Norton Professional version 2005 - 91.57%
7. McAfee version 9.0.10 - 89.75%
8. Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31%
9. BitDefender version 8.0.137 - 88.13%
10. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 87.87%
11. Panda Platinum 2005 version 9.01.02 - 87.75%
12. Arcavir - 87.73%
13. MKS_VIR 2005 - 87.70%
14. RAV version 8.6.105 - 87.26%
15. F-Prot version 3.16b - 87.07%
16. Panda Titanium version 4.01.02 - 86.27%
17. PC-Cillin 2005 version 12.1.1034 - 85.98%
18. Nod32 version 2.12.4 - 85.66%
19. Command version 4.92.7 - 84.92%
20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50%
2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%
3. F-Secure 2005 version 5.10.450 - 97.55%
4. eScan Virus Control version 2.6.518.8 - 96.75%
5. Norton Corporate version 9.0.3.1000 - 91.64%
6. Norton Professional version 2005 - 91.57%
7. McAfee version 9.0.10 - 89.75%
8. Virus Chaser version 5.0 - 88.31%
9. BitDefender version 8.0.137 - 88.13%
10. CyberScrub version 1.0 - 87.87%
11. Panda Platinum 2005 version 9.01.02 - 87.75%
12. Arcavir - 87.73%
13. MKS_VIR 2005 - 87.70%
14. RAV version 8.6.105 - 87.26%
15. F-Prot version 3.16b - 87.07%
16. Panda Titanium version 4.01.02 - 86.27%
17. PC-Cillin 2005 version 12.1.1034 - 85.98%
18. Nod32 version 2.12.4 - 85.66%
19. Command version 4.92.7 - 84.92%
20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50%
Hope that helps.
Many members here at BC, being frugal, use AVGfree or Avast. While these may not have all the bells and whistles of commercial anti-virus applications, they do a perfectly acceptable job in protecting your computer.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/Fre...apps-t3616.html
Regards,
John
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/Fre...apps-t3616.html
Regards,
John
I'd take those results with a grain of salt.. AVG only finding 54%.. riiight. ANd the website speaks nothing of methodology used.
Color me cynical.
Color me cynical.
QUOTE
* The test was made on 02-16 April 2005, using Windows XP Professional SP1 on a P4 2600 Mhz, 512MB DDRAM.
* All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and they were tested using their full scanning capabilities e.g. heuristics, full scan etc.
* The 91202 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV, Nod32, Dr.Web, Sweep, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus.
* ALL virus samples were unpacked and the only samples that were kept were the ones that were packed using external-dos-packers (that means not winzip, winrar, winace etc).
* The virus samples had the correct file extension using a special program (Renexts) and were unique, according to checksum32 filesize.
* Most "fake" virus samples were removed, as well as "garbage" files.
* The program PER was not tested because there was no english demo version available.
* The programs Extendia AVK , BOClean , VET , Titan , RisingAV and Freedom were not tested because there was no demo version available.
* The program InVircible did not include a "typical" scanner-function and could not be tested.
* The program V-Catch checks only mail accounts and could not be tested.
The following file types were used.
BAT, ΒΙΝ, CLA, CLASS, CLS, COM, CSC, DAT, DOC, ELF, EML, EXE, HLP, HQX, HTA, HTM, IMG, INF, INI, JS, MAC, MDB, MSG, OLE, PHP, PIF, PL, PPT, PRC, REG, SCR, SH, SHS, SMM, STI, TD0, TPU, VBA, VBS, WBT, XLS, XMI, XML.
The virus samples were divided into these categories, according to the type of the virus :
* File = BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, Palm, OS2, Unix, BinaryImage, BAS viruses, MenuetOS viruses.
* MS-DOS = MS-DOS and HLL*. viruses.
* Windows = Win.*.* viruses.
* Macro = Macro and Formula viruses.
* Malware = Adware, DoS, Constructors, Exploit, Flooders, Nukers, Sniffers, Spoofers, Virus Construction Tools, Virus Tools, Droppers, PolyEngines.
* Script = BAT, Corel, HTML, Java, Scripts, VBS, WBS, Worms, PHP, Perl viruses.
* Trojans-Backdoors = Trojan and Backdoor viruses.
* All programs tested had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and they were tested using their full scanning capabilities e.g. heuristics, full scan etc.
* The 91202 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV, Nod32, Dr.Web, Sweep, BitDefender and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus.
* ALL virus samples were unpacked and the only samples that were kept were the ones that were packed using external-dos-packers (that means not winzip, winrar, winace etc).
* The virus samples had the correct file extension using a special program (Renexts) and were unique, according to checksum32 filesize.
* Most "fake" virus samples were removed, as well as "garbage" files.
* The program PER was not tested because there was no english demo version available.
* The programs Extendia AVK , BOClean , VET , Titan , RisingAV and Freedom were not tested because there was no demo version available.
* The program InVircible did not include a "typical" scanner-function and could not be tested.
* The program V-Catch checks only mail accounts and could not be tested.
The following file types were used.
BAT, ΒΙΝ, CLA, CLASS, CLS, COM, CSC, DAT, DOC, ELF, EML, EXE, HLP, HQX, HTA, HTM, IMG, INF, INI, JS, MAC, MDB, MSG, OLE, PHP, PIF, PL, PPT, PRC, REG, SCR, SH, SHS, SMM, STI, TD0, TPU, VBA, VBS, WBT, XLS, XMI, XML.
The virus samples were divided into these categories, according to the type of the virus :
* File = BeOS, FreeBSD, Linux, Palm, OS2, Unix, BinaryImage, BAS viruses, MenuetOS viruses.
* MS-DOS = MS-DOS and HLL*. viruses.
* Windows = Win.*.* viruses.
* Macro = Macro and Formula viruses.
* Malware = Adware, DoS, Constructors, Exploit, Flooders, Nukers, Sniffers, Spoofers, Virus Construction Tools, Virus Tools, Droppers, PolyEngines.
* Script = BAT, Corel, HTML, Java, Scripts, VBS, WBS, Worms, PHP, Perl viruses.
* Trojans-Backdoors = Trojan and Backdoor viruses.
I read that also, but it really doesn't say much. That does not indicate how the test platform was prepared, the age of some of the samples, how the test platform was wiped in between, or the order in which they were tested. Or how many times the test were run. Or if test were run more than once, were the AVs tested in the same order. Or the percentage of each type of virus (com infector, worm, heuristic, etc). How many were actually unique viruses, and not just variants.
If someone is going to make claims about results, then I would like to see documentation of methodology stated in such a way that results could be recreated by any body else. I have a very extensive collection of malware also, but I wouldn't dream of publishing any kind of stats without some extensive dcumentation of precisely how those results were obtained.
Edit: Typos..geesh
If someone is going to make claims about results, then I would like to see documentation of methodology stated in such a way that results could be recreated by any body else. I have a very extensive collection of malware also, but I wouldn't dream of publishing any kind of stats without some extensive dcumentation of precisely how those results were obtained.
Edit: Typos..geesh
One should also compare this with other AV tests published on the internet, which paint a different story, perhaps because of the databases used or the methodology employed.
Regards,
John
Regards,
John
In my expirience, i dont reccomend norton. Most of the time its very innefective, and uses far to many system resources.
I tried avg freea nd all those, with little or no luck, they werent very use friendly and configuring advanced options was literally hell.
Right now im currently using zonelabs antivirus+firewall. Its never let me down, and probably never will.
I tried avg freea nd all those, with little or no luck, they werent very use friendly and configuring advanced options was literally hell.
Right now im currently using zonelabs antivirus+firewall. Its never let me down, and probably never will.
I paid for and use SOLO Antivirus on my main PC. Been using it for years, ever since Win '98. Really got my money's worth. It's been faithful to my purchase, and it updates its virus list daily, scans and cleans, and I'm glad to say when I use other virus scanners, all come up with nothing to find.
Panda also is good, but you have to pay yearly. I use the Platinum version on my work computer.
Max3808
Panda also is good, but you have to pay yearly. I use the Platinum version on my work computer.
Max3808
I've used the free AntiVir for years. I've gotten a few warnings from time to time, but never been "infected". Which is exactly what a good antivirus is supposed to do.
http://www.free-av.com/
It's only 13MB.
Support for the free version is just a forum, but I've never had any trouble with it.
http://www.free-av.com/
It's only 13MB.
Support for the free version is just a forum, but I've never had any trouble with it.
I've been using Kaspersky anti-virus for over than 2 years and I'm pretty happy with it.
Here is a review about this software from Kaspersky Lab.:
Kaspersky Anti-Virus combines reactive antivirus detection methods with the latest proactive technologies to provide your computer with the most effective protection against malicious programs. The product is simple to install and set up, while offering advanced users a range of versatile settings for fine-tuning the program.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 integrates seamlessly with the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems (including Microsoft Windows x64) and is fully compatible with other security programs (for example, firewalls). Version 6.0.303 may include unspecified updates, enhancements, or bug fixes.
© from here.
Here is a review about this software from Kaspersky Lab.:
Kaspersky Anti-Virus combines reactive antivirus detection methods with the latest proactive technologies to provide your computer with the most effective protection against malicious programs. The product is simple to install and set up, while offering advanced users a range of versatile settings for fine-tuning the program.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 integrates seamlessly with the Microsoft Windows family of operating systems (including Microsoft Windows x64) and is fully compatible with other security programs (for example, firewalls). Version 6.0.303 may include unspecified updates, enhancements, or bug fixes.
© from here.
I think any form of antivirus software is good -- I've tried many different av's -- used free avg for a few years , tried kaspersky, nod32, f-secure, nortons. At present I'm using Mcafee virusScan Plus version 10 and personal firewall plus (build 7.1.13) I'm quite happy with it -- I think it all comes down to each individual -- the ordinary Joe Bloggs is quite happy with the Free AVG while the computer geeks would want something more sophisticated. But there are still fools out there with no antivirus program and no firewall. There is no excuse for this as there are so many free programs available.
Regards
Regards
Some recent reviews that I've read seem to favor Kaspersky and TrendMicro. That being said, one of my work computers is infected and TrendMicro isn't doing really well with it.
I've used AVG Free for years without any problems. But, I figure that a lot of this has to do with my caution while surfing the web rather than the capability of the antivirus.
I spend a lot of time on the bad side of the web (doing research) and am more likely to be exposed than most folks. So, I don't click on anything that I haven't asked for (and if something starts to install, I'll shut the system down rather than let it). I also don't open emails unless they've passed my SPAM filter (manually scanned by me) and they've been scanned by my AV. I also use a good firewall with very strict rules.
I've used AVG Free for years without any problems. But, I figure that a lot of this has to do with my caution while surfing the web rather than the capability of the antivirus.
I spend a lot of time on the bad side of the web (doing research) and am more likely to be exposed than most folks. So, I don't click on anything that I haven't asked for (and if something starts to install, I'll shut the system down rather than let it). I also don't open emails unless they've passed my SPAM filter (manually scanned by me) and they've been scanned by my AV. I also use a good firewall with very strict rules.
I use Kaspersky and it's worked well for me. I had Norton, it worked good but really slowed down my computer which is why I no longer have any Norton products on my computer. 
I use Avast free edition, does every thing I want.
QUOTE(jgweed @ Aug 15 2005, 06:10 PM) 
Many members here at BC, being frugal, use AVGfree or Avast. While these may not have all the bells and whistles of commercial anti-virus applications, they do a perfectly acceptable job in protecting your computer.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/Fre...apps-t3616.html
Regards,
John
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/Fre...apps-t3616.html
Regards,
John
i agree AVG is brill
I have used many different antiviruses over the years, AVG, Dr.Web, F-prot, Mcafee, Norton and Trend Micro to name a few, all of them have their plus and minuses, but the best antivirus I have found for me, is Nod32, it exceeds my expectations in an antivirus solution.
i would say that the best protection is common sense when it comes to using internet. no matter what antivirus program you have if you are reckless on the internet you will get infected no matter what.
But ofcourse having a virusprotection will increase your security.
I would say F-secure is pretty good. they are usually very high up on the list of % found viruses on tests. they use not to much system resources (ofc if you buy a security suite it _will_ use lot of resources) and usually it has no problems removing viruses or finding them for that matter wich i belive is more important that able to remove.
anyhow that is my opinion on the matter :-)
But ofcourse having a virusprotection will increase your security.
I would say F-secure is pretty good. they are usually very high up on the list of % found viruses on tests. they use not to much system resources (ofc if you buy a security suite it _will_ use lot of resources) and usually it has no problems removing viruses or finding them for that matter wich i belive is more important that able to remove.
anyhow that is my opinion on the matter :-)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.