Antivirus Question

[Salvador]

I just reinstalled my OS and I'm about to install an Antivirus.

Am I better off with Norton Antivirus 2003 (With Norton System Works 2003) with up-to-date definitions or one of the free AV programs like AntiVir, AVG or something else?

TIA,

Sal

 

[MrBond]

This is something that mechBgon posted in another thread that's sort-of related (it was about an AIM virus - he was offering some security tips).

If you want free antivirus software that's got better detection, you might check out AntiVir, but you have to update it manually is the tradeoff. http://www.free-av.com/ and check the detection rates at http:/www.av-comparatives.org for one perspective on what's good.

NAV was always a bit obtrusive for me and I didn't like the fact that they went to a "buy a subscription every year or you're not getting updates" policy. I use AVG Free and am very happy with it - the only time I even notice it is if I happen to be home at 1pm when the systemwide virus scan kicks in.

 

[jkoon]

Yea I have started using AVG as well and cant complain. I used to use Norton and I liked it a lot but I decided I would give the free stuff a try (hard to beat the price of a free product).

 

[Schadenfroh]

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Antivir has a much better detection rate than AVG and uses about the same amount of system resources as avg.

 

[n7]

AntiVir is good stuff. I started using it thanx to Schadenfroh's informative threads.

 

[Fokks]

Antivir is also slower scanning and a pain to update.
It's "much better detection rate" is debateable.
av-comparatives.org and it's February scan is not the end-all be-all of av ratings.

I've tried them both, and many others, and stick with AVG myself personally.
Anyways no one antivirus is infallible, if you're worried you can have a second free antivirus installed for on-demand scanning only. (Like Bit-Defenders for instance)

 

[Salvador]

Thanks for the replies. Although you have to pay for NAV, it seems thorough. I don't mind paying for something if I'm more protected with it. I'll probably give one of these free AV's a try and see how I like it.

Thanks again.

Sal

 

[biostud]

I've changed to Antivir after finding out that AVG let several vira pass.

btw, does anyone have problems updating Antivir ATM?

 

[Schadenfroh]

Antivir is also slower scanning and a pain to update.

you can configure antivir to update itself in about 2 clicks from the tray icon, if you do not like how fast it scans, simply turn off the option to scan inside archives, speeds it up a good deal.

It's "much better detection rate" is debateable.
av-comparatives.org and it's February scan is not the end-all be-all of av ratings.

Here is another detection rate test, from people other than avcomparatives, dated april 2005, included 91202 virus samples
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=69&mnu=69

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.

20. AntiVir version 6.30.00.17 - 84.50%
28. AVG version 7.0.308 - 54.07%

 

[jkoon]

Something that comes to mind with these detection statistics? are they putting known viruses on the system and seeing what percentage of them are detected or is it something else?

What I am wondering is if AntiVir because it appears to be more strict will also return more false-positives (say a file is infected when it is actually not).

 

[Spacehead]

Originally posted by: biostud
btw, does anyone have problems updating Antivir ATM?

Yes, just tried.