What'' the best free antivirus?

[Magic Carpet]

Priorities:

1. lightweight
2. unintrusive
3. effective.

AVG still good? Any newcomers?

Nope, they are about the same, really. If NOD32 had a free version, I'd recommend it, though.

You could try this

 

[gitano]

on the OP requeriments the best bet its MSE, none antivirus its infalible.

MSE + Malwarebytes + a bit of common sense, can do a very good job keeping a windows machine clean, but not negate the need of backups still

 

[Magic Carpet]

Malwarebytes,

Any good?

 

[bigsnyder]

MSE plus Spybot (and not using IE or Outlook Express) has kept my system clean. Some occasional spyware, but overall very satisfied. Malwarebytes good too.

 

[chusteczka]

DO NOT under any circumstance install that crap.

Microsoft Security Essentials is NOT a full fledged Antivirus, it is more like an anti spyware program NOT a real antivirus (just a little improved over the useless Windows Defender) but has slipped many viruses on systems I've tested it on many times. And it is the worst when it comes to cleaning a system.

...

The best Free Antivirus is avast! Free Antivirus hands down. It is light, very good at detections (Even much better than many paid AVs) and has an Auto Sandbox feature built in. Let's say you launch some known app but avast! detects that it is trying to access critical areas of your system, it automatically sets the app to launch in a contained sand box, where you may run it to preview it but any changes to the system cannot be made sine all that app has is the little virtual environment it is running in (the sandbox)

you really can't get better in a free antivirus than avast!

I tend to agree with this opinion since I have no confidence in MSE.

I like Avira and Avast. Lately, I have been installing Comodo Anti-Virus in computers that I setup or fix. Comodo provides a sandbox feature similar to that described for Avast. For free software, Comodo AV also updates on its own and actively scans downloaded files and files being as they are opened.

The latest feature that antivirus programs are offering is community assessment of files stored on a central database. The program will upload to a central server files that individual users download and use. The antivirus company will then scan that file and keep usage statistics on it from the community. They provide data such as the number of users, the program stability, and whether it is trusted or not. I really like this feature since it has proven valuable numerous times. It provides security to go to a website you are not familiar with, download their utility, and see the file is trusted, stable, and used by tens of thousands of people.

I recommend an antivirus program that provides such a community knowledge-based feature. I know that Comodo AV has it as well as Norton AV. Comodo calls it "cloud based" while Norton calls it "File Insight".

 

[Cerb]

Can you provide any actual, hard proof of this?

No way. Anecdotes upon anecdotes. It's not the best, that's hard to argue, based on controlled studies, but it's far from bad, and I can even come up with two of my own Anecdotes where Avast! did not detect it and MSE did. I like Avast!, but mainly due to be being a gamer. It's silent mode, and not using a bazillion memory-hogging processes when handling many files, that can cause jerkiness/stuttering, are very nice features, compared to MSE.

Norton and McAfee are still specifically targeted, and even replaced and spoofed, and they're annoying bloatware, so I think it's safe to say that despite not being free for non-commercial use, they are crap.

But, once you reach a certain point, you need to worry about general system administration, and users. Even some of the best, like Kaspersky, can become less useful in presence of users without a clue.

my dad gets something on his pc every 3 or 4 months. ive tried avast, avg and mse. i finally just took advantage of the parental controls on his new router and block malicious sites and categories

+1.

Resident anti-virus is a good filter, so that the user won't get as many chances to screw up, and so that other users won't necessarily get screwed over if one user on the network does screw up.

Some program features can help, but only if used, and that requires users to care and learn.

As an example, allowing any browser plug-in to load without being specifically given permission, for instance, is just plain bad policy. FF allows add-ons to do it, Chrome and its derivatives include minimal functionality for it, and IE makes a royal PITA, unless you're doing it for a whole domain. Not sure about Opera's behavior wrt that stuff, these days.

How many users are going to disable plugins, make them conditionally white-listable, and go through the work to disable in-browser PDF reading? Not many. As such, better programs and better defaults for them are going to be a necessity, going forward, and users that don't want to learn how to handle it will need to suck it up.

where are you folks going that you detect viruses on a regular basis? I've used 3 different kinds of virus scanners in the past 10 years and the only time anything suspicious came up was when I'm using game trainers such as cheatengine (which are false positives).

The last known infection I got was from Guru3D, on a brand new Windows installation. I was going to get drivers newer than WHQL, because I knew the WHQL ones sucked for my GPU. I figured that would be a safe site, and I really wanted native res, because the display was doing nearest neighbor type scaling.

I've gotten several blocked when following links to news sites, the Washington Post and L.A. Times, in particular, over the last several years.

 

[Diogenes2]

I tend to agree with this opinion since I have no confidence in MSE.

Since there is no evidence to support that opinion, what other reason do you have to lack confidence in MSE ?

What experience have you had ?

 

[TheStu]

I have always had good luck with MSE on my systems. Very lightweight and fast.

 

[msi1337]

Microsoft Security Essentials plus Malwarebytes.

this sounds right to me +1

 

[nemesismk2]

I use Microsoft Security Essentials plus Malwarebytes. Only recently started using Malwarebytes and it reported RP18\A0002398.exe PUP.RemoveWGA which was unexpected because Microsoft Security Essentials didn't find anything wrong.

 

[chusteczka]

I tend to agree with this opinion since I have no confidence in MSE.

Since there is no evidence to support that opinion, what other reason do you have to lack confidence in MSE ?

What experience have you had ?

This one is easy. My own anecdotal experience. I still do not feel right about MSE after having a few viruses get through it. My experience does not prove anything but my opinion does not require proof.

forums.anandtech.com - PSA: MS Security Essentials & Java Viruses

 

[mechBgon]

All of them are so close to worthless it's not funny. Of all of the machines that I've seen get infected with the drive-by infections presenting things like fake AV all of them have had a commercial AV installed which couldn't remove it and most of the time wouldn't even detect all of it.

When I was a sysadmin, I began hunting malware as a hobby, sort of a "know thine enemy" exercise. It was educational, and one of the main lessons was the folly of relying on antivirus software as a primary line of defense. Uploading samples to VirusTotal, then and now, even with cloud-based technology assisting, shows that antivirus protection against fresh malware is quite low. Malware is routinely reobfuscated for each individual victim, so any given person's sample could be completely unique.

So my answer to the OP would be "MSE, as a third-string component in a good defense-in-depth strategy." The link in my signature has my baseline strategy spelled out. Use reduced privilege levels, eliminate unnecessary attack surface, vigilantly patch your stuff, add extra exploit resistance to the OS and apps using EMET, max out UAC, disable AutoRun completely, use a browser with sandboxing technology, and BACK UP YOUR STUFF. And if you can live with it, use either SRP, or else use Parental Controls and whitelist the existing programs on the system.

That approach is worth 10x as much as all the fretting over which antivirus program detects 40% of fresh malware versus 35%. And those numbers are, unfortunately, a realistic assessment. Don't bet the farm on antivirus.

By the way, for those who do use MSE, you can schedule your own updates using Task Scheduler. Run Task Scheduler by right-clicking and choosing Run As Administrator, and set up a repeating task that runs MpCmdRun.exe with the -SignatureUpdate argument. At work, I set mine up to run this task at startup and repeat every 2 hours for a duration of 12 hours. In the task's Security Options on the General tab, have it run as SYSTEM.

 

[corkyg]

I see MechBegon as an accepted authority on AV and AM - and what he does is what I do. Further, I maintain two duplicate HDDs that I switch every week. There is always a ready to go reserve drive in the back pocket. MSE + Malwarebytes really works and is efficient, especially when it comes to updates.

 

[Magic Carpet]

So my answer to the OP would be "MSE, as a third-string component in a good defense-in-depth strategy." The link in my signature has my baseline strategy spelled out. Use reduced privilege levels, eliminate unnecessary attack surface, vigilantly patch your stuff, add extra exploit resistance to the OS and apps using EMET, max out UAC, disable AutoRun completely, use a browser with sandboxing technology, and BACK UP YOUR STUFF. And if you can live with it, use either SRP, or else use Parental Controls and whitelist the existing programs on the system.

That approach is worth 10x as much as all the fretting over which antivirus program detects 40% of fresh malware versus 35%. And those numbers are, unfortunately, a realistic assessment. Don't bet the farm on antivirus.

We all know well, that all of that above, won't happen. Good points, but for the ideal world

I'd only highlight the SRP & Auto Run as being "reasonable" necessity. But backing up stuff from time to time is a must for everybody. People spending $$$ on the expensive unlockable parts, yet completely overlooking the data security/integrity aspect is what really makes me bemused.

 

[jaltinor]

Ms security essentials is the best one. It is light weight and updates easily. I used it for the first time 3 years and back and till now I am using it.

 

[nemesismk2]

Ms security essentials is the best one. It is light weight and updates easily. I used it for the first time 3 years and back and till now I am using it.

Malwarebytes works well with Microsoft Security Essentials. I have not used it for long but i have found having another level of security is nice to have.

 

[Skitzer]

Microsoft Security Essentials plus Malwarebytes.

Have used all the others - they slow down boot time and are not efficient updaters on a daily basis.

These are what I use ... totally agree :thumbsup:

 

[YBS1]

I'm not as strong in my hatred for MSE as the early poster in this thread, but I will say this....the only machine I've seen truly hobbled badly by malware over the past couple of years in use by my immediate family was running MSE. I'm a strong believer in Kaspersky and have yet to see anything get past it. Though I do run Avast on my WHS.

 

[iGas]

Linux

 

[lxskllr]

Linux

My mother was having issues with the Avira popups, so I switched her to MSE. I didn't feel too good about that, so I switched her to Ubuntu. When I used Windows I liked Avira for a 'just in case' backup, but relied on my experience, and network monitor to protect me, and that worked well. My mother can barely run a computer, so everything was resting on the A/V. She's fairly indifferent to Ubuntu, and I feel better, so I consider that a win :^)

 

[mechBgon]

We all know well, that all of that above, won't happen. Good points, but for the ideal world

I know the average clueless homeowner would find it a monumental project just to create an Admin-level account so they can switch their established account down to a Standard User. OMG THERE ARE NOW TWO ICONS AND STUFF D: WHAT DO I DOOOOOOO...

But anyone reading this thread, here at AnandTech, can easily manage what I'm suggesting. And of the steps I mentioned, all of them are valuable, particularly when combined into a defense-in-depth strategy. I could trudge through my bookmarks for example after example. Where I work, every system is maintained that way, plus some additional steps: a more restrictive Group Policy, customized IE setup via IEAK9, SafeDLLSearch, and a few more tweaks. Automated backups via Windows Home Server too

For those still thinking "HAH. Nothing gets past MY antivirus, it's teh awesomest one EVAR," may I point out the recent discoveries of malware like Flame. It went for years without being recognized as malware, even though the antivirus vendors HAD samples of it. F-Secure, for example, blogged about it, saying that the AV industry, and themselves included, had failed badly. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/06/internet-security-fail/

An AT Forums member recently sent me a malware sample to test. At the time, I believe it was getting zero-for-41 detection at VirusTotal.com. By the time I got around to testing it, weeks later, it was up to 9/41. As of today, about 10 weeks later... lessee here... 16/41. Yay antivirus. *golf clap* I've done this with tens of thousands of samples, and the moral of the story is, don't expect AV to save your bacon. It might make a handy tripwire at times, but you'd better bring more to your security game than that.

/soapbox

 

[pandemonium]

I've gotten rid of active virus protection since 5 years ago and have solely been scanning with Malwarebytes every ~month and run CCcleaner to look for anything out of the norm (and go through installed applications, processes running, etc.).

I suppose to answer the OP's question it needs to be asked, what application is this for? A personal computer? Small business?

If you absolutely need to run active protection, assuming this won't be for a very large business - of the current offerings - I've heard good things for Kaspersky. As always, absolutely stay away from Norton. It always was intrusive and seemed to cause more problems than the provided protection was worth, and still is. I recently had a bout with Norton on my mother's laptop and I had to insist that she got rid of it (even though she was still paying for the service).

 

[IlllI]

nobody likes panda?

 

[oslama]

combination of Spybot, Microsoft Security Essentials and Hijack This.

also, Malwarebytes is worth the money $10-15 yr.