AVG Resident Shield

[John Dean]

If I scan all incoming files to my PC, is there any need to keep AVG
Resident Shield running in the background? My understanding is that it
checks all files being opened and that must consume system resources,
no?
If it *is* appropriate to have RS always on, what are the recommended
settings? Is heuristic analysis useful?

 

[Art]

If I scan all incoming files to my PC, is there any need to keep AVG
Resident Shield running in the background? My understanding is that it
checks all files being opened and that must consume system resources,
no?

There's far more to "safe hex" than merely checking all files (you
know about) coming into your PC. People use IE with activex and
scripting enabled, for one thing. Malicious code can then be run
and/or installed without your awareness until it's too late. The use
of a alternate browser is the first step. Deleting all unsolicted
email attackments is another step.

Here's something we put together on the subject:

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

Some of never use realtime av. But average users should not be on the
internet without up to date realtime av. And I don't recommend using
AVG since it has poor detection rates.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Guest]

There's far more to "safe hex" than merely checking all files (you
know about) coming into your PC. People use IE with activex and
scripting enabled, for one thing. Malicious code can then be run
and/or installed without your awareness until it's too late. The use
of a alternate browser is the first step. Deleting all unsolicted
email attackments is another step.

Here's something we put together on the subject:

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

Some of never use realtime av. But average users should not be on the
internet without up to date realtime av. And I don't recommend using
AVG since it has poor detection rates.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Can you tell me a site that supports your claim that "AVG since it has poor
detection rates?"
It has 100% detection in the wild as all good AV do.

 

[Art]

Can you tell me a site that supports your claim that "AVG since it has poor
detection rates?"

Here's just one recent comparative:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2005_08.php

It has 100% detection in the wild as all good AV do.

ITW tests don't tell the whole story of detection rate capabilities.
People take hits all the time with malware that's not on some current
ITW list or included in some ITW set of samples.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Guest]

Thanks, I found the table very interesting.
So, which do you recommend as best?
I'm sort of just a novice shooting off his mouth about ITW detection rates.
-Pete

 

[Art]

Thanks, I found the table very interesting.

Then take a look at the Uni Hamburg test results.

http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/eng.htm

Unfortunately, they aren't very up to date but you might find
their reports educational.

So, which do you recommend as best?

Kaspersky. Their new version 6 is unusually nice and even more
powerful now with its proactive modules.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Jake Dodd]

It has 100% detection in the wild as all good AV do.

100% is a pipe dream. No AV attains this because it is impossible to do without any FPs and FPs are the bane of the AV industry.