Anti Virus Recommendations?

[DILIP]

You may have those three inconsequential leeters after your name, but
nothing's changed, you remain the idiot you were and still are! Ha!

 

[David Candy]

They all work well enough, AVG included.

 

[mrtee]

I have been using AVG for 5 years.
Got tired of spending $ everyyear for a new NAV System Works.
Everything is a "rival" to something else.

--
Just my 2¢ worth
Jeff
__________in response to__________
| So you are totally satisfied with AVG? Do their definition and virus removal
| tools rival NAV?
|
| Thanks,
| mxh
|
|

 

[DILIP]

That's of course, IF you need one. I don't. The only viruses I've got have
been self inflicted. I'm just curious what having a virus really feels
like.

They all work well enough, AVG included.

 

[David Candy]

If one takes interfon then one feels sick for 6 months.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I'm looking for recommendations for an anti-virus program. Is NAV still the
best one? How does NAV 2004 stack up? Does it eat up resources? All
recommendations appreciated.

Norton products have shown so many cases of disruption to systems merely
from their presence that I cannot advise using them - and will not have
them around myself.

In AV, AVG which has been mentioned, is effective and is updated often
enough - rapidly when there is a major outbreak like this week's MyDoom,
less so at other times. For a reasonably priced paid one, eTrust from
Computer Associates at www.my-etrust.com is what I use myself -
effective, well up to date at all times, and totally unobtrusive.
Kapersky (which has a free Lite version) is also recommended

In addition to an AV, you need a firewall that stops nasties from
phoning home - Zone Alarm from www.zonelabs.com is free and effective;
and an anti-spyware scanner, such as AdAware from www.lavasoftusa.com.
You might also want pop-up stopper from www.panicware.com

Put these together and you can have a very good level of protection -
all free.

 

[mxh]

I have been using AVG for 5 years.
Got tired of spending $ everyyear for a new NAV System Works.
Everything is a "rival" to something else.


Thanks, I appreciate your "2¢ worth"! (Also, The context in which I used
"rival" was to ask "does it compare well against...").

Thanks again,
mxh


--
Just my 2¢ worth
Jeff
__________in response to__________
| So you are totally satisfied with AVG? Do their definition and virus
removal
| tools rival NAV?
|
| Thanks,
| mxh
|
|

 

[mxh]

Norton products have shown so many cases of disruption to systems merely
from their presence that I cannot advise using them - and will not have
them around myself.

In AV, AVG which has been mentioned, is effective and is updated often
enough - rapidly when there is a major outbreak like this week's MyDoom,
less so at other times. For a reasonably priced paid one, eTrust from
Computer Associates at www.my-etrust.com is what I use myself -
effective, well up to date at all times, and totally unobtrusive.
Kapersky (which has a free Lite version) is also recommended

In addition to an AV, you need a firewall that stops nasties from
phoning home - Zone Alarm from www.zonelabs.com is free and effective;
and an anti-spyware scanner, such as AdAware from www.lavasoftusa.com.
You might also want pop-up stopper from www.panicware.com

Put these together and you can have a very good level of protection -
all free.

Thanks for the recommendations, Alex. I was using the free version of ZA,
but uninstalled it as it was somehow in conflict with my hardware firewall
and was not allowing NG or email messages larger than 1 kb to "get out". I
understand that the pro version will work with my firewall, and is, in fact,
configurable from within the firewall settings. I just haven't gotten around
to checking out which software firewall I would be willing to pay for.
I agree with your assessment of NAV, as I've experienced much of the
disruption to which you refer, which is why I'm "trawling" for
recommendations. Thanks for yours!

mxh

 

[mrtee]

Since I haven't purchased NAV for 5 years I couldn't say.

AVG works for me and many others, updates are frequent - when there is something to update.

Give the freebie a try, you have nothing to loose (said tongue in cheek), there is no tech support for that version. They do have a Pro version which is (I think) about $30 for a 2 year license. Just checked, $33.30 at http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_avg_online.php#single HTH.

--
Just my 2¢ worth
Jeff
__________in response to__________
|
| Thanks, I appreciate your "2¢ worth"! (Also, The context in which I used
| "rival" was to ask "does it compare well against...").
|
| Thanks again,
| mxh

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Norton Antivirus versions 2002, 2003, and 2004 are vastly different
and consume far less computing resources than old versions of Norton.
I have tried virtually all the free antivirus programs, but they all
caused a performance crippling effect on my own PC. When I bit
the bullet and purchased the newer version of Norton, I was quite
pleased with its performance and the fact it will automatically update
its virus definitions to defend against the very latest viruses.

To each is own, a free antivirus program is better than not having one
at all.

Visit http://www.symantec.com/nav/nav_9xnt/features.html and compare
it with the free antivirus programs you are considering. You'll find they
lack several security features that make Norton a sound choice.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|
| Thanks for the recommendations, Alex. I was using the free version of ZA,
| but uninstalled it as it was somehow in conflict with my hardware firewall
| and was not allowing NG or email messages larger than 1 kb to "get out". I
| understand that the pro version will work with my firewall, and is, in fact,
| configurable from within the firewall settings. I just haven't gotten around
| to checking out which software firewall I would be willing to pay for.
| I agree with your assessment of NAV, as I've experienced much of the
| disruption to which you refer, which is why I'm "trawling" for
| recommendations. Thanks for yours!
|
| mxh

 

[Guest]

AGV is free download, simple and needs no subscription.

----- mxh wrote: -----

I'm looking for recommendations for an anti-virus program. Is NAV still the
best one? How does NAV 2004 stack up? Does it eat up resources? All
recommendations appreciated.

Thanks,
Max

 

[kurttrail]

Norton Antivirus versions 2002, 2003, and 2004 are vastly different
and consume far less computing resources than old versions of Norton.
I have tried virtually all the free antivirus programs, but they all
caused a performance crippling effect on my own PC. When I bit
the bullet and purchased the newer version of Norton, I was quite
pleased with its performance and the fact it will automatically update
its virus definitions to defend against the very latest viruses.

To each is own, a free antivirus program is better than not having one
at all.

Visit http://www.symantec.com/nav/nav_9xnt/features.html and compare
it with the free antivirus programs you are considering. You'll find
they lack several security features that make Norton a sound choice.

I'm sure it's totally unbiased.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Locoweed]

Read this

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml

Can one of the AVG supporters explain why it did so bad?

 

[Shane]

I had no such problems with NAV 2001 and only stopped using it because
Symantec stopped supporting it. I was already using AVG on other systems and
it's good enough if used sensibly and none of them are good enough if not
used sensibly (ie with Safe Hex).


Shane

 

[Bill Drake]

There are now *five* parts to Anti-Virus protection:

1. Real-time scan of executables to stop virus-activity
occurring as part of "normal" system operation

2. Incoming E-mail scan to prevent infected e-mails
coming onto the system

3. Outgoing E-mail scan to prevent propagation of
worm-style infections

4. Script-blocking to intercept stealth-scripted
activity such as Macro viruses

5. Boot-sector-infection protection


It is common for some Anti-virus products to avoid
Item-1 activity because of performance degradation.
However, I do *not* recommend a Virus-Protection
solution which avoids this important component.

Older Anti-Virus products do not contain the ability
to perform Item-3 functions. This is now required
in order to prevent yourself from being a vector for
worm-propagation.

Some Anti-Virus products do not fully intercept
Macro-virus activity "on the fly" as part of normal
virus-blocking functionality. I do *not* recommend
a Virus-Protection solution which avoids this
component -- especially in a Corporate environment
with extensive sharing of Microsoft Office documents.



Along with the above "standard" components of a
competent Anti-Virus package -- there are other
needed items as well.

1. Spam-Filtering, with both signature-based and
Bayesian (self-learning) filtering procedures.

2. Popup Blocking, again with both signature-based
and user-defined filtering procedures.

3. Browser-Help-Object (Spyware) Blocking, with
both signature-based and "suspicious activity
monitoring" detection procedures.


None of the above are common features in "free"
Anti-Virus packages. Regardless, a competent
security-scheme *requires* these abilities.


Any Anti-Virus/Spam/Spyware package worth consideration
needs an automatic-update procedure built-in. This procedure
needs to update *all* the various signature-databases and
their engines *automatically* as part of a competent
security-scheme that can be administered by mere mortals.

Currently, the only package-set of which I am aware that
encompasses *all-of-the-above* is the combination of
Norton SystemWorks and Norton Internet Security 2004.



Caveats and "gotchas":

1. It is *impossible* to perform real-time security-scanning
without an impact on Computer System performance.

Users of marginal systems (low CPU horsepower and/or
insufficient memory) need to upgrade their systems so
they have the necessary capability to allow real-time
scanning to have a minimal impact on their real-world
usage patterns.

2. Any software package which is able to "hook" itself into
the OS at the level required to monitor all the various
kinds of activity mentioned above is *going* to break if
MS monkeydiddle with the OS without *properly*
cross-coordinating their activity with the AV-protection
community.

Note: See the howls-of-outrage about the WXP Hotfix
problems in the windowsupdate newsgroup. A
lot of this is caused by miscommunication between
MS and the AV-protection community -- as has
been well-documented and proven with the
811493 package.

3. To handle the seemingly-inevitable screwups caused by
Item 2 above, the automatic-update procedure *must*
be able to update the engine-components as well as the
signature-databases on-the-fly. Furthermore, it must be
able to do so in a manner which does not compromise
the security of the machine while the update is in progress.

Performing the above process is neither simple nor
foolproof -- so "fixes to the fixes" must be accommodated
seamlessly as well.




Conclusion:

Users who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the above
requirements are *going* to get infected eventually.

Leaving holes in your security protection simply to avoid a
need to install sufficient RAM to let your AV, Anti-Spam and
Anti-Spyware packages "breathe" properly is simply foolish
at best and an indication of incompetence at worst.

Also, if you run your computer as a "toy" -- and you can
therefore afford to lose your machine intermittently as a
consequence of your own stupidity -- then it is possible to
take risks, knowing that you will get bitten eventually but
there is nothing on that machine of consequence so the
risk is acceptable.

However, if you run your computer as a "tool" -- then that
machine contains data that you *cannot* afford to lose.
This means an adequate security-scheme is not a luxury,
it is IMO a *vital requirement* for competent computing.




Best I can do for now. <tm>


Bill

 

[Tedd Riggs]

The only reasons I know of about AVG not doing so great. If you look at the
new versions of it (2003) they came thru fine.

Large complaint is the manual. AVG is a Czech. product and the manual was
converted to English mainly with the help of a Turkish person, so it does
not read as well as many glossy versions, but I had no problem

The free AVG usually gets great ratings, the paid version 7 does not get as
well as its sometimes very hard to get it to work with Outlook and OE.

Some complain it is slow, takes 17 mins on my PC, where Norton takes 15 mins
and Norman (from Norway, good program) takes 14. Virus full scan on two
drives.

Other then that, I usually only hear good things. They sure keep the thing
up to date as sometimes (like last week) I would get an update almost
everyday.
Tedd

 

[mxh]

There are now *five* parts to Anti-Virus protection:

1. Real-time scan of executables to stop virus-activity
occurring as part of "normal" system operation

2. Incoming E-mail scan to prevent infected e-mails
coming onto the system

3. Outgoing E-mail scan to prevent propagation of
worm-style infections

4. Script-blocking to intercept stealth-scripted
activity such as Macro viruses

5. Boot-sector-infection protection

Thanks for a comprehensive assessment on AV protection. AS you say further
on, it appears Norton is the only software manufacturer to meet all the
security requirements you list. And, while I agree with your assessment of
security needs, and having used Norton AV for several years, and also in
light of stability problems that many (including myself) have experienced
with Norton, I find Norton to be an unacceptable solution for my needs. This
especially in light of the information I have come across since posting.
Fortunately, since there are so many effective products available to address
these concerns, it is not necessary that I cover all security concerns with
just one product. All that remains is to research the product
recommendations I have received and decide which will most effectively meet
my needs.

Once again, thanks for the time and effort,
mxh