AVG... is it adequate protection?

[James]

I've read with some dismay, a number of posters here and elsewhere making
the claim that they had updated copies of AVG running and were still
infected with the Blaster worm. Is this true? Just how adequate is AVG? Is
it true that ultimately you get what you pay for? If this is the case, I'm
off to purchase a real anti-virus program. I'm looking for some answers.
Thanks.

 

[Mal]

I cant speak for this particular worm as I was fortunate enough to have been
able to secure my system before trouble set in.

However, I have used the free AVG for a year or so and (touch wood) I have
not had any problems with infections. It's picked up the odd nasty in a few
emails, so I am thinking it seems to do the job. Also, soon after the worm
made it's presence known, AVG did release an update. Again whether this was
effective against this blasted (pun intended !) worm I can't tell.

I also use the free firewall from Sygate.

I recently did a shields-up test from grc.com (because of this lastest worm)
and my system passed with flying colours, although that has nothing to do
with the AV.

Cheers
Mal
Oz

 

[Mal]

a P S to my previous post...

....I failed to mention that I get at least 150 spam mails a day, so I expect
some of those would contain virii. (BTW I use SpamBayes to weed those out,
IYAI).

Cheers again
Mal
Oz

 

[Mark Tangard]

Basically antivirus programs are set up to *detect* infections,
not to prevent them from reaching you. The difference with this
worm is that it's transmitted through the Internet connection
itself, not through the more usual channels (emails, attachments,
etc.) which is where AV programs have always taken aim, which is
why we're used to not "getting" viruses -- i.e., not letting them
take hold after they arrive.

That doesn't really apply in this case. To get rid of this worm,
the user needs to remove it, but to stay safe from it, he/she
needs to apply the security patch, not necessarily buy a better
AV program.

Granted, if these folks had up-to-date virus signature files and
scanned their machines and got back a clean bill of health when
they were actually infected, then yes, either the AV program was
deficient OR the signature files weren't as up to date as they
needed to be. But this still doesn't really incriminate the AV
program maker, since the patch to prevent the worm was available
a month ago.

 

[Alex Nichol]

I've read with some dismay, a number of posters here and elsewhere making
the claim that they had updated copies of AVG running and were still
infected with the Blaster worm. Is this true? Just how adequate is AVG?

AVG is good - but like the other AV programs it took to about Tuesday
before it had a defence direct against the worm. But in the nature of
the way that attacked, no AV was going to meet the initial infection,
only limit the damage. You *must* have the patch applied, and a
firewall preventing access from outside to the relevant port in the
communications(port 135 in this case)