Avira AntiVir Question

[dale]

I've been a Kaspersky user for several years, but the SW is becoming
more expensive for my two WinXP systems. I've been looking at AntiVir
as a possible replacement, since it consistently gets high marks in
AV-Comparatives tests.

My only concern is the lack of security measures to prevent disabling
it. Both Kav and Nod32 keep this from happening. Is this an
important feature? Or just fluff?

Dale

 

[MaHaBone]

I've been a Kaspersky user for several years, but the SW is becoming
more expensive for my two WinXP systems.

AOL's Active Virus Shield is powered by Kaspersky engine and is free.
http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp?
(Opt for NOT downloading the toolbar)

MaHaBone

 

[Dale]

AOL's Active Virus Shield is powered by Kaspersky engine and is free.
http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp?
(Opt for NOT downloading the toolbar)

MaHaBone

Since AOL's Kaspersky engine is missing two of Kaspersky's features,
HTTP traffic scanner and "Proactive Protection" (several unique
features), can they really be considered equal? Of course, it looks
like Avira does not have these features either.

dale

 

[Garrapata]

AOL's Active Virus Shield is powered by Kaspersky engine and is free.
http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp?
(Opt for NOT downloading the toolbar)

But you can't opt out of agreeing to receive spam

 

[Bullseye]

Since AOL's Kaspersky engine is missing two of Kaspersky's features,
HTTP traffic scanner and "Proactive Protection" (several unique
features), can they really be considered equal? Of course, it looks
like Avira does not have these features either.

dale

I've used both and they are far from equal. AOL AVS is a signature scanner,
and that's about it. Granted, it is probably the best signature scanner of
all the free AV's, but the actual Kaspersky AV's features are not even
comparable to AVS - are way beyond its capabilities. I've also used Avira
and found it to be very 'buggy' and extremely prone to false positives. If
I had to choose between Avira and AOL AVS, AVS is my pick. Right now, I am
using the KIV beta and am very pleased with it. However, like you, I'm not
sure I want to pay seventy bucks for the actual version. Once my beta trial
runs out, I imagine I will go back to AVS, as I really don't care for any
of thte other free AV's.

 

[dale]

I've used both and they are far from equal. AOL AVS is a signature scanner,
and that's about it. Granted, it is probably the best signature scanner of
all the free AV's, but the actual Kaspersky AV's features are not even
comparable to AVS - are way beyond its capabilities. I've also used Avira
and found it to be very 'buggy' and extremely prone to false positives. If
I had to choose between Avira and AOL AVS, AVS is my pick. Right now, I am
using the KIV beta and am very pleased with it. However, like you, I'm not
sure I want to pay seventy bucks for the actual version. Once my beta trial
runs out, I imagine I will go back to AVS, as I really don't care for any
of thte other free AV's.

Thanks for your assessment. I purchased a copy of Avira Antivir
Personal Premium a while back. I've not had any issues with it, other
than my concern that it is so easy to disable. While KAV may miss a
few malwares that Avira finds, I still haven't found anything that is
the overall equal to KAV.

Dale

 

[MaHaBone]

I purchased a copy of Avira Antivir Personal Premium a while back.

Interesting write-up from Gary S. Terhune, MS MVP Shell/User.

Somebody asked:
Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other ones
?
---
Quote:
Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability to scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than some of
the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even Trend Micro in
some packages, are among the most *inefficient* applications out
there,whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings are among the most
efficient.
After that, it's a question of the definitions used, and whether or not
they're free has absolutely no bearing on those stats.
Understand, many of the best offerings are offered to home users for free by
huge companies that make their money serving business and industry
clients,and their logic is that the more home machines they can get
protected,preventing them from becoming zombies that distribute malware, the
better off business and industry are.
--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
Unquote.

 

[Dale]

Interesting write-up from Gary S. Terhune, MS MVP Shell/User.

Somebody asked:
Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other
ones ?
---
Quote:
Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability to
scan accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of
the computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than
some of the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even
Trend Micro in some packages, are among the most *inefficient*
applications out there,whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings are
among the most efficient.
After that, it's a question of the definitions used, and whether or not
they're free has absolutely no bearing on those stats.
Understand, many of the best offerings are offered to home users for
free by huge companies that make their money serving business and
industry clients,and their logic is that the more home machines they can
get protected,preventing them from becoming zombies that distribute
malware, the better off business and industry are.

That is certainly a very valid reason for providing good, and free,
anti-virus SW. I had not thought about it. Makes good sense.

Dale

 

[Bullseye]

Interesting write-up from Gary S. Terhune, MS MVP Shell/User.

Somebody asked:
Do you think that the free AV can be really as efficient that the other ones
?
---
Quote:
Absolutely. In fact, when it comes to real efficiency, the ability to scan
accurately for viruses without getting in the way of the rest of the
computer's functions, some of the free ones are more efficient than some of
the most expensive. For instance, Norton and McAfee, and even Trend Micro in
some packages, are among the most *inefficient* applications out
there,whereas Avast!, AVG, and other free offerings are among the most
efficient.
After that, it's a question of the definitions used, and whether or not
they're free has absolutely no bearing on those stats.
Understand, many of the best offerings are offered to home users for free by
huge companies that make their money serving business and industry
clients,and their logic is that the more home machines they can get
protected,preventing them from becoming zombies that distribute malware, the
better off business and industry are.

Very good point. What is the use of having an antivirus app if it affects
your system worse than the malware would in some cases? Apps like Norton
take over your system and can slow it to a crawl as well as cause conflicts
with a lot of software.