"Old fashioned" AV software wanted

[David Segall]

I am looking for some anti-virus software that does not run any
processes on my computer and that will run only when scheduled via the
Win XP scheduler. Scheduled updates would be a plus but are not
necessary. I need to be able to specify the directories scanned
because a full scan takes more time than I have available. Price is a
consideration but the program need not be free.

 

[Hal]

ClamAV is perfectly suited to something like this (www.clamav.net) and
is open source. For windows, I would recommend the ClamWin port
(www.clamwin.net).

Thanks,

Hal

 

[Art]

I am looking for some anti-virus software that does not run any
processes on my computer and that will run only when scheduled via the
Win XP scheduler. Scheduled updates would be a plus but are not
necessary. I need to be able to specify the directories scanned
because a full scan takes more time than I have available. Price is a
consideration but the program need not be free.

Try the Beta of VBA32 console version for Windows:

http://www.anti-virus.by/en/

or if you want the best, try KAV version 3.5.133 from the Swiss site:

http://www.avp.ch

though I don't know how well it plays with XP (works fine on Win 2K).

Bit Defender free version is another good av:

http://www.bitdefender.com/

Do yourself a favor and avoid clamwin like the plague.

Art

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

 

[Heather]

I am looking for some anti-virus software that does not run any
processes on my computer and that will run only when scheduled via the
Win XP scheduler. Scheduled updates would be a plus but are not
necessary. I need to be able to specify the directories scanned
because a full scan takes more time than I have available. Price is a
consideration but the program need not be free.

David......see my post to you and Ian. EZ Trust can be downloaded as a free
one-year trial and I have turned off Email Scanning on it. It updates
automatically every day or so. Or you can schedule them.

Cheers......Heather

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Hal" <[email protected]>

| ClamAV is perfectly suited to something like this (www.clamav.net) and
| is open source. For windows, I would recommend the ClamWin port
| (www.clamwin.net).
|
| Thanks,
|
| Hal

But has a limited library at approx. 20 ~25% of other AV vendors.

 

[Shadow]

Do yourself a favor and avoid clamwin like the plague.

There are two clamwins. A very good, solid, stable one, and a
port that constantly crashes the PC and runs with cygwin.

The stable one is here:
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/clamwin/clamwin-0.86.2-setup.exe

Frequent updates. Very stable. Free.
[]'s

 

[Art]

There are two clamwins. A very good, solid, stable one, and a
port that constantly crashes the PC and runs with cygwin.

Stable or not, clam detection doesn't compare favorably to "real"
antivirus scanner products ... both free and non-free. 40,000 sigs is
a long way from the 100,000 to 150,00 other av detect.

Art

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

 

[Shadow]

Stable or not, clam detection doesn't compare favorably to "real"
antivirus scanner products ... both free and non-free. 40,000 sigs is
a long way from the 100,000 to 150,00 other av detect.

Art

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

But if you run avast home as an on-access scanner, and f-prot
linux as a remote scanner, and clamwin as a
right-click-scan-directory, you are pretty well covered. No single AV
gets them all. Clamwin caught 3 javascripts/spyware installers that
the others did not
[]'s

 

[ZaneK]

ClamAV has worked well for me.

Incidentally, Email Battles has just posted an interview
(http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/virus_aabejfhaib_ag/) with
Clam founder Tomasz Kojm in which he discusses running Clam on Windows:

"Although there are ports of ClamAV to desktop systems, they cannot
effectively compete with commercial alternatives and provide sufficient
protection against viruses."

 

[Art]

ClamAV has worked well for me.

Incidentally, Email Battles has just posted an interview
(http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/virus_aabejfhaib_ag/) with
Clam founder Tomasz Kojm in which he discusses running Clam on Windows:

"Although there are ports of ClamAV to desktop systems, they cannot
effectively compete with commercial alternatives and provide sufficient
protection against viruses."

Precisely. So why bother with the silly thing There are many free
alternatives that offer far better detection.

Art

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

 

[ZaneK]

Actually, ClamAV works quite reliably under Linux.

Every tool has its place. I use ClamAV to filter out viruses before
they reach my Windows mail server where they can cause real damage.

Mr. Kojm was simply saying that a lot of work would need to be done for
ClamAV to be used for on-access scanning in Windows.

Please read the whole article
(http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/virus_aabejfhaib _ag/) for
the full context.

 

[Art]

Actually, ClamAV works quite reliably under Linux.

Every tool has its place. I use ClamAV to filter out viruses before
they reach my Windows mail server where they can cause real damage.

Mr. Kojm was simply saying that a lot of work would need to be done for
ClamAV to be used for on-access scanning in Windows.

And I'm saying a lot of work needs to be done before it's competitive
as a on-demand scanner for Windows.

Art

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

 

[Roger Wilco]

Actually, ClamAV works quite reliably under Linux.

Every tool has its place. I use ClamAV to filter out viruses before
they reach my Windows mail server where they can cause real damage.

Used as intended, I hear it is very good.

Mr. Kojm was simply saying that a lot of work would need to be done for
ClamAV to be used for on-access scanning in Windows.

More than that, the porting to other than *nix isn't the only
consideration. There is a difference between desktops and servers
running in support of "e-mail". Clam is aimed at "e-mail vector malware"
(an admittedly large subset of all malware) for use on servers as
opposed to the desktop AV which attempts to be more comprehensive.