sav or avg

[badgolferman]

I know Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is not freeware but if you had
access to it for installation on your personal computer for FREE, would you
make it the resident scanner over AVG?

Since my company lets us install it on our home computers I have been using
it on a W2K system and have had no problems. In addition the AV rating
sites don't seem to have that high an opinion of AVG or some of the other
popular ones talked about here.

As much as most here hate Symantec, it seems to me the big commercial AV
makers have the resources and the ability to get out definition files
faster. Besides, some may say they create the viruses in the first place to
generate all this business!!!

 

[FYIS.org/estore]

In badgolferman posted:

I know Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is not freeware but if
you had access to it for installation on your personal computer for
FREE, would you make it the resident scanner over AVG?

Since my company lets us install it on our home computers I have been
using it on a W2K system and have had no problems. In addition the
AV rating sites don't seem to have that high an opinion of AVG or
some of the other popular ones talked about here.

As much as most here hate Symantec, it seems to me the big commercial
AV makers have the resources and the ability to get out definition
files faster. Besides, some may say they create the viruses in the
first place to generate all this business!!!

See
AV-Testing Done Right
http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa112801a.htm
AV-Test.org examined twenty antivirus products on each of the
following platforms: Microsoft® Windows 95/98, NT/2000, XP, and ME.
Testing included detection of ITW viruses with both the on-access
(realtime) and on-demand (manual, requested) scanners as well as
on-demand detection of 37,850 Zoo viruses. Based on the detection
results, five products
http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm were
chosen as being the best antivirus software for home use.

AntiVirus Software detection results
http://www.hackfix.org/miscfix/icons-av-A_M.shtml
AVG = 64% on 10/21/03
NAV = 95% on 10/24/03
(it appears false positives are not listed in these results)

DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our www.FYIS.org/estore
Need a different Christmas card this holiday season?
www.FYIS.org/xmascards

 

[Gonzo]

I know Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is not freeware but if you
had access to it for installation on your personal computer for FREE,
would you make it the resident scanner over AVG?

Since my company lets us install it on our home computers I have been
using it on a W2K system and have had no problems. In addition the AV
rating sites don't seem to have that high an opinion of AVG or some of
the other popular ones talked about here.

As much as most here hate Symantec, it seems to me the big commercial
AV makers have the resources and the ability to get out definition
files faster. Besides, some may say they create the viruses in the
first place to generate all this business!!!

I am in the USAF, and we have a site license thatallows us to use both
Norton AV and McAfee AV. I am the Work Group Manager and resident geek of
my office, and have the "prfessional" geeks (our network guys) call me for
advice. I still use AVG at home on all my computers.

I found that Norton (I refuse to use McAfee after seeing ow ineffective it
was when a virus swept the base...my office was using Norton and was not
infected) was bloated and used too many resources. My computers at home
range from an old P133 with 64mb of ram (good for some old games,
websurfing and word processing), to a couple of PIII's. I have yet to be
infected with a virus, and keep several AVs installed for selective
scanning. My wife and I practice safe hex when online and fare a heck of a
lot better than others we know who do not practice safe hex.

Gonzo

 

[YoKenny]

In badgolferman posted:

See
AV-Testing Done Right
http://antivirus.about.com/library/weekly/aa112801a.htm
AV-Test.org examined twenty antivirus products on each of the
following platforms: Microsoft. Windows 95/98, NT/2000, XP, and ME.
Testing included detection of ITW viruses with both the on-access
(realtime) and on-demand (manual, requested) scanners as well as
on-demand detection of 37,850 Zoo viruses. Based on the detection
results, five products
http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm were
chosen as being the best antivirus software for home use.

AntiVirus Software detection results
http://www.hackfix.org/miscfix/icons-av-A_M.shtml
AVG = 64% on 10/21/03
NAV = 95% on 10/24/03
(it appears false positives are not listed in these results)

AVG reference files have been updated several times since this report.

"With AVG, you will get the high-end software solution for reliable
protection against the threat of computer viruses. This software product is
equipped with revolutionary technologies like Virus Stalker and Active
Modular Core.
Supports: Win95/98/ME/NT/2K/XP"
http://www.hackfix.org/software/antivirus.html#avg

Interesting reading:
http://www.hackfix.org/software/configure/avg.html

 

[Duddits]

I know Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is not freeware but if you had
access to it for installation on your personal computer for FREE, would you
make it the resident scanner over AVG?

Yes.

Dud

 

[FYIS.org/estore]

In YoKenny posted:

AVG reference files have been updated several times since this report.

And the detection result comparison analyses after the latest
reference file updates are at URL ... ?

DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our www.FYIS.org/estore
Need a different Christmas card this holiday season?
www.FYIS.org/xmascards

 

[bambam]

I am in the USAF, and we have a site license thatallows us to use
both Norton AV and McAfee AV. I am the Work Group Manager and
resident geek of my office, and have the "prfessional" geeks (our
network guys) call me for advice. I still use AVG at home on all
my computers.

I found that Norton (I refuse to use McAfee after seeing ow
ineffective it was when a virus swept the base...my office was
using Norton and was not infected) was bloated and used too many
resources. My computers at home range from an old P133 with 64mb
of ram (good for some old games, websurfing and word processing),
to a couple of PIII's. I have yet to be infected with a virus,
and keep several AVs installed for selective scanning. My wife
and I practice safe hex when online and fare a heck of a lot
better than others we know who do not practice safe hex.

I like it when someone uses common sense, well done Gonzo. The best
virus scanner we have is the one between our ears. Mind you, if
the between the ears scanner isn't to good, then maybe a *pay for do
it all scanner* is appropriate.

 

[D.R]

I know Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition is not freeware but if you had
access to it for installation on your personal computer for FREE, would you
make it the resident scanner over AVG?

Since my company lets us install it on our home computers I have been using
it on a W2K system and have had no problems. In addition the AV rating
sites don't seem to have that high an opinion of AVG or some of the other
popular ones talked about here.

As much as most here hate Symantec, it seems to me the big commercial AV
makers have the resources and the ability to get out definition files
faster. Besides, some may say they create the viruses in the first place to
generate all this business!!!

Put me down for a vote for SAV. Athough nasty
licensing, product activation, and some serious
bugs, when working properly, it's the best
protection there is. I know people with AVG
where the AVG didn't pick up the viruses that
pc came infected with.

 

[Mikey]

Hi;
Let the SITES rant and rave any-which-way-but-loose.

I wouldn't even crack any box from "S" open much less install even a simple
notepad type of app. from them even if I got paid for it.

It was way different a few years back.
So far goes the mistrust of their current bloated ways.

HundredS of entries under different titles, names and name them in the
Regisry!
A bunch of them left splatterred all-over after deinstalls.
They have the expertise NOT to do do.
Why..?


If AVG wasn't available for free (v.6.x.x) and I couldn't afford the $ or if
it really turned into even 10% of the "dog" I've seen it branded as, I'd
switch without any hesitation.
Didn't happen yet.

Always ON pre-processing of messages as in: "prescreening of eMails" is for
the many that studied the intrigacies put quite blunty: "nothing to brag
about".

Been here and there and everywhere and not ONE beasty made it thru and
survived to spread the word.
I'm not saying it could not happen in the next 5 secs.
It just didn't...yet.

In all the years that clients and friends (same $0.00 price for all
qualified individuals) have run the AVG program not ONE of hundreds came
back cursing the advice. Ten of thousands of $$$ saved.

That earns a "best of breed".

That is good enough and leave-it-in-there-anytime.
It fits the bill.
Mikey

 

[Paul Blarmy]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:04:06 -0500, badgolferman wrote...

Since my company lets us install it on our home computers

You mean that they have given you one of the licenses that they have paid
for, rather than just letting you take home the installation CD - don't
you?

 

[badgolferman]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:04:06 -0500, badgolferman wrote...


You mean that they have given you one of the licenses that they have
paid for, rather than just letting you take home the installation CD
- don't you?

What I mean is:
Knowing employees work from home and transfer files back and forth to work,
they have allowed us to download via FTP to our personal computers the
paid-for version of SAV 8.1 to prevent nasty files from infecting work
computers. How the licenses are handled is not my concern. Since I work on
a government installation I suspect there are ways to accomplish this
objective.

 

[Rob]

FYIS.org/estore wrote:
home use.

AntiVirus Software detection results
http://www.hackfix.org/miscfix/icons-av-A_M.shtml
AVG = 64% on 10/21/03
NAV = 95% on 10/24/03
(it appears false positives are not listed in these results)

This report has nothing to do with virus detection but the detection of
Trojans. Many AV products do a poor job at Trojan detection.

Better to look here --
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/labs.shtml and here
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200311

The above two sites is where most professionals looks when evaluating AV
solutions.

AVG passed at both sites with flying colours!

Rob

 

[FYIS.org/estore]

In Rob posted:

FYIS.org/estore wrote:
home use.

This report has nothing to do with virus detection but the detection
of Trojans. Many AV products do a poor job at Trojan detection.

Better to look here --
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/labs.shtml and
here http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200311

The above two sites is where most professionals looks when evaluating
AV solutions.

AVG passed at both sites with flying colours!

Rob

ROTFLMAO!
If 64% detection makes you happy, that's fine with me.

DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our www.FYIS.org/estore
Need a different Christmas card this holiday season?
www.FYIS.org/xmascards

 

[Rob]

In Rob posted:

ROTFLMAO!
If 64% detection makes you happy, that's fine with me.

DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our www.FYIS.org/estore
Need a different Christmas card this holiday season?
www.FYIS.org/xmascards

The 64% detection rate is VERY VERY misleading. It would appear that the
author of the website only tested various AV products against a very SMALL
handful of Trojans (and NO viruses). Out of the thousands of Trojans, I do
not know why he choose these.

With such a small set of Trojans being tested, it would be VERY easy to
skew the results one way or other. E.G. If one choose another small set of
trojans, you could make NAV look very bad and AVG look great.

The report says nothing about the detection rates of the various AV programs
for detecting VIRUSES!

IMHO, the report on the website would be much more meaningful if the AV
products were being tested for the detection of a much larger set of
Trojans. It would also be more meaningful if the AV products were being
tested for detection of VIRUSES! After all, the main purpose of a AV
program is to detect viruses!

Rob

 

[null]

The report says nothing about the detection rates of the various AV programs
for detecting VIRUSES!

IMHO, the report on the website would be much more meaningful if the AV
products were being tested for the detection of a much larger set of
Trojans. It would also be more meaningful if the AV products were being
tested for detection of VIRUSES! After all, the main purpose of a AV
program is to detect viruses!

Nevertheless, Trojans have become a part of some of the tests done
done at Uni Magdeburg. I don't have urls handy right now, but some of
these past all-inclusive tests have been very revealing. From memory,
I believe as many as eleven antivirus products detected over 99% of
the more than 6,000 Trojans used. There is no doubt that the term
antiVIRUS is antiquated. The term antiMALWARE is far more accurate
than antivirus nowdays, at least for the leading products.
Furthermore, in a different test at the same agency a couple of years
back, where several leading Trojan specific products were pitted
against several antivirus products, the latter were clearly far
superior for both ITW (In The Wild) and zoo Trojans.

Some fairly popular av products though are distinctly lousy in the
Trojan catecgory. AVG and NOD32 are two examples. The best overall
antimalware products are KAV and McAfee ... plus the products that use
the KAV scan engine such as F-Secure.

There is another broad category which includes controversialware that
both KAV and McAfee have a capability of detecting as well. I dunno
off hand how much overlap there is here with the spyware that, say,
Spybot and AdAware focus on. It's certainly best to use the spyware
scanners as well. But OTOH, when it comes to porn dialers, joke
programs, and controversialware it's also best to use a top notch
antimalware product. By "controversialware" I mean the many programs
that do exactly what they say they will do, and thus aren't Trojans,
but which many people will view as "bad" or malicious. Some port
scanners, backdoors and spying software fall into this category.


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

 

[Rob]

Nevertheless, Trojans have become a part of some of the tests done
done at Uni Magdeburg. I don't have urls handy right now, but some of
these past all-inclusive tests have been very revealing. From memory,
I believe as many as eleven antivirus products detected over 99% of
the more than 6,000 Trojans used. There is no doubt that the term
antiVIRUS is antiquated. The term antiMALWARE is far more accurate
than antivirus nowdays, at least for the leading products.
Furthermore, in a different test at the same agency a couple of years
back, where several leading Trojan specific products were pitted
against several antivirus products, the latter were clearly far
superior for both ITW (In The Wild) and zoo Trojans.

Some fairly popular av products though are distinctly lousy in the
Trojan catecgory. AVG and NOD32 are two examples. The best overall
antimalware products are KAV and McAfee ... plus the products that use
the KAV scan engine such as F-Secure.

There is another broad category which includes controversialware that
both KAV and McAfee have a capability of detecting as well. I dunno
off hand how much overlap there is here with the spyware that, say,
Spybot and AdAware focus on. It's certainly best to use the spyware
scanners as well. But OTOH, when it comes to porn dialers, joke
programs, and controversialware it's also best to use a top notch
antimalware product. By "controversialware" I mean the many programs
that do exactly what they say they will do, and thus aren't Trojans,
but which many people will view as "bad" or malicious. Some port
scanners, backdoors and spying software fall into this category.


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

I agree with you Art that Trojans are becoming more and more of a problem.
Unfortunately many AV products do a poor job at Trojan detection. To my
knowledge, there is not one good independent organisation that does a
thorough test of all AV (or anti malware) programs for detecting and
cleaning BOTH viruses and Trojans.

IMHO, the best line of defence is to practice safe computing practices.
The second line of defence is to use multiple AV products. I would not rely
on any one product to protect you against all the viruses and trojans out
there. But if you had to rely on just one, KAV is one of the best.

As far as freeware is concerned, AVG is your best bet for a background AV
scanner -- along with using F-PROT, ANTIDOTE and Trend's free AV scanner
for on-demand scanning.

For spyware, Spybot and Adaware are great. (They even detect some trojans!)

Rob

 

[Rob]

Oh yes I forgot to add that if one are really paranoid about security, he
(or she) should dump Windows and use another IS like MacOS or Linux. They
are more secure and there are fewer viruses out there that target these
OS's.

Rob