Which Anti-Virus

[Jeff Grossman]

I am currently using Norton Anti-Virus 2004, but really need a change
from the Norton products. I was looking at Panda Anti-Virus. What
are the opinions out there of Panda? Or, what do people like?

Thanks,
Jeff

 

[Robert]

I use panda and I am very happy with it. In some computers I use titanium
(the only thing I don't like is that you can't schedule scans)
In my home computer I use platinum (includes firewall).
You can buy platinum on eBay really cheap (I never ordered from them before)
so be careful.

 

[Michel Doucet]

Bonjour *Jeff Grossman*, tu nous disais ce mardi 31/08/2004 vers
18:21:25 ce qui suit

I was looking at Panda Anti-Virus. What
are the opinions out there of Panda? Or, what do people like?

Hi,
I find Panda safe with a good live update .... people will tell you
that the scientology church receive money from the Panda management.
..... for me it's a very good antivirus

 

[xmp]

I use panda and I am very happy with it. In some computers I use titanium
(the only thing I don't like is that you can't schedule scans)
In my home computer I use platinum (includes firewall).
You can buy platinum on eBay really cheap (I never ordered from them before)
so be careful.

I've seen OEM panda at a couple of websites. Probably a bit safer.

I'm not clear on the legality of OEM vs retail, as all licenses vary.

michael

 

[NonDisputandum.com]

I am currently using Norton Anti-Virus 2004, but really need a change
from the Norton products. I was looking at Panda Anti-Virus. What
are the opinions out there of Panda? Or, what do people like?

Thanks,
Jeff

Panda is my favorite for an older or slower computer.
On a P4 with enough ram I prefer Norton.
more alternatives:
http://www.nondisputandum.com/html/antivirus___firewall.html
greetz

 

[snailmail222(valid)000]

I am currently using Norton Anti-Virus 2004, but really need a change
from the Norton products. I was looking at Panda Anti-Virus. What
are the opinions out there of Panda? Or, what do people like?

Thanks,
Jeff

If your on a Windows Platform and you didn't disable the services
Windows leaves open and install a firewall from the start of your
computer going online, then you can forget about any anti-virus
application. Trojan Horses and Backdoors appear easily on your computer
and they do disable your firewall and anti-virus application.

Tracker

 

[Dale Benjamin]

Tracker has been soundly denigrated on some
newsgroups. While there is some truth in the
reply, it is also true that if Norton Anti-Virus
says you're clean, you're OK, Norton gets real
good marks from the testers.

As previous replies assert, some people find Panda
OK. They get some good marks too.

I've tried Norton 2002 and 2004 Internet Security
with WinMe, there is a problem with the active
scanner of the AV that causes occasional crashes,
so I use other AV programs to do the active scan
bit, which is protecting the computer in between
runs of Norton scanning the whole machine.
Hopefully Symantec will get it fixed someday but
I've been holding my breath for 6 months now I
think.

See
http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115939,pg,5,00.asp

There are pandas and more pandas, several versions
of anti-virus programs are available from most
vendors.

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,115939,pg,5,00.asp
may provide a more in depth evaluation.


"snailmail222(valid)000"

 

[optikl]

Tracker has been soundly denigrated on some
newsgroups. While there is some truth in the
reply, it is also true that if Norton Anti-Virus
says you're clean, you're OK, Norton gets real
good marks from the testers.

I wouldn't bet my mortgage payment on that. Any anti-virus is only as
effective as its latest cache of signature files. No product is 100%
accurate 100% of the time. At the very best, you might assign a low
percentage of risk if NAV says you're clean; unless of course you
"suspect" otherwise based on the way your computer is behaving.

As previous replies assert, some people find Panda
OK. They get some good marks too.

Same comments apply.

 

[Dale Benjamin]

True. Never bet on free advice. In fact, avoid betting in any form
possible.

No evaluation should be accepted at face value, Norton and McAffee may be
getting good grades because the evaluations were skewed to favor big money
advertisers. I still haven't really checked out the ICSA or VB to my
entire satisfaction, both appear to be corporations with all that entails.
But it's one interest group or another, I reckon. Anybody have any better
suggestions, please advise?

 

[optikl]

True. Never bet on free advice. In fact, avoid betting in any form
possible.

No evaluation should be accepted at face value, Norton and McAffee may be
getting good grades because the evaluations were skewed to favor big money
advertisers. I still haven't really checked out the ICSA or VB to my
entire satisfaction, both appear to be corporations with all that entails.
But it's one interest group or another, I reckon. Anybody have any better
suggestions, please advise?

My advice would be to treat the tests performed by ICSA and VB for what
they are; benchmarking. Certainly, the results you see from the VB
comparatives aren't influenced by advertisers. On the other hand, if you
assume because product x routinely gets 100% scores in these benchmarks,
that because product x scans your system and says it's clean, it is,
well, then you've just lowered your defenses. Example, I found two files
on a system my daughter was using that the darling of the VB
comparatives said were Kosher. I suspected at least one wasn't, as the
firewall I installed on that system told me it wanted internet
privileges. So, I sent both files to eset, Symantec and TrendMicro (to
be fair, SAV and TIS said these files were Kosher, too). Turns out, I
received a reply back from all three saying one was a variant of sdbot
and the other was a loader.

 

[null]

My advice would be to treat the tests performed by ICSA and VB for what
they are; benchmarking. Certainly, the results you see from the VB
comparatives aren't influenced by advertisers. On the other hand, if you
assume because product x routinely gets 100% scores in these benchmarks,
that because product x scans your system and says it's clean, it is,
well, then you've just lowered your defenses. Example, I found two files
on a system my daughter was using that the darling of the VB
comparatives said were Kosher. I suspected at least one wasn't, as the
firewall I installed on that system told me it wanted internet
privileges. So, I sent both files to eset, Symantec and TrendMicro (to
be fair, SAV and TIS said these files were Kosher, too). Turns out, I
received a reply back from all three saying one was a variant of sdbot
and the other was a loader.

To add to this, I'm going to paste the result of a little test I ran
recently. I was curious about what scanners would have to say about
twelve files in particular I found recently in circulation which are
most probably viable malwares. They were uploaded individually to:

http://www.virustotal.com/flash/index_en.html

Here's the result:

File 1.
BitDefender found nothing
ClamWin found nothing
eTrustAV-Inoc found nothing
Kaspersky found [Trojan.Win32.VB.kz]
McAfee found [AdClicker-AO]
NOD32 found nothing
Norman found nothing
Panda found [Spyware/Adclicker]
Sybari found [Trojan.Win32.VB.kz]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found nothing

File 2.
BitDefender found [Trojan.Dropper.Small.GT]
ClamWin found [Trojan.Dropper.Small-8]
eTrustAV-Inoc found nothing
Kaspersky found [TrojanDropper.Win32.Small.gt]
McAfee found nothing
NOD32 found [Win32/TrojanDropper.Small.GT]
Norman found nothing
Panda found [Adware/NetPals]
Sybari found [TrojanDropper.Win32.Small.gt]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found nothing

File 3.
BitDefender found [Backdoor.Hackarmy.1.Gen]
ClamWin found [Trojan.Hackarmy.gen-4]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [Backdoor/AZV.Variant]
Kaspersky found [Backdoor.Hackarmy.gen]
McAfee found [BackDoor-AZV]
NOD32 found [Win32/Hackarmy.AE]
Norman found [W32/Hackarmy.Z]
Panda found [Bck/HackArmy.T]
Sybari found [W32/Hackarmy.]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found nothing

File 4.
BitDefender found [JS.Dword.dropper]
ClamWin found [Trojan.JS.RunMe]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [JScript/IE.VM.Exploit]
Kaspersky found [Exploit.CodeBaseExec]
McAfee found [JS/IllWill]
NOD32 found [Win32/IE.Dword unknown infection
type (Exploit)]
Norman found [HTML/Bagle.AI@mm]
Panda found [JS/Illwill.A]
Sybari found [JS/IllWill]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [HTML_BAGLE.AC]

File 5.
BitDefender found [Win32.MyDoom.S@mm]
ClamWin found [Worm.Mydoom.S]
eTrustAV-Inoc found nothing
Kaspersky found [I-Worm.Mydoom.q]
McAfee found [W32/Mydoom.s@MM]
NOD32 found [Win32/Mydoom.T]
Norman found [MyDoom.M@mm]
Panda found [W32/Mydoom.R.worm]
Sybari found [Win32.Mydoom.S]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [WORM_RATOS.A]

File 6.
BitDefender found [HTML.NoWarn]
ClamWin found [HTML.Nowarn]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [VBS/1nternal.Worm]
Kaspersky found [HTML.NoWarn.b]
McAfee found [VBS/NoWarning.b]
NOD32 found [probably unknown SCRIPT]
Norman found [VBS/Internal.1921]
Panda found [VBS/Internal.A]
Sybari found [HTML.NoWarn.b]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [VBS_INTERNAL.E]

File 7.
BitDefender found [HTML.NoWarn.a]
ClamWin found [HTML.Nowarn]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [VBS/1nternal.Worm]
Kaspersky found [HTML.NoWarn.a]
McAfee found [VBS/NoWarning.a]
NOD32 found [probably unknown SCRIPT]
Norman found [VBS/Internal.1919]
Panda found [VBS/Internal.A]
Sybari found [VBS/NoWarn-A]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [VBS_INTERNAL.D]

File 8.
BitDefender found [VBS.Internal.A]
ClamWin found [HTML.Prep]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [VBS/Off]
Kaspersky found [HTML.Internal]
McAfee found [VBS/HTMLP.1670]
NOD32 found [probably unknown SCRIPT]
Norman found [VBS/Internal.1670]
Panda found [VBS/Internal.A]
Sybari found [VBS.Prepend.A]
Symantec found [VBS.Prepend]
TrendMicro found [VBS_INTERNAL.A]

File 9.
BitDefender found [VBS.Internal.B]
ClamWin found [VBS.Internal.B]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [VBS/Off]
Kaspersky found [HTML.Internal.c]
McAfee found [VBS/Redinal]
NOD32 found [probably unknown SCRIPT]
Norman found [VBS/Internal.1152.B]
Panda found [VBS/Internal.C]
Sybari found [VBS/Off]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [VBS_INTERNAL.B]

File 10.
BitDefender found [HTML.Umbriel.A]
ClamWin found [HTML.Umbriel.A]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [VBS/Umbriel.Trojan]
Kaspersky found [HTML.Fpumb]
McAfee found [Bat.ow/btg]
NOD32 found [VBS/Briel.A]
Norman found nothing
Panda found [Trj/Umbriel.A]
Sybari found [Bat.ow/btg]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [HTML_UMBRIEL.A]

File 11.
BitDefender found [Trojan.Downloader.Rameh.C]
ClamWin found [Trojan.Downloader.Rameh-1]
eTrustAV-Inoc found nothing
Kaspersky found [TrojanDownloader.Win32.Rameh.c]
McAfee found nothing
NOD32 found [Win32/TrojanDownloader.Rameh.C]
Norman found nothing
Panda found [Adware/NetPals]
Sybari found [TrojanDownloader.Win32.Rameh.c]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found nothing

File 12.
BitDefender found nothing
ClamWin found [Worm.SomeFool.Gen-2]
eTrustAV-Inoc found [Win32/Netsky.B.Zip.Worm]
Kaspersky found [I-Worm.NetSky.b]
McAfee found [W32/Netsky.b.eml!zip]
NOD32 found nothing
Norman found nothing
Panda found nothing
Sybari found [I-Worm.NetSky.b]
Symantec found nothing
TrendMicro found [WORM_NETSKY.B]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In particular, I thought that eleven "nothings" from NAV (Symantec) is
an awful lot of "nothings"


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

 

[Dale Benjamin]

Could you also try AVG and AntiVir Free editions and see how they do,
please?