Wich is the best anti-virus program?

[Leif]

I know this question prbably is asked a thousand times, but I can´t find a
thread about it!
I´m reinstalling my XP-machine with Norton Internet security 2003 and it
crashes XP during installation/reboot! Strange, it has always worked before!
But now i wanted a totally clean machine with all updates for windows and
office before installing NIS, and that is what happens! I don´t have the
strength to reinstall one more time, so I´d like to change software!
What is the best software on the market for workstation protection - no
matter the cost!? I want a fast, low CPU usage, easy update etc.!!
Let me hear your opinion!

 

[Michael Oppermann]

have a look at nod32
http://www.nod32.com.au/nod32/home/home.htm



Leif klapperte auf der Tastatur:

 

[Scott]

Check out http://www.mwti.net/.

 

[Conor]

Let me hear your opinion!

Common sense is the best Anti-Virus software there is. I have no AV
software running on my PC and the fact that a once a month online check
confirms there are no infections plus I get no bounced e-mails from ISP
checks shows that my policy is working.


--
________________________
Conor Turton
(e-mail address removed)
ICQ:31909763
________________________

 

[Charlie]

Your policy is sound..UNLESS you forget to be cautious or an attachment
from your "grandma" really wasn't from her after all. Background AV's
NEVER FORGET.

How can you say your method is "best" when it depends on your very fallible
habits, customs, etc..?
huh???

 

[FromTheRafters]

Common sense is the best Anti-Virus software there is.

"Common sense is neither a sense, nor is it at all common."
I don't recall who said that, but I thought it fitting here.

I have no AV
software running on my PC and the fact that a once a month online check
confirms there are no infections

No infections, unable to hide from scans once active, you mean.
It is conceivable that malware could stealth itself from online
scanners.

plus I get no bounced e-mails from ISP
checks shows that my policy is working.

Worms sending out in your name may be detected this way,
but what of the rest?

I'm not implying that you aren't capable of running safely
without a local AV, it's just that it takes much more than
you have stated above to do so.

I wouldn't recommend that anyone do so, because those
that are capable of doing so already know that they are.

 

[butaglo]

Stick to Eset Nod32 look at http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/
and the results.
Microworld has no track record at all to speak of here.

 

[RH]

I'll 2nd that opinion of Nod32.......I've had it since XP was beta,
and I wouldn't use anything else.......just check it's track record.
Yeah, it dosen't have all the fancy dancing graphics, or the marketing
that Symantec/McAfee etc........but, you'll find a lot of people that
are "computer geeks" use Nod32......why do I use Nod32, because it
just works! You don't even know it's there, which is what an
antivirus software SHOULD do.

 

[Charlie]

Sounds exactly like eTrust EZ AV to me....

- except NOD32 costs more to buy and costs more to "renew" every 12
months.

Also it has no better or no worse a "track record" then any other ICSA
certified AV product....or they would not have certified it....


I'll 2nd that opinion of Nod32.......I've had it since XP was beta,
and I wouldn't use anything else.......just check it's track record.
Yeah, it dosen't have all the fancy dancing graphics, or the marketing
that Symantec/McAfee etc........but, you'll find a lot of people that
are "computer geeks" use Nod32......why do I use Nod32, because it
just works! You don't even know it's there, which is what an
antivirus software SHOULD do.

 

[Tx2]

Common sense is the best Anti-Virus software there is.

You can pick up viruses from more than email, or do you never surf?

 

[Blevins]

Sounds exactly like eTrust EZ AV to me....

- except NOD32 costs more to buy and costs more to "renew" every 12
months.

More than some, less than others. But it's damn well worth the 40 bucks I
shell out annually.

 

[optikl]

No, the initial cost is around 40 US, the RENEW price is around
29 US.....If you purchase it outright and never have had it, it
is 40 bucks.

Go back and read what he said. He said, it's damn well worth the 40 bucks he
shells out "annually". You know what annually implies, I assume.

 

[Blevins]

No, the initial cost is around 40 US, the RENEW price is around
29 US.....If you purchase it outright and never have had it, it
is 40 bucks.

Yeah, I'm in my first year of use and forgot that renewals get a
discount.

 

[Name withheld by request]

And you should read his follow up post, where he says that he FORGOT
about the discount for renewing his license!
New purchase=40 bucks
RENEW price=less than 40

You renew ANNUALLY....in other words, the RENEW price is LESS
than the PURCHASE price.

 

[ClubNinja]

I like F-Prot you guys think it's good ??

Sounds exactly like eTrust EZ AV to me....

- except NOD32 costs more to buy and costs more to "renew" every 12
months.

Also it has no better or no worse a "track record" then any other ICSA
certified AV product....or they would not have certified it....


I'll 2nd that opinion of Nod32.......I've had it since XP was beta,
and I wouldn't use anything else.......just check it's track record.
Yeah, it dosen't have all the fancy dancing graphics, or the marketing
that Symantec/McAfee etc........but, you'll find a lot of people that
are "computer geeks" use Nod32......why do I use Nod32, because it
just works! You don't even know it's there, which is what an
antivirus software SHOULD do.


find

 

[optikl]

The "BEST AV" does not exist as a universal product. Try some of the

certified ones (trial versions) and see which one(s) you prefer. Any of
the ICSA choices would be suitable as far as functionality goes. Other
considerations are subjective or monetary such as ease of updating,
licensing, annual "renewal" fees..etc.

Charlie, haven't we been down this road before?
Actually, some of the ICSA choices appear to be "better" than others, in
detection and cleaning, based on other, independent testing.
As we say in the South Charlie, that dog won't hunt.

 

[kurt wismer]

Charlie wrote:

What road are you talking about? Highway 61?

i think what he's trying to say, charles, is 'thanks for the nice usenet
message'...

we've seen your icsa blather here before...

 

[Stephen Willis]

ViRobot is the one that most of the geeks I know have latched onto. It uses
the least system resources and has three separate scanning engines that run
concurrently for speed and accuracy. VB and West Coast Labs have already
certified it for 100% ITW and Level 1, 2 and Trojan, respectively. The
previous thread mentions that ICSA is the best testing facility and for some
reason was inclined to mention the cost associated with testing. It just so
happens that when you have a privately held company like ICSA, that is now
in charge of all the virus samples (Wildlist) used for testing worldwide,
you have to ask yourself if this isn't a conflict of interest at the most
basic level. I say this because of a conversation that I had with the VP in
charge of McAfee and when asked if he had a problem with Wildlist going into
ICSA, he said "I don't care what happens with it, because, if they don't do
exactly as I tell them to do, they won't get another penny of my money".
Here's how you test your AV product. Find someone with a couple of samples
of the most popular viruses like Nimda and its variants or Funlove.4099 or
Klez.H w/Elkern, and copy them to a standalone system that you don't mind
testing with and then scan the folder you copied them to with each product
to be tested. Notice the time for scanning and more importantly, what it
was capable of doing up against repairing your data. NOT JUST DETECTING AND
DELETING (which ICSA considers adequate for cleaning)! ViRobot is the ONLY
product that can actually clean the virus and restore the file 99% of the
time. Now, if the rest can only detect and delete, what happens when your
..dll's or other critical file is infected and as a side-effect of your AV
being limited to detect and delete, you now have an unstable or inoperable
OS. This is just one of the many reasons to get of the duff and do your own
testing and not be conditioned to believe certain limitations exist due to
major corporate marketing ploys and propaganda.

socalrednex

 

[kurt wismer]

ViRobot is the one that

you have chosen to spam for...

most of the geeks I know have latched onto.

good for them... see http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=geek

It uses
the least system resources and has three separate scanning engines that run
concurrently for speed and accuracy. VB and West Coast Labs have already
certified it for 100% ITW and Level 1, 2 and Trojan, respectively.

liar, liar, pants on fire...

listen, go buy a clue and leave us alone, would you?

 

[Larry Bridwell]

Hi Stephen,

ViRobot is the one that most of the geeks I know have latched onto.

How many do you know?

Would that be the most of 3, 7, 99 ???

It uses

the least system resources and has three separate scanning engines that run
concurrently for speed and accuracy.

Using what benchmarks for speed and accuracy? Are they measured at
the same time or separately? Can you point us to these publicly
posted data?

VB and West Coast Labs have already

certified it for 100% ITW and Level 1, 2 and Trojan, respectively.

Congratulations on the certs!

The

previous thread mentions that ICSA is the best testing facility and for some
reason was inclined to mention the cost associated with testing. It just so
happens that when you have a privately held company like ICSA, that is now
in charge of all the virus samples (Wildlist) used for testing worldwide,
you have to ask yourself if this isn't a conflict of interest at the most
basic level.

It seems you are the only person in the anti-virus industry to think
so, at least publicly. Oops, was I not to mention that you are in the
industry and work for Hauri? (Of course I did notice you did not post
from your VP of Sales and Marketing of Hauri email account! You are
still with Hauri aren't you?)

Also this statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how the
WildList works, it organization, its operations, and the failsafes put
in so that it cannot be manipulated by anyone. Oh, btw, did you
happen to know that the other testing bodies you mention both
supported and continue to support the fact that ICSA Labs is
publishing the WildList? I am sure that this misunderstanding does
not extend to the WildList reporters from Hauri [oops there I go
again, mentioning that you are US VP of Sales for Hauri].

I say this because of a conversation that I had with the VP in

charge of McAfee and when asked if he had a problem with Wildlist going into
ICSA, he said "I don't care what happens with it, because, if they don't do
exactly as I tell them to do, they won't get another penny of my money".

yadda yadda, yadda. You and I had this discussion months ago and you
could never bring forth this unnamed NAI VP even though I gave you
many names of the VP I know personally [and a couple of names a little
higher in the NAI org ].

Here's how you test your AV product. Find someone with a couple of samples
of the most popular viruses like Nimda and its variants or Funlove.4099 or
Klez.H w/Elkern, and copy them to a standalone system that you don't mind
testing with and then scan the folder you copied them to with each product
to be tested. Notice the time for scanning and more importantly, what it
was capable of doing up against repairing your data. NOT JUST DETECTING AND
DELETING (which ICSA considers adequate for cleaning)!

You obviously don't know ICSA Labs anti-virus criteria, testing
protocols, or testing standards [or at least you do not understand
them!]. It would not hurt you to acquaint yourself with them. Many
developers actually visit our labs and take a tour! or secondly you
could ask your colleagues from Seoul, I just spent a couple of days
with them at an industry technical meeting [oops!! There I go
mentioning your company stuff again!]

ViRobot is the ONLY

product that can actually clean the virus and restore the file 99% of the
time. Now, if the rest can only detect and delete, what happens when your
.dll's or other critical file is infected and as a side-effect of your AV
being limited to detect and delete, you now have an unstable or inoperable
OS. This is just one of the many reasons to get of the duff and do your own
testing and not be conditioned to believe certain limitations exist due to
major corporate marketing ploys and propaganda.

Well, if the above is what you call testing...

Oh well, I think the most of the folk on this list can make up their
minds.

Give me a call if you want to talk some more. You have the number!

BTW - notice I don't mind using identifying myself or my company!

Larry Bridwell <Speaking for myself and NOT my company!!>
____________________________________________
Content Security Programs Manager, ICSA Labs
1000 Bent Creek Blvd., Suite 200, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050
e-mail: (e-mail address removed); AIM: lbridwell17050
website: http://www.icsalabs.com