Re: [H] AntiVirus - Consumer Reports
Opinions are like Robert Turnbull wrote: The September issue of Consumer Reports has a cover article on the best software to protect against Viruses, Spam and Spyware. They rate 12 antivirus programs and the top three are: 1. BitDefender 2. ZoneAlarm 3. Kaspersky Labs I have no idea how reliable their testing is, BUT the point of this message is that it is important to be aware of what information customers who read Consumer Reports will have. Best Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
[H] AntiVirus - Consumer Reports
The September issue of Consumer Reports has a cover article on the best software to protect against Viruses, Spam and Spyware. They rate 12 antivirus programs and the top three are: 1. BitDefender 2. ZoneAlarm 3. Kaspersky Labs I have no idea how reliable their testing is, BUT the point of this message is that it is important to be aware of what information customers who read Consumer Reports will have. Best Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
Re: [H] AntiVirus - Consumer Reports
Yeah I saw that and shrugged Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless -Original Message- From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:51:43 To:hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: [H] AntiVirus - Consumer Reports The September issue of Consumer Reports has a cover article on the best software to protect against Viruses, Spam and Spyware. They rate 12 antivirus programs and the top three are: 1. BitDefender 2. ZoneAlarm 3. Kaspersky Labs I have no idea how reliable their testing is, BUT the point of this message is that it is important to be aware of what information customers who read Consumer Reports will have. Best Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
Re: [H] AntiVirus - Consumer Reports
There was a thread on here about a month ago ro so that said F-Secure was the best, here is the link... http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/83.htm#avv The September issue of Consumer Reports has a cover article on the best software to protect against Viruses, Spam and Spyware. They rate 12 antivirus programs and the top three are: 1. BitDefender 2. ZoneAlarm 3. Kaspersky Labs I have no idea how reliable their testing is, BUT the point of this message is that it is important to be aware of what information customers who read Consumer Reports will have. Best Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
RE: [H] Antivirus
Then you would realize by now that v10's scan engine is completely different! From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 23:00:00 -0800 We use the most up to date av products -Original Message- From: Hayes Elkins[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 9:04:12 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.comhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus v10.0.2? (there is a significant difference in 10 vs the past versions) From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0800 Yes it's the corporate edition -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE client v10.0.2? From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800 Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild regardless if its on the wild list or not. And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware scanners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the other popular anti-spyware tools missed... That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at anti-malware. So, care to qualify your statement? - Original Message - From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case -Original Message- From: Greg Sevart[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus I can confirm. SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff that is Norton branded. 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't consider very bad. I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. Greg - Original Message - From: Hayes Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
At 10:54 3/3/2006, Jin-Wei Tioh, wrote: At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW How does it compare to AVG Free? Start Here to Find It Fast! - http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/ $8.77 Domain Names - http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
RE: [H] Antivirus
At 01:30 PM 03/03/2006, W. D. wrote: At 10:54 3/3/2006, Jin-Wei Tioh, wrote: At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW How does it compare to AVG Free? Well for one thing, it works. If you're using AVG free, you should also use the rhythm method, eschew modern medicine for the alternative sort, and heat your home in the winter by thinking warm thoughts. grin Seriously though, AVG really isn't up to the task of protecting your computer. I get a lot of machines in running AVG Free and loaded with viruses (fewer on machines running NOD32 or Norton.) This chart, posted by Bill: http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php Puts AVG Pro at 90.47% effective, and 10% effective against polymorphic viruses. NOD32 comes in at 98.77% and 94.3% against polymorphic. Kaspersky at 99.57% and 99.4% against polymorphic. While it has improved in recent testing, AVG Pro still regularly fails VirusBTN's tests. And if the for-pay Pro version is this bad, how good is the free one? NOD32 has a smaller memory footprint than AVG Free. T
Re: [H] Antivirus
Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case -Original Message- From: Greg Sevart[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus I can confirm. SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff that is Norton branded. 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't consider very bad. I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. Greg - Original Message - From: Hayes Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
Re: [H] Antivirus
Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the other popular anti-spyware tools missed... That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at anti-malware. So, care to qualify your statement? - Original Message - From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case -Original Message- From: Greg Sevart[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus I can confirm. SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff that is Norton branded. 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't consider very bad. I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. Greg - Original Message - From: Hayes Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild regardless if its on the wild list or not. And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware scanners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the other popular anti-spyware tools missed... That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at anti-malware. So, care to qualify your statement? - Original Message - From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case -Original Message- From: Greg Sevart[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus I can confirm. SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff that is Norton branded. 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't consider very bad. I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. Greg - Original Message - From: Hayes Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
We use the most up to date av products -Original Message- From: Hayes Elkins[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 9:04:12 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.comhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus v10.0.2? (there is a significant difference in 10 vs the past versions) From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:39:00 -0800 Yes it's the corporate edition -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hayes Elkins Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 4:28 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Are you specifically testing SAVCE, not Norton AV, but the latest SAVCE client v10.0.2? From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 15:59:55 -0800 Well I see malware daily as part of my job and I see the results of AV vendors against those pieces of malware and Symantec is terrible from what I have seen. And what I have seen is definitely things in the wild regardless if its on the wild list or not. And like I said earlier scanning a system for malware and seeing which vendors catch what is not a very accurate test because you actually don't know what is on the system and how many pieces of malware are there. So the fact that some other scanner caught 10 and then Symantec comes and finds 2 is not good because you don't know if both scanners are missing 100 pieces of malware. You only know what the scanners are reporting to you and there has even been a controversy in that because some scanners report false positives on purpose so that their scanning can seem more accurate. But that happens more with the anti spyware scanners. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 3:10 PM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Have you used it? It has caught malware on my machines that many of the other popular anti-spyware tools missed... That test link someone provided also shows it does a nice job at anti-malware. So, care to qualify your statement? - Original Message - From: Mesdaq, Ali [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus Where did you hear that because its definitely not the case -Original Message- From: Greg Sevart[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/3/06 10:16:07 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus I can confirm. SAV-CE is a completely different codebase from the crap consumer grade stuff that is Norton branded. 10.0.2 is taking 33MB of memory on thix box (I have 2GB), which I don't consider very bad. I still argue it is among (if not the) best AV scanner available--it just isn't available to the average consumer. Most people (for good reason) hate the Norton consumer stuff, and assume that the corporate stuff is related...but nothing could be further from the truth. Interestingly, I've heard that SAV-CE10 also is the most effective malware scanner out there--but it runs slower than anything else at this task. Greg - Original Message - From: Hayes Elkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus The latest Symantec AntiVirus corporate edition client (10.0.2.2020) takes about 30MB of memory footprint these days. It does however do a much better job than the retail home user version (norton), however it will get more false positives. From: Jin-Wei Tioh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:54:49 -0600 At 02:28 PM 3/2/2006, you wrote: Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. Not to mention that it seems to be more resource heavy. Always hated the startup time degradations with Norton. Much improved after I switched to Kaspersky. -- JW
RE: [H] Antivirus
I am not quite sure what is on the wild list but we get stuff in our honeypot which is definitely in the wild and compare that against most vendors 60% is pretty accurate. I mean a piece of malware usually is covered by at least one vendor but no one vendor covers most malware that good. You should also be careful with which files you copy over. I would say if your checking email and someone sends you a file and its non executable that's ok to copy over if you scan it on www.virustotal.com . You really can't trust a machine that is completely exposed for a unknown amount of time. But if you have a vmware image that you know is clean and you start it up and you know you haven't run any rouge processes then that's a lot more trust worthy. Of course its still possible you could have been infected with a worm exploiting a backdoor but chances are very low for that. Oh by the way vmware has free software for desktops now so everyone should be running a vmware session for all their other stuff. Maybe even run a linux desktop and windows in a vmware session. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thane Sherrington (S) Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 3:53 AM To: The Hardware List Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus At 12:42 AM 02/03/2006, Mesdaq, Ali wrote: Oh I love these types of topics. Right off the bat I would say there is NO AV that gives that great of coverage. Kaspersky(verified) has good coverage and NOD32(unverified) has good coverage. The bad part is even of these good AV vendors their coverage is maybe 60%. What is So you're saying that the Wildlist isn't an accurate count of the viruses out there? always revert your images to a clean state after. And only copy files over when you're totally sure they are clean How can I be totally sure they are clean if the AV software is only 60%? Do you have some suggestions for looking at all the processes on a computer and finding out what they are? T
RE: [H] Antivirus
Well if it were feasible to do that I personally would run kaspersky, nod32, trend, and bit defender. But I rather approach it like don’t run anything unless I want it to run. But I am not sure av can live happily together on the same machine -Original Message- From: Thane Sherrington (S)[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 3/2/06 10:27:49 AM To: The Hardware Listhardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus At 02:15 PM 02/03/2006, Mesdaq, Ali wrote: I am not quite sure what is on the wild list but we get stuff in our honeypot which is definitely in the wild and compare that against most vendors 60% is pretty accurate. I mean a piece of malware usually is covered by at least one vendor but no one vendor covers most malware that good. So you're saying that if I ran enough different AVs, then at least one of them would catch the Malware? Which AVs would you recommend running? T
RE: [H] Antivirus
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mesdaq, Ali Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:18 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Well if it were feasible to do that I personally would run kaspersky, nod32, trend, and bit defender. But I rather approach it like don't run anything unless I want it to run. But I am not sure av can live happily together on the same machine Running more than one AV engine on machine is not advisable. There is no significant evidence that I've found that running multiple scanners provides better protection. But even if it did, the performance degradation on a machine running multiple AV engines is significant. Google that one and read some of the stories. http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/231316555206 For the last several years, it's been a horse race between Kaspersky, NOD32 and Norton. They are neck and neck, while many feel NOD32 offers slightly better virus detection while of the three, Kaspersky has the best Trojan detection. Here's the February 2006 AV Comparatives: http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php Bill
RE: [H] Antivirus
Norton is definitely not even close to kaspersky in detection accuracy. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:20 PM To: 'The Hardware List' Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mesdaq, Ali Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:18 AM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: RE: [H] Antivirus Well if it were feasible to do that I personally would run kaspersky, nod32, trend, and bit defender. But I rather approach it like don't run anything unless I want it to run. But I am not sure av can live happily together on the same machine Running more than one AV engine on machine is not advisable. There is no significant evidence that I've found that running multiple scanners provides better protection. But even if it did, the performance degradation on a machine running multiple AV engines is significant. Google that one and read some of the stories. http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/231316555206 For the last several years, it's been a horse race between Kaspersky, NOD32 and Norton. They are neck and neck, while many feel NOD32 offers slightly better virus detection while of the three, Kaspersky has the best Trojan detection. Here's the February 2006 AV Comparatives: http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php Bill
Re: [H] Antivirus
WE WISH :-} At 05:29 AM 3/1/2006, Zulfiqar Naushad Poked the stick with: Is there a GOOD program that catches all viruses, or 99.9% of them? -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Help me quick! Someone must have turned reality back on.
Re: [H] Antivirus
Everything I've read from a great many learned people say that you need a variety of tools in your toolbox to minimize the chances of infection. But it's still going to happen no matter what we do or how diligent in our efforts to prevent it we are. They build better mousetraps all the time but the mice keep getting smarter. Zulfiqar Naushad wrote: There used to be a time when I didn't have AV scanners. I used to know the source of my files and had precautions not to infect my machine(s). That worked till I inadvertently surfed to a shoddy website. 2 days of hair pulling later, I decided to reformat and switch 100% to firefox. That worked for a while till I got infected again! Anyways, long story short, I bought Kaspersky with a 1 year reg and really liked the program, it was good and did the job well. However last weekend my Kaspersky key expired. First thought was to whip out my Mastercard and buy another 1 year license. But I decided to give the other products a look. In the end I ended up buying NOD32. Guess what, right off the bat after installation and after updating the DAT files, it found a trojan! This was a trojan that Kaspersky did not recognize!! What irks me is that does one now have to have 3 antivirus programs running catching viruses that the others miss? Is there a GOOD program that catches all viruses, or 99.9% of them? NOD32 is now my fave AV program. It is light and has a lot of good features. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [H] Antivirus
I've been surviving off of freeware for quite a while, and now I think it's time to get serious about AV protection. The kids computer is riddled with garbage, but I basically gave up trying to protect it because they're their own worst enemy when it comes to online caution. about every 2 or 3 months I have to go in and clean it out with SpyBot and AdAware (which has mysteriously disappeared, I think the little turds deleted the program). Anyway, their computer is now so borked that I can't even d/l any programs such as AdAware (which I wanted to reinstall) or anything else because the browser keeps getting hijacked. I tried to download Hijack This, but ended up with a program called AdwareAlert which wants to charge $30... does Hijack This still exist as a freeware program? So I echo the question, is there an AV program that's worthwhile that catches everything? Jeez, you would think the major AV's would work in concert (i.e. check each other's websites for updates and integrate them across the board) to provide the best protection possible and let the features, add-ons or interface be what differentiates them. Veech - Original Message - From: Zulfiqar Naushad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 4:29 AM Subject: [H] Antivirus There used to be a time when I didn't have AV scanners. I used to know the source of my files and had precautions not to infect my machine(s). That worked till I inadvertently surfed to a shoddy website. 2 days of hair pulling later, I decided to reformat and switch 100% to firefox. That worked for a while till I got infected again! Anyways, long story short, I bought Kaspersky with a 1 year reg and really liked the program, it was good and did the job well. However last weekend my Kaspersky key expired. First thought was to whip out my Mastercard and buy another 1 year license. But I decided to give the other products a look. In the end I ended up buying NOD32. Guess what, right off the bat after installation and after updating the DAT files, it found a trojan! This was a trojan that Kaspersky did not recognize!! What irks me is that does one now have to have 3 antivirus programs running catching viruses that the others miss? Is there a GOOD program that catches all viruses, or 99.9% of them? NOD32 is now my fave AV program. It is light and has a lot of good features. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [H] Antivirus
At 01:12 PM 3/1/2006, Veech typed: Anyway, their computer is now so borked that I can't even d/l any programs such as AdAware (which I wanted to reinstall) or anything else because the browser keeps getting hijacked. I tried to download Hijack This, but ended up with a program called AdwareAlert which wants to charge $30... does Hijack This still exist as a freeware program? There are viruses out there that close the web browser as soon as you attempt to access certain websites such as McAfee or Symantec the only way to clean these out is either to use a cd with a bootable OS AV app such as BartPE or XpPe. The biggest problem is a toss up between surfing questionable sites game hacking sites are notoriously terrible as well as so called adult sites combined with the definitions not being updated frequently enough. If these 2 issues are not addressed I don't care what AV app you use you will get infected. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
RE: [H] Antivirus
Is there a GOOD program that catches all viruses, or 99.9% of them? NOD32 is now my fave AV program. It is light and has a lot of good features. I think the short answer to the question is NO. Sadly, I know people that actually run multiple AV scanners though I feel that really the effectiveness is dubious. The debate in many circles continues to rage about NOD32 vs: Kaspersky. They are really neck and neck, each one offering some advantages that other doesn't have. NOD32 seems lower on resources while Kaspersky is thought to have better heuristics. Kaspersky has a larger virus database and generally is thought to have better Trojan detection rates than NOD32 though I don't know that this is true 100% of the time.. So I agree.. Also Kaspersky updates their AV bases every 3 hours which I think is excellent.. Personally for me, Kaspersky+Spyware Blaster+HiJackThis!+ good Hosts file and I have not had an infestation virus or spyware in over 5 years.. Bill
Re: [H] Antivirus
These seem to continuously redirect the browser. For example, I can use Google, google 'Mapquest, get a bunch of results, click to go to Mapquest's site, and all is well. Then when I type in an actual address to get directions and hit enter, then the browser gets redirected to over a dozen different spots, and never stops loading, in other words the page goes white and stays that way while the browser keeps clicking along... - Original Message - From: Wayne Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: The Hardware List hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [H] Antivirus At 01:12 PM 3/1/2006, Veech typed: Anyway, their computer is now so borked that I can't even d/l any programs such as AdAware (which I wanted to reinstall) or anything else because the browser keeps getting hijacked. I tried to download Hijack This, but ended up with a program called AdwareAlert which wants to charge $30... does Hijack This still exist as a freeware program? There are viruses out there that close the web browser as soon as you attempt to access certain websites such as McAfee or Symantec the only way to clean these out is either to use a cd with a bootable OS AV app such as BartPE or XpPe. The biggest problem is a toss up between surfing questionable sites game hacking sites are notoriously terrible as well as so called adult sites combined with the definitions not being updated frequently enough. If these 2 issues are not addressed I don't care what AV app you use you will get infected. --+-- Wayne D. Johnson Ashland, OH, USA 44805 http://www.wavijo.com
RE: [H] Antivirus
http://www.invircible.com/ have not used these guys in years but at least once upon a time they were darn good, have wanted to try them again and was wondering IF anyone has used them lately ? fp At 12:26 PM 3/1/2006, Bill Poked the stick with: Is there a GOOD program that catches all viruses, or 99.9% of them? NOD32 is now my fave AV program. It is light and has a lot of good features. I think the short answer to the question is NO. Sadly, I know people that actually run multiple AV scanners though I feel that really the effectiveness is dubious. The debate in many circles continues to rage about NOD32 vs: Kaspersky. They are really neck and neck, each one offering some advantages that other doesn't have. NOD32 seems lower on resources while Kaspersky is thought to have better heuristics. Kaspersky has a larger virus database and generally is thought to have better Trojan detection rates than NOD32 though I don't know that this is true 100% of the time.. So I agree.. Also Kaspersky updates their AV bases every 3 hours which I think is excellent.. Personally for me, Kaspersky+Spyware Blaster+HiJackThis!+ good Hosts file and I have not had an infestation virus or spyware in over 5 years.. Bill -- Tallyho ! ]:8) Taglines below ! -- Pants: Trousers' country cousins.
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
Norton Antivirus http://www.symantec.com gets the Gnashing Teeth award... *snipped mindless drivel* BTW, the corporate version is worse than the standard version, so don't even go there. That's such bullshit that it completely negates any and all other findings. Yeah, the consumer grade software is terrible, but the corporate/enterprise stuff is top notch. I am, however, glad that he rated Kaspersky highI've started pushing it to individual customers. Greg - Original Message - From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [H] AntiVirus Program review Go to the URL below for an interesting assessment of the merits of various antivirus programs: http://www.suggestafix.com/index.php?act=STf=16t=16990s=407229a133914019ef7531bdc8207d1c Best wishes Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
I've been doing the Kaspersky thing for over a year now. It was suggested here on this list and then I used it to detect a virus on a system that nothing else could detect. Since then I haven't looked back. I like NOD32 because the interface is nice and heuristics seem to be very good but it doesn't detect all that Kaspersky does. Greg Sevart wrote: Norton Antivirus http://www.symantec.com gets the Gnashing Teeth award... *snipped mindless drivel* BTW, the corporate version is worse than the standard version, so don't even go there. That's such bullshit that it completely negates any and all other findings. Yeah, the consumer grade software is terrible, but the corporate/enterprise stuff is top notch. I am, however, glad that he rated Kaspersky highI've started pushing it to individual customers. Greg - Original Message - From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [H] AntiVirus Program review Go to the URL below for an interesting assessment of the merits of various antivirus programs: http://www.suggestafix.com/index.php?act=STf=16t=16990s=407229a133914019ef7531bdc8207d1c Best wishes Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
Is Kaspersky subscription, or buy-once type stuff?? I hate the subscription ones is why I ask. :) --- joeuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been doing the Kaspersky thing for over a year now. It was suggested here on this list and then I used it to detect a virus on a system that nothing else could detect. Since then I haven't looked back. I like NOD32 because the interface is nice and heuristics seem to be very good but it doesn't detect all that Kaspersky does. Greg Sevart wrote: Norton Antivirus http://www.symantec.com gets the Gnashing Teeth award... *snipped mindless drivel* BTW, the corporate version is worse than the standard version, so don't even go there. That's such bullshit that it completely negates any and all other findings. Yeah, the consumer grade software is terrible, but the corporate/enterprise stuff is top notch. I am, however, glad that he rated Kaspersky highI've started pushing it to individual customers. Greg - Original Message - From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [H] AntiVirus Program review Go to the URL below for an interesting assessment of the merits of various antivirus programs: http://www.suggestafix.com/index.php?act=STf=16t=16990s=407229a133914019ef7531bdc8207d1c Best wishes Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
I've never heard of any anti-virus that wasn't a subscription. Kaspersky is a subscription though. Kaspersky new price is ~35.00 and renewal is ~25.00 JRS wrote: Is Kaspersky subscription, or buy-once type stuff?? I hate the subscription ones is why I ask. :) --- joeuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been doing the Kaspersky thing for over a year now. It was suggested here on this list and then I used it to detect a virus on a system that nothing else could detect. Since then I haven't looked back. I like NOD32 because the interface is nice and heuristics seem to be very good but it doesn't detect all that Kaspersky does. Greg Sevart wrote: Norton Antivirus http://www.symantec.com gets the Gnashing Teeth award... *snipped mindless drivel* BTW, the corporate version is worse than the standard version, so don't even go there. That's such bullshit that it completely negates any and all other findings. Yeah, the consumer grade software is terrible, but the corporate/enterprise stuff is top notch. I am, however, glad that he rated Kaspersky highI've started pushing it to individual customers. Greg - Original Message - From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [H] AntiVirus Program review Go to the URL below for an interesting assessment of the merits of various antivirus programs: http://www.suggestafix.com/index.php?act=STf=16t=16990s=407229a133914019ef7531bdc8207d1c Best wishes Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key) -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key)
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
At 02:37 PM 22/07/2005, joeuser wrote: I've never heard of any anti-virus that wasn't a subscription. Kaspersky is a subscription though. Kaspersky new price is ~35.00 and renewal is ~25.00 Heh heh. He must be thinking AVG. :) T
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
Clamwin is free and subscriptionless. I just switched to it on my laptop as well as all of the machines here at work. joeuser wrote: I've never heard of any anti-virus that wasn't a subscription. Kaspersky is a subscription though. Kaspersky new price is ~35.00 and renewal is ~25.00
Re: [H] AntiVirus Program review
tried it but it would not scan lapped drives on the lan. unless that has changed I need that feature. fp At 10:02 AM 7/22/2005, joeuser Poked the stick with: I've been doing the Kaspersky thing for over a year now. It was suggested here on this list and then I used it to detect a virus on a system that nothing else could detect. Since then I haven't looked back. I like NOD32 because the interface is nice and heuristics seem to be very good but it doesn't detect all that Kaspersky does. Greg Sevart wrote: Norton Antivirus http://www.symantec.com gets the Gnashing Teeth award... *snipped mindless drivel* BTW, the corporate version is worse than the standard version, so don't even go there. That's such bullshit that it completely negates any and all other findings. Yeah, the consumer grade software is terrible, but the corporate/enterprise stuff is top notch. I am, however, glad that he rated Kaspersky highI've started pushing it to individual customers. Greg - Original Message - From: Robert Turnbull [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:31 AM Subject: [H] AntiVirus Program review Go to the URL below for an interesting assessment of the merits of various antivirus programs: http://www.suggestafix.com/index.php?act=STf=16t=16990s=407229a133914019ef7531bdc8207d1c Best wishes Robert Turnbull, Toronto, Canada -- Cheers, joeuser (still looking for the 'any' key) -- Tallyho ! ]:8) -- Enough research will tend to support your theory.
