Best Anti-Virus Software?

G

gljackson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
227
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys

Does anybody have and recommendations as to which is the best anti-virus software to use?

norton seems to be the first in my mind - but for 35 frieken dollars I want to be sure.
 
www.kaspersky.com

Updates daily, almost no slow down to machine, tested as finding most of the viruses. Finds most trojans. Blocks almost all bad HTML pages.

I say most here, but AFAIK no virust/trojan has slipped through on any of my windows PCs since I got kaspersky about 2 years ago, and all 4 PCs at home are on 24/7.
 
STAY AWAY FROM NORTON
It is the worst one out.
My recommendation is Nod32, daily updates, small foot print, easily the fastest scanner out there. Single user licence is around R300
 
Yeah, go for NOD32

Download the eval version @ www.nod32.co.za | If you like it, buy it

Also, you can do a test of the EICAR Virus Test file -> google -> eicar

I've used it all of my clients computers.

Works brilliant on old machines

Retail for R 355.68

Contact me for more info where to buy from...

Ciao
 
Go with AVG Free Edition

I had the same question a while back and was advised by an internet security expert (in the US) to go with AVG Anti-Virus (Free Edition).

He said that it is more than adequate and it is what he uses.

He also used to do beta-testing for Symantec (Norton) and said that Norton sucks and is the worst possible anti-virus software you can use.

Reason being that they (Symantec) develop anti-virus definitions for both theoretical viruses (identified by their lab experts) and viruses that actually exist in the wild.

The problem with this is that, on a regular basis, they find thousands of these new theoretical viruses that haven't actually been seen yet "in the wild" and when scanning your PC this just slows up your system and hogs resources unnecessarily.

e.g. Your scanning each file on your PC for viruses 50,000 times (40,000 "Theoretical" definitions + 10,000 "Actual" definitions = 50,000 being the total number of definitions) where you actually only need to scan for the 10,000 "Actual". Obviously, this is just a simplistic example.

Bottom-line is that AVG only uses definitions for "Actual" viruses that have been seen in the wild. Not "theoretical".
 
FunnyWan said:
Bottom-line is that AVG only uses definitions for "Actual" viruses that have been seen in the wild. Not "theoretical".
Click to expand...
Doesn't this leave a nice back door for a new virus to slip through, before the definitions are updated? Isn't that the reason for the "theoretical" scanning?
 
ettubrute said:
Doesn't this leave a nice back door for a new virus to slip through, before the definitions are updated? Isn't that the reason for the "theoretical" scanning?
Click to expand...

You're quite correct but then it becomes about Risk VS Performance.

The risk is that AVG (Grisoft) don't act quickly enough on a new virus threat but then the same goes for Symantec. Just because Symantec have developed 1000's of definitions for many various theoretical viruses doesn't mean that any new viruses that come out have already been catered for by them. Most of those theorectical viruses will never EVER be seen in the wild.

I believe that Grisoft would be just as quick to react to any new threats and granted, quite a few PC's may get infected before the release of a "cure" definition but then you just need to hope that you're not one of the few. Once again, the same risk exists when using Symantec (Norton) anyway.

Personally, i would rather take my chances and have a "slimmer" yet effective anti-virus tool that doesn't hog resources than be protected to the teeth but have to re-install windows every few months because Norton is slowing my PC up so much.
 
Has anyone heard of Dr Web? It is used by my ISP to scan my mail, but it must be pretty useless, because AVG has deleted 77 viruses from my incoming mail in the last 2 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X