anti-virus recommendation

[Abhi_KS]

If you have got a genuine copy of Windows 7/8, you will be most benefited through Microsoft Security Essentials - Free, Official, For Lifetime, Close integration with Windows.

[ralfy]

I looked at results from various testing groups, such as AV Comparatives:

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

 

and AV-Test:

 

http://www.av-test.org/en/home/

 

Then I considered the free version of the antivirus that did best overall. Given these results for Win 7 home use:

 

http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-7/julaug-2013/

 

I selected the free version of Bitdefender.

[Marshalscienceguy]

Apple products from what I know are not suppose to have virus problems. I believe that was one of the sale pitches too. If you want Microsoft protection I can list some. Norton is useless though. I have had Norton and my computer got taken over by Trojans. Norton is worthless. Now if you have window 7 I would say get "Microsoft security sweep" and if you have windows 8 it comes with "Windows defender" on it but you might have to switch it on. "Windows defender" is the windows 8 version of "Microsoft security essentials".

Edited January 10, 2014 by Marshalscienceguy

[CharonY]

Well Apple has dropped the claim of virus safety a while back. It was a matter of time, considering that Macs have massively gained in popularity.

The source of the claim is less that Macs are safer, but that the vast majority of computers are Windows systems and hence, more viruses are developed for them and there are more computers to spread them around.

There are more exploits on windows systems, too, but mechanistically no system is immune. The likelihood of encountering a virus varies, though.

[BroadHead]

I used the free version of Avast for years and never had a problem. The software also communicate and guide you very well to a renewal when expiration approaches.

[mathematic]

I used the free version of Avast for years and never had a problem. The software also communicate and guide you very well to a renewal when expiration approaches.

The only caveat I have with Avast is that you can't schedule sweeps. AVG and Avira (free competitors) both have sweep scheduling.

[StringJunky]

Don't do torrents, download pirated software or porn and you've probably removed 99% of potential malware vectors. Knowledge is the best antivirus.

[AtomicMaster]

There is no best antivirus, there are better ones out there, there are worse, and usually they change for different category of attack, but there is no antivirus that will protect you from everything, look at some data (Such as this) and you quickly gain a very pessimistic perspective relatively quickly.

 

 

Don't do torrents, download pirated software or porn and you've probably removed 99% of potential malware vectors. Knowledge is the best antivirus.

Newp, sorry, you are wrong. And don't take that like it's ok to download torrents and pirated software, but the 99% number is completely wrong.

 

If that however seems like a good enough reason not to patch or protect your machine, you might be in for a surprise; time-to-own on an unpatched Windows box without any user interaction was less than 4 minutes 5 years ago...

 

 

Well Apple has dropped the claim of virus safety a while back. It was a matter of time, considering that Macs have massively gained in popularity.

 

No system is completely secure, that said, Unix is inherently a much more secure OS, so while viri do exist, popularity or not, they are still disproportional to the popularity of the product, compared to Windows, that said, recent versions of windows have been implementing some good security features which have been in linux kernels for many years, and so they have been making more and more secure OS. Don't take that as it's alll Microsoft's fault though, it is not, and it is a vastly complex product to secure, and they dont even hold all the levers, as it is not necessarily Apples fault either.

 

 

but that the vast majority of computers are Windows systems

 

Nope, sorry, vast majority of computers are embedded linux/unix systems.

Edited April 7, 2014 by AtomicMaster

[Marshalscienceguy]

i have been using Norton for years. what antivirus are you using ?

i consider switching to Kaspersky. Hope it may be better than Norton.

How do you think ?

 

it would be better to get a free high quality antivirus from internet..but i dont expect it too much. No free lunch, right ?

 

Norton and complete crap! If you are using windows(Which I always used) check out "Microsoft security essentials". If you have windows 8 they have "Windows defender" installed on the computer when you buy it. However you have to turn it on.

[AtomicMaster]

Norton and complete crap! If you are using windows(Which I always used) check out "Microsoft security essentials". If you have windows 8 they have "Windows defender" installed on the computer when you buy it. However you have to turn it on.

 

That should start with "In my opinion and without any actual data to back up my claim".

 

For anyone reading, please read all of the material presented in the at least few recent posts (go back a few pages maybe), especially the links to actual research and actual testing of the various solutions, and form your own informed opinion about what product(s) you choose, this is why free speech and free press exist in the US, use those rights to your advantage!

 

If you actually look at test data, you would find that Kaspersky does significantly better than windows defender with exploit protection, blocking phishing sites, blocking socially engineered sites; compared to other recommended or mentioned products here like Avast and AVG, Norton, for example both Kaspersky and Windows Defender do better with compressed payloads, however KAV doesn't (or at least didn't) do as well with packed payloads. This would all be research as a part of making the decision about what security products you are going to use.

 

I already said, there is NO clear best, there are better products, there are more or less affordable products, there are products that provide better protection in some areas, but it is up to you to decide how you want and can protect your system and yourself. There is no end-all solution to security and there most certainly is a security/performance trade-off. But it is up to you to decide, just like nobody can tell you what the definitive best way to defend/protect your home is.

[Schneibster]

When I run a Windows box, I run Eset's antivirus; it's the lowest footprint of any of the major non-free solutions. I use browser utilities for internet security, as well as a firewall. If I can do my outgoing connection and incoming connection security at the firewall, I save CPU cycles.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Schneibster

[AtomicMaster]

When I run a Windows box, I run Eset's antivirus; it's the lowest footprint of any of the major non-free solutions. I use browser utilities for internet security, as well as a firewall. If I can do my outgoing connection and incoming connection security at the firewall, I save CPU cycles.

 

I would like to see the independently-gathered data please, this claim seems to be a bit, um, marketing-like...

[StringJunky]

I use periodic re-imaging with my customised OS image if I sense any problems and my working machine also is always running spot-on doing this. Data is kept separate.

[AtomicMaster]

I use periodic re-imaging with my customised OS image if I sense any problems and my working machine also is always running spot-on doing this. Data is kept separate.

So what if the data gets infected so as soon as your image reconnects, it's owned again?

[StringJunky]

So what if the data gets infected so as soon as your image reconnects, it's owned again?

Only if the infected file is used again. It's inert otherwise ...it needs CPU time to do anything and if it's not in the working domain of the operating system it's useless, If the instruction is not in the new image to fetch certain files to initiate the malware process the machine will run sweet. Re-infection is not necessarily automatic ...unless it's in the boot partition in W7 then it can recur.

[Schneibster]

 

I would like to see the independently-gathered data please, this claim seems to be a bit, um, marketing-like...

 

It was in independent testing by two different firms. Whether it's still true in the last couple years I don't know; I bought a five year multi-system license and have never looked back. Got a pretty good price break from their standard thirty simoleons too. I have never had anything to complain about that turned out to be them. The one time they made a false positive on my system the next update (two days later) fixed it. That alone blows Kaspersky, Norton, and McAffee out of the water; their customer support all sucks. Maybe you're OK with waiting six months for your vendor to fix a false positive; I'm not. That's simple laziness and disrespect for customers. Eset is fast and it doesn't miss anything I've ever found.

 

I went to the testing firms to decide what antivirus to buy, not to the antivirus vendors to check their claims. I do not work for Eset or hold stock or know anyone who works there. Please don't make veiled accusations without evidence. It's impolite.

Not to mention, are you arguing about firewalls or antivirus?

 

You seem confused.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Schneibster

[AtomicMaster]

Only if the infected file is used again. It's inert otherwise ...it needs CPU time to do anything and if it's not in the working domain of the operating system it's useless, If the instruction is not in the new image to fetch certain files to initiate the malware process the machine will run sweet. Re-infection is not necessarily automatic ...unless it's in the boot partition in W7 then it can recur.

Not necessarily, if you browse the directory, there is the creation of thumbnails, also its your data, so you are bound to open the file at some point, so the infection "could" reoccur, though your scanners could pick it up by then.

[Macie Obryan]

Earlier I was using free version of Microsoft Security Essentials, but recently I have switched to Optimo AV and it is nice protection. It is working great.

[MigL]

Maximum PC magazine does a yearly round-up and test of pay-for and free anti-virus programs. Check it out ( don't know if the rules allow me to mention their on-line site ).

 

Keep your browser and OS software up to date and use either AVG, Avira or Avast free versions. If you must go to questionable sites, pirate, torrent or porn, use a dedicated machine which can be re-loaded or re-imaged, such as a cheap netbook ( $100 ). Keep valuable data on your good machine.

 

Apple products are status symbols, you pay three times as much for the same hardware, and OS/X 'hand-cuffs' you. They get viruses also, although not as many. Phones/tablets also get viruses, but the ratios are reversed iPhone/android get way more than my win8 phone. The percentage of malicious users is always the same, but the total number of users varies with platform. Incidentally Windows hasn't been DOS based since WindowsME.

 

Have been using micro-computers since 1979 ( TRS80 model I with 16 kB memory controlling the laser for my undergrad thesis ) and building since 1980 ( Sinclair ZX-81 kit ) and still will not do banking on-line.

[Amateur_sientest]

well I was using AVG and its pretty good when some virus comes he asks you to delete infected file or not.It is good you can download the free version or have a 1 mounth free trial which is better.