Battle of the anti-virus: What is the best software?

net-security.org ^

[Gomez]

AV-Comparative.org recently released the results of a malware removal tests with which they evaluated 16 anti-virus software solutions:

• Avast Professional Edition 4.8
• AVG Anti-Virus 8.5
• AVIRA AntiVir Premium 9.0
• BitDefender Anti-Virus 2010
• eScan Anti-Virus 10.0
• ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0
• F-Secure AntiVirus 2010
• G DATA AntiVirus 2010
• Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010
• Kingsoft AntiVirus 9
• McAfee VirusScan Plus 2009
• Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0
• Norman Antivirus & Anti-Spyware 7.10
• Sophos Anti-Virus 7.6
• Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010
• Trustport Antivirus 2009.

The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities, therefore all used samples were samples that the tested antivirus products were able to detect. The main question was if the products are able to successfully remove malware

from an already infected/compromised system. The test report was aimed to typical home users. A further question was if the products are able to remove what they are able to detect.

Based on a scoring system that evaluated malware and leftovers removal capabilities, these were the results:

"None of the products performed “very good” in malware removal or removal of leftovers, based on those 10 samples. eScan, Symantec and Microsoft (MSE) were the only products to be good in removal of malware AND removal of leftovers", says the report. "Some products do not remove all registry entries on purpose (as long as they do not have any visible side effect for the user), e.g. if that helps to prevent reinfection by the same malware. Furthermore, in some cases it is not possible to know if the registry values (or the hosts file) were modified by the malware or by the user itself (or third-party utilities used by the user)."

To see which malware sample were use and why, and how the particular anti-virus solutions behaved, go here.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

What is the best software?

Linux.

[Gomez]

ping

[klimeckg]

OS X Snow Leopard

[ShadowAce]

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Either will do. I prefer building my own computers though and a hackintosh is too picky with what hardware it’s supposed to work on.

[Gomez]

It’s a test of malware removal.

cfdisk

[discostu]

This must have been paid for by Symantec since the article completely avoided where Norton really loses: resources used, stability, and ability to uninstall cleanly.

[Vendome]

There is no such thing as the
“best” antivirus software.

You have to use a combination of tools such as Admin rights, firewalls(router/computer) and a couple of prophylactic tools such as Spybot, F-Prot and malware programs.

[steve-b]

I had to reformat and reinstall everything to clean up the mess Norton 2004 made.

[freedumb2003]

I suggest:

format c: /u

(actually, I think that doesn’t work anymore...)

[Bidimus1]

Or even more ‘old school

Debug -g=c800:5

[Bidimus1]

Or even more ‘old school

Debug -g=c800:5

[Notary Sojac]

Thought that "Norman" was a misprint for "Norton" and was ready to take a potshot at the study until I saw Symantec listed.

We have always used Avira, Spybot, and ZoneAlarm in our WinXP boxes and are totally satisfied with the protection we get.

I tend to recommend separate products set to do separate things (virus scan, spyware scan, and firewall) rather than an all-in-one package - which unfortunately seems to be the way the vendors are going.

[Fresh Wind]

This must have been paid for by Symantec since the article completely avoided where Norton really loses: resources used, stability, and ability to uninstall cleanly.

Not to mention Symantec's absolutely abysmal technical support and customer service.

[papasmurf]

I installed MS Security Essentials on my Win7 box and, so far, it plays nice, with very little resource usage.

So, if it’s as good as, or better than, AVG and NOD32, I guess I’ll keep using it on my Windows machines.

[Skooz]

bfl

[freedumb2003]

Holy Moley!

That is REAL old school! LOL!

[Robert A. Cook, PE]

This must have been paid for by Symantec since the article completely avoided where Norton really loses: resources used, stability, and ability to uninstall cleanly.

McAfee is a resource hog - when starting worst of all, then it gets better.

[TChris]

I believe Symantec is suffering from what is a widespread and stupid business practice: Lay off (or buy out, etc.) your best (read: most expensive) programmers and save a pile of money!

How many companies have nosedived into the dirt because the CEO didn't understand the business he was in and got rid of the very people who made it all work?

I don't have insider knowledge that this is what happened for sure, but Symantec sure seems to fit that diagnosis. It went from producing superb software to spewing amazingly, enfuriatingly BAD software.

[discostu]

McAfee is definitely a pig too. It’s kind of funny really, the AVs that charge really tend to stink, while the AVs that are free tend to be pretty lean and mean.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Good read:

[discostu]

Symantec has always been a problematic company. Every revision of everything they’ve ever bought got a little worse until it became unusable. Norton utilities crossed that line in 2000 or so, used to be I wouldn’t even think about running a machine without Norton, but every version after Symantec bought them was a little more of a pig and a little less useful, until finally it became worthless.

[TChris]

Norton utilities crossed that line in 2000 or so, used to be I wouldn’t even think about running a machine without Norton, but every version after Symantec bought them was a little more of a pig and a little less useful, until finally it became worthless.

That mirrors my experience exactly.

NU used to be what SysInternals is today.

[techcor]

Bump to read later.

[Fresh Wind]

Symantec still owes me money for the rebate they cheated me out of and the update subscription they cut short on me.

They will never get another penny from me.

[Billthedrill]

Yep. Done a little testing myself although nowhere on that scale. What they're not telling you is (1) how intrusive the software package is, and (2) how bloated it is. Used to be a big Symantec fan but their product has, like McAfee and, alas, AVG, become a swollen, one-product-does all monster that chews up more than its share of drive space (not to mention memory - more on that in a moment) for features you really don't want. At one point in my testing I found I had, due to incomplete installs, the Windows firewall, the McAfee firewall, and the Symantec firewall all running simultaneously. I was protected all right - nothing got through and nothing ran.

Speaking strictly server-side now, when we switched away from Symantec we noticed nearly a 100-mb drop in non-page pool RAM, which, inasmuch as we were running Server2003 with the 3GB switch and an app for which NPP was critical, was a real load. Switching to Sophos on those boxes reclaimed the memory. It just works differently, not necessarily better (in fact, it didn't do as well catching viruses).

None of them were perfect. Kaspersky was pretty good, although it ain't cheap. AVG - the commercial version, not the old free one (that's still out there) was a little disappointing and has become bloatware, and McAfee takes over your machine when it needs to do a signature or engine update. Jury's still out on the "new" Microsoft Security Essentials but so far I really like what I see. Seems like somebody's gone for a slightly smaller footprint for a change. I suspect all of them will probably follow.

Personally and at the moment I'm running McAfee on one laptop, AVG and Symantec on workstations, and Microsoft Security Essentials on another laptop. Sophos on our servers but that wasn't really my choice. None of them is so bad at what it does that I'd toss it out of hand. YMMV.

[n2dubes]

I use avast-works very well for me. However, I agree w/ a previous post that one should use a combination of things (firewall, malware programs etc) to protect specific problems that may occur. I would never depend on an antivirus program to protect my computer against all types of threats.

[zeugma]

What is the best software?

Linux.

---

Beat me to it.

 

[ßuddaßudd]

bookmark-o-rama

[zeugma]

Test

X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*~

[antiRepublicrat]

On the flip side, I wouldn’t use a PC without Norton utilities in the Windows 3.1 days. They rocked back then, and were an essential part of having a smoothly running PC.

[discostu]

Oh yeah, before the Symantec buy Norton was must have stuff. I had it on machines pre-windows. Some NDOS and NCC and NCD just plain made computing easy (mmmm Norton Change Directory, man that a sweet tool).

[bigheadfred]

I’m using Bitdefender and it seems to work ok. I seem to have a long startup and maybe it is because of that. But I don’t know enough about it. Running XP. Maybe someone out there knows for sure?

[LucyT]

My anti-virus program is eScan.

[antiRepublicrat]

Did you ever have Norton Desktop for 3.1? I loved it. It treated zip files like folders years before Windows got that ability.

[discostu]

Yeah I remember that one. Good stuff. Just makes what Symantec has done to the name even sadder.

[mysterio]

Malwarebytes anti-malware.

[antiRepublicrat]

It’s a warning to any developer who sells his software company to another company. They may just drag your baby and your name through the mud.

At least never give them the rights to use your name in perpetuity.

[Paladin2]

Malwarebytes anti-malware.

That's what I've been using lately.

It's interesting that it wasn't included in the eval.

[mysterio]

Maybe it’s because it is more anti-malware than anti-virus, although mine seems to remove both.

[palmerizedCaddis]

/You should see Peter Norton’s house at the beach. All you suckas made him a gazillionaire.
Caddis the Younger

[Matchett-PI]

bttt