Skip to comments.
Battle of the anti-virus: What is the best software?
net-security.org ^
Posted on 11/06/2009 8:03:24 AM PST by 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.
TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: lowqualitycrap; microsofttax
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
1
posted on
11/06/2009 8:03:25 AM PST
by
Gomez
To: Gomez
What is the best software? Linux.
2
posted on
11/06/2009 8:04:16 AM PST
by
perfect_rovian_storm
(The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
To: ShadowAce
3
posted on
11/06/2009 8:04:27 AM PST
by
Gomez
(killer of threads)
To: perfect_rovian_storm
4
posted on
11/06/2009 8:08:03 AM PST
by
klimeckg
("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
To: Gomez; rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...
5
posted on
11/06/2009 8:08:26 AM PST
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: klimeckg
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.
6
posted on
11/06/2009 8:09:16 AM PST
by
perfect_rovian_storm
(The worst is behind us. Unfortunately it is really well endowed.)
To: perfect_rovian_storm
It’s a test of malware removal.
cfdisk
7
posted on
11/06/2009 8:10:36 AM PST
by
Gomez
(killer of threads)
To: Gomez
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.
8
posted on
11/06/2009 8:12:16 AM PST
by
discostu
(The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
To: Gomez
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.
9
posted on
11/06/2009 8:13:38 AM PST
by
Vendome
(Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
To: discostu
I had to reformat and reinstall everything to clean up the mess Norton 2004 made.
10
posted on
11/06/2009 8:15:30 AM PST
by
steve-b
(Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
To: Gomez
I suggest:
format c: /u
(actually, I think that doesn’t work anymore...)
11
posted on
11/06/2009 8:15:45 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: freedumb2003
Or even more ‘old school
Debug -g=c800:5
12
posted on
11/06/2009 8:17:52 AM PST
by
Bidimus1
To: freedumb2003
Or even more ‘old school
Debug -g=c800:5
13
posted on
11/06/2009 8:17:59 AM PST
by
Bidimus1
To: Gomez
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.
14
posted on
11/06/2009 8:19:13 AM PST
by
Notary Sojac
(Goldman Sachs is Obama's Halliburton)
To: 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.Not to mention Symantec's absolutely abysmal technical support and customer service.
15
posted on
11/06/2009 8:20:14 AM PST
by
Fresh Wind
("Prosperity is just around the corner." VP Charles Curtis, 1932)
To: Gomez
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.
16
posted on
11/06/2009 8:20:40 AM PST
by
papasmurf
(RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
To: Gomez
17
posted on
11/06/2009 8:21:12 AM PST
by
Skooz
(Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us Gabba Gabba we accept you we accept you one of us)
To: Bidimus1
Holy Moley!
That is REAL old school! LOL!
18
posted on
11/06/2009 8:21:21 AM PST
by
freedumb2003
(Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
To: discostu; Gomez
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.
19
posted on
11/06/2009 8:22:32 AM PST
by
Robert A Cook PE
(I can only donate monthly, but socialists' ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
To: Fresh Wind; discostu
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.
20
posted on
11/06/2009 8:26:40 AM PST
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson