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 previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
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.
21
posted on
11/06/2009 8:27:40 AM PST
by
discostu
(The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
To: skateman
22
posted on
11/06/2009 8:29:07 AM PST
by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Please God Save The United States From Barack Hussein Al-Obama. Amen.)
To: TChris
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.
23
posted on
11/06/2009 8:32:53 AM PST
by
discostu
(The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
To: discostu
Norton utilities crossed that line in 2000 or so, used to be I wouldnt 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.
24
posted on
11/06/2009 8:39:26 AM PST
by
TChris
(There is no freedom without the possibility of failure.)
To: Gomez
25
posted on
11/06/2009 8:43:08 AM PST
by
techcor
(I hope Obama succeeds... in becoming a one term president.)
To: TChris
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.
26
posted on
11/06/2009 8:47:34 AM PST
by
Fresh Wind
("Prosperity is just around the corner." VP Charles Curtis, 1932)
To: Gomez
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.
To: Gomez
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.
28
posted on
11/06/2009 9:00:43 AM PST
by
n2dubes
To: perfect_rovian_storm
What is the best software? Linux.
Beat me to it.
29
posted on
11/06/2009 9:00:51 AM PST
by
zeugma
(Atomics or Aliens?)
To: Gomez
30
posted on
11/06/2009 9:04:36 AM PST
by
ßuddaßudd
(7 days - 7 ways Guero >>> with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona.....)
To: zeugma
Test
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*~
31
posted on
11/06/2009 9:05:35 AM PST
by
zeugma
(Atomics or Aliens?)
To: discostu
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.
To: antiRepublicrat
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).
33
posted on
11/06/2009 9:29:59 AM PST
by
discostu
(The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
To: Gomez
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?
34
posted on
11/06/2009 9:46:46 AM PST
by
bigheadfred
(Be who you are and say what you feel: Those who mind don't matter.Those who matter don't mind.)
To: ShadowAce; Gomez; Vendome; Billthedrill
My anti-virus program is eScan.
35
posted on
11/06/2009 10:01:36 AM PST
by
LucyT
To: discostu
Did you ever have Norton Desktop for 3.1? I loved it. It treated zip files like folders years before Windows got that ability.
To: antiRepublicrat
Yeah I remember that one. Good stuff. Just makes what Symantec has done to the name even sadder.
37
posted on
11/06/2009 11:29:04 AM PST
by
discostu
(The Bluebird of Happiness long absent from his life, Ned is visited by the Chicken of Depression)
To: Gomez
Malwarebytes anti-malware.
38
posted on
11/06/2009 11:33:28 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: discostu
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.
To: mysterio
Malwarebytes anti-malware.
That's what I've been using lately.
It's interesting that it wasn't included in the eval.
40
posted on
11/06/2009 6:16:02 PM PST
by
Paladin2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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