Antivirus reviews

Welshchris · 04-01-2010, 08:46

Are there any good and reliable truthful sources out there that i can read to decide whats the best antivirus atm?

Ive used Avast now for around 2 years but im being told Kaspersky and Nod32 are better still.

NoKnowledge · 04-01-2010, 09:05

Heres a selection

AVG vs Antivir vs Comodo?

Best antivirus software?

Which security software to use?

Comodo AV -v- AVG AV

**Maggy J** · 04-01-2010, 09:11

Yep the CF search function needs more use than it currently gets...

Welshchris · 04-01-2010, 09:26

they r hardly tested reviews done in a lab situation, they are just peoples opinions.

Mick Fisher · 04-01-2010, 09:27

I have NOD32 running on an Acer notebook. No end of gliches with it and it has never been able to complete a scan. On the plus side it has a small footprint and does not appear to slow the machine. Of course this might be because it isn't working?

I shall not be renewing.

Welshchris · 04-01-2010, 09:32

What i dont want to do is spend out for say 2 years subscription and find i could have gotten something better.

NoKnowledge · 04-01-2010, 09:53

There is no best antivirus software, the tests done are all subjective.

LSainsbury · 04-01-2010, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welshchris

they r hardly tested reviews done in a lab situation, they are just peoples opinions.

Try this: Antivirus Reviews

oliver1948uk · 04-01-2010, 10:18

Computer Shopper February 2010 claims to be "the only magazine in the UK to use live viruses that we've discovered and verified in the wild. And we're the only magazine in the UK to download these viruses in the same way that you'd encounter them".

Of the free ones they tested, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 is best closely followed by AVG Free 9.0. (I would agree with this. Microsoft Security Essentials found a trojan on my computer that AVG had missed)

Of the paid for ones they tested, Kapersky Internet Security 2010 (£27 for 3 PC's) comes out best. (What puts me off that was Kapersky's interference with VM PC Guard which totally messed it up, crashing my two computers constantly)

I have run Microsoft Security Essentials for two or three months and am very happy with it.

04-01-2010, 10:21

PC Guard is Kaspersky maybe thats why they clashed

I also champion MSE. Incidentally did they pitch it against the paid versions?

Raistlin · 04-01-2010, 10:22

The problem with 'tested reviews done in a lab situation' is that they're a) only as good as the day that they were conducted, b) only ever done with a small subset of known viral payloads, c) still only someone's opinion.

Any anti-virus product is only as good as its signatures/heuristic algorithms, the day after the test is conducted(and certainly by the time you read the review) both of these are out of date. Your best bet is to pay for a product where the development seems consistent and where the AV signatures are updated regularly.

The lab testing you're talking about is normally done using a small sample of known threats. They can't properly take account of the heuristics capabilities of the product, and they can't possibly test every known viral/malicious payload in the wild. All you can do is cover yourself by going for a product with a good reputation (note, reputation is more important than anything else here) and which has a comprehensive AV signature database, and then just make sure you practice safe browsing habits and think carefully about how you use your systems.

Finally, the testing that you're talking about is still 'opinion'. In the opinion of the tester they have covered all the required types of testing, in the opinion of the tester they have tested the AV product thoroughly, in the opinion therefore of the tester one particular product is better than another.

You'll only ever know your AV isn't as effective as it could be when it fails to protect you, and most of the time when you get hit by a virus it could actually have been prevented if you'd been more careful with what you were doing. I know users of Microsoft operating systems, and Linux users, and MAC users, that never use an AV product and who have never contracted a virus - those users tend to make fairly limited use of their computers, and tend to have very selective browsing habits.

You have to realise that sometimes things go wrong with products, people cannot possibly test all possibilities and all eventualities, you need to pay your money and take your chances (or just get everything for free if you can and either put up with it when things go wrong or move to a different product and hope you get better results).

oliver1948uk · 04-01-2010, 10:23

At the time, I only ran PC Guard but when the new version came out by Kapersky it was AWFUL. Perhaps it is sorted now. Having used PC Guard and NTL predecessor for years, I now steer well clear after that experience

Raistlin · 04-01-2010, 10:23

FWIW I'd use MSE. It's free, constantly updated, and if anybody's going to know how to get rid of a virus from an MS operating system then it should be MS.

aliferste · 04-01-2010, 10:39

Probably the best anti virus is the ones attached to your hands - just don't download anything suspect!

In almost 18 years of using a comp I have only ever had a few viruses - I have been more bothered with malware if the truth be told - downloading something which looks helpful only to find it is shady.

LSainsbury · 04-01-2010, 11:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob M

The problem with 'tested reviews done in a lab situation' is that they're a) only as good as the day that they were conducted, b) only ever done with a small subset of known viral payloads, c) still only someone's opinion.

Any anti-virus product is only as good as its signatures/heuristic algorithms, the day after the test is conducted(and certainly by the time you read the review) both of these are out of date. Your best bet is to pay for a product where the development seems consistent and where the AV signatures are updated regularly.

The lab testing you're talking about is normally done using a small sample of known threats. They can't properly take account of the heuristics capabilities of the product, and they can't possibly test every known viral/malicious payload in the wild. All you can do is cover yourself by going for a product with a good reputation (note, reputation is more important than anything else here) and which has a comprehensive AV signature database, and then just make sure you practice safe browsing habits and think carefully about how you use your systems.

Finally, the testing that you're talking about is still 'opinion'. In the opinion of the tester they have covered all the required types of testing, in the opinion of the tester they have tested the AV product thoroughly, in the opinion therefore of the tester one particular product is better than another.

You'll only ever know your AV isn't as effective as it could be when it fails to protect you, and most of the time when you get hit by a virus it could actually have been prevented if you'd been more careful with what you were doing. I know users of Microsoft operating systems, and Linux users, and MAC users, that never use an AV product and who have never contracted a virus - those users tend to make fairly limited use of their computers, and tend to have very selective browsing habits.

You have to realise that sometimes things go wrong with products, people cannot possibly test all possibilities and all eventualities, you need to pay your money and take your chances (or just get everything for free if you can and either put up with it when things go wrong or move to a different product and hope you get better results).

Sound advice.