2009 Antivirus Roundup

[Guest]

Been using Kaspersky Internet Security / Anti Virus and Kaspersky Business Space / Total Space Security for the last couple of years and never once had an infection problem, never once a pc that got brought to its knees (From P3 to Quad Core) and always got the packages at more than half the cost of what symantec packages get sold for.

The integrated firewall has never given me issues and adding/changing trusted zones is very straightforward. Also, disabling notifications and letting KIS decide how to handle threats has always worked great, you end up with a package that keeps your machine clean without requiring clients to make decisions on threats they know nothing about.

Kaspersky have great deals on 3 user licenses where you save quite alot. I'll be sticking to Kaspersky for a long time, it simply works.

 

[Guest]

Well every one. I have been dealing with all the big names in AV in all the gun for hire IT jobs. My personal AV has been AVG for a while so I'm bias. If you have dealt SAV then you see the good and bad as well. I have just finished testing the latest AVG 8.5.406 that just came out. They don't pay me to test either. This version has had a major code re-write to Resident Shield, Link Scanner and Web Shield. I now have AVG telling me more about cookies that track for maleware sites.

Its not perfect but its better than I've seen in the past by a large margin. Its still worth the money and less a pain than McAfey or SAV.

 

[vaag256]

Here's a table I compiled based on the av-comparatives testing
(av-comparatives.org)
Hib Hib Lib Lib
old virii found new virii found fp's speed
G DATA 99.80% 60% 44 1.92
AVIRA 99.70% 69% 24 2.69
McAfee2 99.10% 25% 13 1.81
Symantec 98.70% 35% 7 1.33
Avast 98.20% 42% 28 1.85
eScan 98.00% 50% 17 3.85
BitDefender 98.00% 50% 25 1.8
ESET 97.60% 56% 13 1.22
Kaspersky 97.10% 50% 14 1.98
AVG 93.00% 45% 17 2.98
MS onecare 87% 60% 2 2,07

Hib= highest is best
Lib=lowest is best
fp's=false positives

speed:
short version; if the speed is 1, no delay occurs when copying/archiving/encoding/starting, if the speed is 2, then it will take 100% as long to do copying/archiving/encoding/starting.

long version;
the speed is a weighed percentage divided by 100,
the weights were chosen based on my own experience,
and approach the average user's actions
copy 180.0%
archive 130.0%
encode 20.0%
startup 100.0%
this basically means that I find copying 9 times as important as encoding (mostly because I copy more than I encode, and because I can walk away from the computer when encoding)
so if copying a file without an AV takes 2 seconds, and copying the same file with an AV takes 4 seconds this would be a 100% added delay, multiplied with the copy weight = 180%, at the end these percentages (from copy/archive/etc) are added and divided by 100. hope this makes it clear.

new virii are viruses that are less than a few days old,
so the detection of these depend almost entirely on the heuristic engine (since the virus won't be in the database yet)
'old virii' are viruses less than 3 months old.

hope this gives you some insight in the performance of the most used virus scanners

 

[vaag256]

and ofcourse, formatting of that table goes down the drain.

 

[micky_lund]

so, do you add a firewall to that antivirus program? or do u just use it alone? and what about adware, malware, spyware, etc. etc?!

 

[Guest]

who made this pathetic review?
have he tried using it?