Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices? 499
iamjoltman writes "I've been looking to replace the McAfee anti-virus on my parent's XP machine. So, I've been looking at the three free anti-virus choices, AVG Free Edition, avast! Home Edition and AntiVir Personal Edition. I know there are other options, but I believe any others are only on-demand scanners, and that's not an option. So, what does the Slashdot crowd think is the best of these choices? Keep in mind, I'm only looking in anti-virus, I'll go elsewhere for firewall or malware protection."
Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2, Informative)
But I'm also going to make an obligatory [ubuntu.com] dig at windows. Consider downloading some software that means you wont have to run anti-virus software.
(Staying true to my username, I would also like to reccommend os x, but as it's not available for download [thepiratebay.org], and requires new hardware, I won't).
RTFSummary (Score:2, Informative)
And I've often wondered why Clam doesn't make a real-time protection piece. With all the other stuff they have I figure they're already 97% of the way there, with the AV signature databases and all. I'd use it, or at least give it a try.
AVG by grisoft is where its at though.
Re:RTFSummary (Score:3, Interesting)
Fair enough, I read it too quickly. However, clamwin can be integrated into outlook & ie (two major vectors), and be setup to run periodically.
As every 'real time' protection anti virus scanner I've ever reccommended has been more trouble then its worth (high resource usage, memory leaks & false alarm pop-ups causing the user to turn it off every single time), I would still go with my reccommendation.
Re:RTFSummary (Score:5, Informative)
Cheers,
E.
Re:RTFSummary (Score:2)
Re:RTFSummary (Score:3, Insightful)
ClamAV, well the win32 ports, does look like a promising prjoect and i look forward to seeing a more feature complete version, until then i'm afraid i'll continue to recommend AVG free to n
Re:RTFSummary (Score:3, Interesting)
Has something changed since I last looked? I thought it was protocol... as in POP3 only, leaving me and my imap solutions out of luck.
Re:RTFSummary (Score:5, Informative)
For Windows, I've been happily using NOD32. The install file is about 11 meg, the install dir is about 25, and the memory footprint I'm seeing right now is about 16 (and I think I could get it lower by turning off some options). I haven't noticed any delay in booting and I haven't received any false positives. (It's even found things on my system that Norton didn't.) Best of all, the only two times I've ever received a popup were when it actually found a virus/trojan -- and you can even turn that off and have it act on its own.
The downside, though, is that I don't think it's grandma-friendly; options galore.
They have a free 30 day trial version if you're game.
Re:RTFSummary (Score:2, Interesting)
Although if you get tired of Wi
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2)
On Demand Coming Soon (Score:3, Interesting)
From the FAQ:
Q.) Can ClamWin check files automatically as they are accessed
A.) The answer is not yet.
So far ClamWin does not have on-access scanner so you need to be careful and scan a suspicious file before opening it. If you do that you will be as safe as wi
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:4, Informative)
ClamAV is an on-demand scanner. Do not despair: with WinPooch [winpooch.free.fr], you can make it a resident scanner. Alas, I only read about it here on slashdot and didn't try it myself. Anyone here knows how good it is?
I personally use AVG Free Edition and it works just fine. It's non-intrusive and does its work well. That's the reason why I didn't uninstall it to try out WinPooch.
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:3, Informative)
I use it on my virtualized Windows 2000 Server box running inside Qemu on top of Ubuntu.
Not sure if it's a result of running under Qemu (and I use kqemu acceleration, BTW) or if it's just the code itself, but WinPooch seems to take a long time to start up, but once it does the performance hit doesn't seem to
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2)
I also would be all over it if it did the Processor sucking on access scanning that the other virus scan products do.
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2)
Again, I'm not looking to discredit the tool, because I love OSS as well. Actually, one could say it would be a way to in the future credit it.
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:4, Informative)
open notepad and paste the below,
# Save this as C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin\freshclam.conf
DatabaseMirror database.clamav.net
MaxAttempts 3
then do as the first line suggests and save it in the location.
then open notepad and paste the below, /f /r .
echo off
cls
echo Clam Scan Open Source Virus Detection and Removal Script
chkdsk
cd C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin
freshclam --datadir="C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\.clamwin\db" --config-file="C:\Program Files\ClamWin\bin\freshclam.conf"
clamscan --database="C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\.clamwin\db" --recursive --verbose --bell --remove C:\
echo
echo beginning hard drive maintennance...
defrag c: -v
shutdown -r
save this as tune_up.bat somewhere and click on it when you
are done with your work everyday.
Re:Oblig: ClamAV (Score:2)
"Real-time" or "on-access" scanning means that files are scanned when the OS attempts to access them, as opposed to when you explicitly request ("on-demand") or schedule a scan. It does have the effect of slowing the machine. In my experience, it's also invaluable if the system isn't being operated by someone who is going to spend considerable energy policing
Re:This is a really bad post (Score:2)
The fact is that there are no viruses for either os x or linux spreading in the wild.
Re:This is a really bad post (Score:2)
There aren't many in the wild but they definitely exist and they all perform some function you wouldn't want them to perform on your computer.
No matter what platform you have you need system state protection. Various platforms have implemented it in various differe
Elsewhere.. (Score:5, Funny)
You going to ask on Digg about those two then?
AVG here.. (Score:5, Informative)
I can't comment on the other free antivirus programs as I've not tried them.
Avast vs AVG (Score:5, Informative)
AVAST also has plugins for about a dozen IM and p2p services. This is excellent for a number of reasons.
On the other hand, the free version does not seem to have a scheduled scan feature, not that I've noticed.
AVG is more user friendly, does have a scheduled scan feature that Avast does not seem to have. It does not seem to have a plugin for IM and p2p networks.
Re:Avast vs AVG (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Avast vs AVG (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Avast vs AVG (Score:2)
I use Avast, myself.
Re:Avast vs AVG (Score:2, Informative)
I also recommend the free version of AVG. Due to user-friendlyness, sheduling, set-it and forget updating, etc.
AVG also runs on Linux [grisoft.com]
Re:AVG here.. (Score:5, Informative)
The client is very light and non-intrusive as opposed to some well known others *COUGHNORTONCOUGHSYMANTECCOUGH*. I actually like that every email, both incoming and outgoing, gets a stamp that it was scanned. Lets me know that yes, it's still working properly and lets everybody else know that the email was definitively scanned.
The corporate network edition we use at the church is definitely VERY nice to work with. For $250 we got 10 licenses, 2 years of updates, and a central administration program. Installation is the easiest I've ever done on any networked antivirus:
1) Turn on all machines
2) Install AVG network admin tool on your file server (or any other machine)
3) Click Services > Install Antivirus, put in the relevant info, click Scan Network, and it will find all the active computers on your subnet.
4) Select the workstations you want done and click Install.
It's that simple. I think I installed all 8 workstations in under 5 minutes (and that includes turning them on and waiting for them to boot). You can also very easily set the server admin to download updates and push them out to the clients however often you want so the clients aren't bogging your network down with update requests.
I haven't used Avast but I've heard both good and bad things about it from other people, but I have yet to hear true negative feedback about AVG (true as opposed to fanboy whining).
Re:AVG here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
AVG Pro here (Score:2)
Re:AVG here.. (Score:2)
In fact, I've even ended up paying for a licensed version at work, rather than the Norton that the company uses...
Agreed. The hard part, in my case, is... (Score:3, Interesting)
AVG is good (Score:2, Redundant)
Avast! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Avast! (Score:2)
It is one of the few AVs that actually support Win XP x64 (at least when it came out) and it was bloated. There were constantly pop-ups and it was a memory hog (again, can't speak for x86 Windows & Avast).
I mainly got rid of it for the pop-ups, even with notifier off it still told me things that I really didn't care to know, mainly that it was running.
A good antivirus (IMHO) should start, update and
Re:Avast! (Score:2)
AVG (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't used the other free ones; AVG has never given me a need to switch.
AVG Camp (Score:2, Troll)
Re:AVG Camp (Score:2)
But since I don't know you, I won't try to stop you.
Still, I recommend checking out Sunbelt (formerly Kerio) Personal Firewall. Sunbelt bought it from Kerio back in December when Kerio was dropping support. It comes with a 30-day full version, and gracefully drops to a free version at the end of the trial (I think there's one notice at the time) where some of the higher-
AVG (Score:2)
AV Comparison (Score:5, Informative)
Re:AV Comparison (Score:2)
The AntiVir suggestion goes well with what I've heard too.
Generally I think many suggest AVG because it's what they've tried, and it works. It somehow seem to be the most used free AV, but I'm not convinced that's founded in detection rates, resource usage, etc. It could be the ZoneAlarm case -- the by far most popular one, but from my experiences, e.g Kerio has interfered with other system/network-close tools far less. I can't count how many times
Re:AV Comparison (Score:2, Informative)
2) antivir did NOT have the highest score
Absolutely NOT the only comparison that matters (Score:3, Insightful)
Size of memory footprint
Scan speed
Scheduled scanning ability
Plugs into email applications
How it behaves with other applications
How easy it is to use.
So NO that is not the only comparison that matters.
Does Free Achieve the End Goal? (Score:2)
I don't know the answer on that one.
Re:Does Free Achieve the End Goal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If "free" meant "less effective" then you would have a good point. But it doesn't - The three mentioned in the FP all perform comparably to Symantec, and (from at least one independant review I've seen) considerably better than McAfee.
Not to mention, they consume FAR lower system resources. At work we run Symantec corporate edition, and I actually need to disable it to burn a DVD rather than a coaster (and I don't run on old or low-end hardware). At home, AntiVir chugs away without making a nuissance of itself or reducing all disc access to a crawl. It also doesn't install six services, two autoruns, and a handfull of TCP/IP stack hijacks, which Symantec does.
Personally, I long for Clam to support on-demand scanning. But until then... AntiVir wins, with AVG a close second (and the only free on-demand choice for server versions of Windows).
I just investigates this this week. (Score:5, Insightful)
I removed the file and my system immediately began to run faster. I wondered if AVG missed something, could Avast miss something, so I downloaded and installed AntiVir. AntiVir drove me crazy with all kinds of false positives. AntiVir picked up many security audit tools that I was evaluating as trojans. I'd never be able to use my system if I left it installed. I went back to Avast. For the time being, Avast is my personal virus scanner of choice. Apparently no false positives and it found a virus that AVG did not.
LK
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:2)
My machines are set up with AVG auto-scanning and updating, but about once a month I pop in and do manual scans with other software, which one it is varies month-to-month -- usually Avast or AntiVir. AntiVir, as someone else pointed out, does turn up some false positives -- which is why I only use it as a secondary sweeper
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:3, Interesting)
I get paid to manually scan 12 laptops a month -- I run my manuals at the same time. The laptops, the use of which is completely outside my control, regularly have malware on them that I catch via the manual scans. I suspect the users cancel the autoscans because of the performan
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:3, Informative)
I would be like to hear about the OP other ideas for firewall and malware.
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:2)
Re:I just investigates this this week. (Score:2)
Maybe you just never got one that AVG could detect that Avast! couldn't.
I think the approach of running multiple virus scanners is the best choice because you're less likely to let one slip through.
AntiVir (Score:5, Insightful)
As a sidenote, check out the Anandtech Consolidated Security Thread [anandtech.com] for great commentary on a slew of security products. As of version 6, (now version 7) AntiVir is rated [virus.gr] at a 84.5% detection rate.
As for myself, I just use good ol' common sense and a router.
Re:AntiVir (Score:4, Interesting)
I've used AntiVir to countless a dozen PCs that were running Norton and got infected anyway. I recommend it to all of my clients. So far, I'd say there are around 40 computers I'm taking care of here and there that are running AntiVir without any problem. I am highly satisfied with this product. No, I don't work there.
Re:AntiVir (Score:2)
You have a girlfiend?
Please return to you normal
I second Antivir (Score:2, Informative)
AVG here (Score:2)
Go with Antivir (Score:5, Informative)
AVG was dead last, and could not stop even simple web attacks from propagating, even with the highest settings, although it was the least intrusive and fastest of the three, and didn't nag you to upgrade or anything.
Second was Avast. it stopped a lot of the malicious code, but some still got through and started to drop spyware into the system. It supposedly has guards similar to Windows defender, but didn't seem to do anything to stop the unknown propagations from occurring even on maximum settings.
Antivir was the best out of the three, catching most of the viruses at it's default setting, and all of the malware at it's maximum (it has definitions for questionable programs like VNC, Jokes and the like, but it's turned off by default) It's biggest problem is that it is the naggiest AV of the three, which constantly asking you to upgrade to the paid version. It also has a tendency to be very sensitive to programs that do virus like behavior at maximum settings, so expect some false positives from time to time.
Re:Go with Antivir (Score:4, Interesting)
So, my question would be, does any of these 2 other AV has a way to "incoulate" or ignore certain file and process forever?
AVG (Score:2)
XP or 2003? (or "other")? (Score:2)
Unfortunately, AntiVir refuses to run on any "servers" (meaning NT4 server, 2000 server, and any form of 2003). On those, I run AVG, which works almost as well, IMO, but has a slightly less frien
AVG All the way (Score:2)
Antivir also requires you to re-run their setup program each time you have to update the engine, which in my experience could be at least once a month. This is cumbersome and can be confusing to computer illiterate users. Since I've switched to AVG I haven't run into these pro
PCMag Did This Review (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't actually say it had to be free (Score:3, Insightful)
Nod32 from eSet has been running hassle-free on my Windows machine for quite a while and has scored 100% detection rates in third-party testing.
Re:You didn't actually say it had to be free (Score:3, Interesting)
This was the main reason I ditched it, it was otherwise a great piece of software. Of course, YMMV.
AVG for me (Score:3, Informative)
avast! Home Edition - Had install problems. Many of my firends live by it.
AntiVir Personal Edition - Ran good, but I have had problems with random freezes when used on a system with an accounting package writen in VB 6 that used SQLBase. Not sure which cause which.
clamAV for windows - Haven't used it.
clamwin - Haven't used it.
avast! Pro (Score:2)
My wife got a notice at work that some webpage she tried to go to contained a virus... I purposely went to it to see if avast! would catch it - and it did.
And, you can try it for free
AntiVir is going downhill (Score:4, Interesting)
NOD32 kicks ass (Score:2)
The best anti-virus.. (Score:3, Insightful)
It contains several points.
There are other things, but the general idea is this. Most anti-virus software will slow down your computer. Sometimes, as much so that it behaves as if it's actually infected with a virus. Following general rules you can lead a completely normal life with a computer, sans anti virus software. I have been doing it for over 12 years, and none of my computers have ever been infected with a real virus. Sure, I've had to do MS updates for sasser and the like to prevent other drone computers on the internet from attacking me using a flaw, but that doesn't count as being infected with a virus, and most likely wouldn't have been something an anti-virus program would have stopped to begin with.
Oh, and Linux zealots: Please try to stop yourselves from suggesting that Linux in some form is the "end all, catch all" cure for PC woes and viruses. I would much rather go to my mothers house once a month ro remove a virus than once every 15 minutes to try to explain how to do something simple with her system. Before you fuckers get happy with the moderate menu please understand I'm not bashing Linux, I'm just saying we have to stop making the answer to every question "Install Linux."
Re:The best anti-virus.. (Score:5, Funny)
(1) Don't turn your machine on. If it's not turned on, you can't get infected.
(2) If you do, by accident, turn your machine on, don't log in.
(3) If, somehow, you accidentally type in your username and password, don't open a web browser.
(4) If you happen to open a web browser window, make sure thw wire that connects your PC to the network is not attached.
These simple steps will prevent infection by malware. I've never had an infection of any sort using these guidelines -- my PET2001 still remains virus-free due to these simple precautions -- and it's been in use since 1981!.
Sorry to take the piss, but your smug feeling of superiority is ill-placed. You severely limit the functionality of your PC -- and while it may work for you, it won't work for people who want a different experience from their PC -- like making use of streaming media, or playing simple games. It's totally unreasonable to expect Joe User to not accidentally accept an installation of something they nasty.
And, I have to add, it's only a matter of time before you ARE infected -- and since you don't scan, you'll have no way of knowing if you're propagating.
Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much (Score:4, Informative)
What I can't understand is why people will pay $500-$2500 for their computer, another $200-$1000 for software, but won't pay a measly $20-$40 per year for an antivirus.
I use Trend Micro Pc-cillin Internet Security 2006 [trendmicro.com]. It's $50 to buy, and $25 a year after the first year, and it's the best I've tried so far. It includes antivirus, firewall (very configurable), anti-spam (which I don't use), and malware protection.
Unlike Norton, which only updates their definitions once a week, Trend Micro updates theirs every three hours. It's the same update frequency as their enterprise solutions [trendmicro.com], which are very powerful and easy to administer.
I know I sound like a commercial, but come on; with all the money you've spent on your computer, don't skimp on protecting it. Then again, as others have suggested, you could just go with Mac or Linux and not worry about viruses at all. (Just get something to protect against worms and root attacks.)
Re:Why free? A good AV doesn't cost that much (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway I think you can see where I'm going with this. Why pay when you can have it for nothing?
By the way, AntiVir Personal for me.
A vote for avast! (Score:2)
The real-time system scan also performs well, with relatively little memory usage compared to Norton or McAfee. I haven't made much use of the P2P or IM scanners, but if they're up to par with the system and e-mail components, I'd
NOD32, trendmicro, jv16, msconfig (Score:2)
Avast! (Score:2)
I've been using it for about three years now, and I've never had an infection on my computer or any of the machines belonging to friends and family that I 'administer'. At one stage I was carrying around burnt CDs with the Blaster removal tool and Avast on them and giving them to people when they complained about the damn thing.
My only gripe is that the small alert notice that lets you know Avast has been updated does not play well with fullscreen 3D apps. Every
ClamWin (Score:2)
BitDefender (Score:2)
Missing Option - Clamwin (Score:4, Informative)
If you couple clamwin with winpooch (open source anti-spyware) it gives you incredible control over your system. With winpooch, clamwin can do real-time scanning.
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a particular reason an alternate, less susceptible OS wouldn't suffice?
Blah blah only a matter of time blah blah no OS can save your machine from a rogue user with the root password blah blah.
Seriously, the vast majority of viruses and other malware are user-initiated; true worms (that exploit holes in server/daemon processes) are very rare. Linux will save you from the former only as long as it's obscure. Security through obscurity, and all that...
(Cue over-rated and troll mods)
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
Mandrake 9.1!? You so need to get them Ubuntu or Mepis, or at least a recent version of Mandriva. Even then, I'm sure as soon as you go away they'll get the neighbor kid to pirate Windows for them, but you could at least try to give them something modern and useabl
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
He did imply either (Score:2)
Then they would be safe NOW. Of course there could be exploits later but that does not really address the core point that they would be safe NOW, and if they run updates when they come up they'd probably be safe for a good long time.
I cannot stress enough how much time it saves YOU getting your parents a Mac. That the origi
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
People love shinies, Flash gives them those shinies, Linux's Flash plugin is bollocks. That and mplayer and xine both having terrible, eye splitting guis make it a nono.
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
People love shinies, Flash gives them those shinies, Linux's Flash plugin is bollocks.
That's funny...Flash is one of the few things on Linux that hasn't given me grief.
That and mplayer and xine both having terrible, eye splitting guis make it a nono.
You might want to take a look at some of the flashier frontends out there, like Kaffeine [sourceforge.net] and amaroK [kde.org]. Both of these were available in my OpenSuSE installation, and they look great and work great.
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
I know about Kaffeine and AmaroK, they're good enough, but there's still a lot to be desired.
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
Lol, yeah you're parents should totally use Linux.
And why not? They couldn't understand it any less than they understand XP...and since they don't understand how to defend themselves from viruses and malware either Linux makes more sense for them.
The only reason they aren't on Linux right now is because they're still connecting via dialup (They live in northern lower Michigan), and to date, I've been unsuccessful in getting their dialup to function reliably under Linux. If I can resolve that issue, or if
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
If my mom didn't need Windows for work, I'ld totally put Linux on her PC. I gave Linux to my technology-clueless best friend, and she's doing just fine. Linux has really made big stides in usability over the past few years, and I'ld recommend anyone who's clueless about Windows (and thus likely to download massive amounts of malware) to switch to Linux.
Re:Obligatory (this *is* Slashdot, after all): (Score:2)
On the other hand, it is for a lot more people than those people believe, I'd say.
Re:Linux? (Score:2)
It seems to have improved a bit, but OTOH they added nag screens in the recent releases.
Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation (Score:3, Informative)
Re:AVG requires periodic reactivation (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it every 4 years or something?
m-
Re:Consider Clamwin (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
1. If this guy wanted to hear about how Linux was less susceptible to virii than XP, he needn't of posted his own askslashdot question, he could have just read any frontpage story about Windows, Linux, or malware in general.
2. What you freak
Re:Other options. (Score:2)