Slashdot Mirror
Best of the Free Anti-virus Choices?
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."
I'd reccommend clamAV for windows or clamwin, both are windows ports of the excellent GPLd clam AV.
But I'm also going to make an obligatory 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, and requires new hardware, I won't).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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."
:-)
You going to ask on Digg about those two then?
I've been using the free (as in gratis) version of AVG on all the Windows computers in the family for a long time and have been very pleased with the results.. No successful virus attacks in 9 computers over a period of at least 3 years. The hard part, and this is not specific to AVG, is getting the family members who still use dialup to stay current with updates since some of the downloads take quite a while.
I can't comment on the other free antivirus programs as I've not tried them.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
I see no need to repeat myself, so I'll just link to my previous post on this subject.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I like it. I've used commercial AV before, but the free AVG is as good, or better than those. And it can be set to auto-update and auto-scan.
I haven't used the other free ones; AVG has never given me a need to switch.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
He wants scanners that provide real-time protection, not just on-demand scanning.
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.
I would say according to this comparison, AntiVir is the best...and of course, this is the only comparison that really matters...
I was using AVG and my system had been very sluggish. After several spyware scans with Spybot S&D, Ad Aware and Windows Guardian I was comfortable that I had no spyware or adware on my system. So, I decided to try a different virus scanner. I tried Avast first, it located one infected file that AVG did not.
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
My mother and brother can't handle using Firefox instead of IE; I really can't see them coping with Linux rather than Windows. (My father, on the other hand, is perfectly happy with FF, as is my fiancée now that she's stuck with it for a while)
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)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I've recommended AntiVir to a number of family and friends. The usability increases with each iteration, and gives you options to schedule automatic updates. The only downside is during updates, it sends up a single advertisement for thier full-featured product. So far, I've installed it for my girlfriend, sister, mother, and grandmother. No one has yet had a virus breakout - of course, the promotion of Firefox to Default Browser(TM) and a little user education goes a long way.
As a sidenote, check out the Anandtech Consolidated Security Thread for great commentary on a slew of security products. As of version 6, (now version 7) AntiVir is rated at a 84.5% detection rate.
As for myself, I just use good ol' common sense and a router.
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.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
A while back, I did some testing of my own using the three above scanners. The test was done using a virtual PC VM that could be rolled back and reset, that way all three were tested with an exact PC image and system. Then they were subjected to an IE attack from a known malicious site (which I wont mention since I don't want you infecting your PC)
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.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
I've never had to reactivate - how long are the periods?
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Just that you have looked at free ones.
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.
AVG Free Edition - Use it, Love it. Our curch used the commercial version.
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.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Hmmm, yeah I've had AVG installed and running for 3 years, without having to reactivate.
Is it every 4 years or something?
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I've used AntiVir since the late 1990s or thereabouts. The most recent version has taken to spamming me with an ad for the pay version every time it updates (once a day). The ad pops up and interrupts whatever I'm doing. It doesn't go away until you click it. So this nice freeware seems to have become nagware. I'll be reading others' responses to find out what I should be running instead of AntiVir.
Make cheese not war 8:)
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."
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
That of not only protection but saving the time wasting recovery from infections?
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).
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. 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, 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.)
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Twice now, it's caught virii that AVG missed, and the scanning engine is, in my experience, a lot faster than AVGs.
There are plenty of other ways for an infected file to get onto a system besides Outlook, and a scheduled scan can't catch those files until it runs. On demand provides the ultimate protection for uneducated users, which is why ClamWin is adding it in.
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 with a commercial antivirus. User awareness is sometimes better than automatic protection, as it may be easier to break the automatic protection than to fool an educated user.
However an average user with little knowledge about online and computer security the on-access component is a must and the ClamWin should be used only as a complimentary scanner. We are developing it and will release it in the next major version update.
If the "Integration with Windows Explorer" option is checked during installation, any file can be scanned from within Windows Explorer simply by right-clicking on it and selecting "Scan With ClamWin Free Antivirus"
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
convincing my 83 year old mother that it's OK to leave an "appliance" on when it's not being used. It uses electricity, you know, and that costs money. She's also the one who doesn't have caller ID on her phone because that costs a dollar a month or so.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Clamwin + WinPooch = Awesome Open Source AV solution for Windows Desktops.
I have really had good luck with Clamwin. It doesn't do realtime scanning - so you actually have to scan stuff manually, or setup some auto scans. On the other hand, it won't bog down your system scanning every bloody little thing you download. Plus it is open scource - that is a bonus.
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.
OK. In a near-futile effort not to display too much of my ignorance or stupidity, I'll only give about as much information (commentary) as I actually know in reply to this. Otherwise, my head might deflate or implode. :-)
I actually use a firewall (a seperate firewall/router) to protect my system against silly things like DOS attacks. Yes, they are actully useful. But, not a real virus / trojan deterrant.
And all the emails coming to my boxes are scanned for spam, cruft, filth, etc. So, this is not about email protection, as I have nothing but praise for email scanners.
It's about an exploit gaining root access to a system. That's what is required to damage the integrity of the system. You talk about root-kits... OK, how is the root-kit put on the system? Unsuspecting users you say? Well as long as no privilege-escalating programs are enabled for non-root user access, no issue there. As long as no binaries are allowed in user directories and the current dir is not allowed in a root level users path (in fact root path can be hard coded to a known good directory set and checked regularly.) and email, web and other services do not run under privileged account... no problem with getting a root-kit. Unless the admin is at fault going and building such a rootkit on his own machine. I guess then, that he/she gets what they deserve.
Don't get me wrong, folks. The odds just say you're wasting your time worrying about this. Even the worm mentioned earlier (Ramen) only had success with 2 distros Redhat 6.2 and 7.0 and only when the were running unpatched version of specific daemons. That left an awful lot of Linux users pretty safe.
Last point, the heterogeneity of Linux systems makes a virus writers job difficult to impossible. Imagine having to pack alist of every distros possible vunerabilities in ever copy of the virus. Ergo, Windows needs AV software critically. Linux, minimally and only then if your admins are fully competent to secure their system from attacks and silly exploits.
End of comments. Now the Mods can downgrade me as Troll.
L L
Waiting for my mandatory down-mod to troll
Don't quote me on this...
I have used AVG for a couple years now and whenever I get a new computer or work on a family member's computer, the first thing I do is uninstall the commercial Anti-Virus and install AVG Free Edition
I saw this problem back when the OEM version of McAfee ran out (30 days) on a laptop I had just bought. And I was surprised to see that I could not simply purchase a 1-year subscription to McAfee, I had to pay for a full-install for a year--that cost more. So I said "fuck McAfee" right then and there. ...I ended up going with Norton, I am old-skool enough not to believe in free lunches and Norton shows a couple bugs but has worked fine so far.
Lots of people warned that Norton would bomb the system and be "uninstallable" (hadn't heard of regedit apparently) but I have been around long enough to know that ANY antivirus program can bomb an OS, and they all have. Some of that is due to the OS already being infected, and other times it's just bugs in the program, but one belief I do firmly hold is that any time you install new AV, you are risking the OS install (-Avast! bombed one of my own XP Home PC's into unbootability, for instance-).
But when I went looking, I found that it was very difficult to objectively compare AV programs. There's a few big ones and a hundred or two little ones, and lots of websites to reviews, but they grab one or two of the big ones and a few of the ones many people have never heard of and they test them. And every website tests a different group of AV software, every time they do a test. So the results are never really comparative across different websites, or even across two separate review tests done on the same website.
Ideally there'd be a website that repeatedly tested a large number of AV programs, the SAME programs with very little variation in the programs tested, once a month or so (and listing observed bugs would be good too). And then if one AV consistently came in near the top, or always did poorly, or worked but always showed lots of bugs you could form some real opinion of it. Elsewise, all everyone does is spout opinions and their own observations, "well I tried this one and it sucked, I tried that one and it was great". Everyone I asked online and IRL had tried one that sucked, and had tried some-other that was great, and they were all different and often conflicting.
~
What a lot of crud to say and of course, this is the only comparison that really matters.... There is so very much more to be concerned with:
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.