Reliable, Free Anti-Virus Software?

oahazmatt writes "Some time ago my wife was having severe issues on her laptop. (A Dell Inspiron, if that helps.) I eventually found the cause to be McAfee, which took about an hour to remove fully. I installed AVG on her system to replace McAfee, but we have since found that AVG is causing problems with her laptop's connection to our wireless network. She's not thrilled about a wired connection as the router is on the other end of the house. We're looking for some good, open-source or free personal editions of anti-virus software. So, who on Slashdot trusts what?" When school required a Windows laptop, I used Clam AV, and the machine seemed to do as well as most classmates'. What have you found that works?

Comments

Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Free antivirus, Hopefully I get my suggestion in before everyone else :P

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

Not counting, of course, the abundance of total system freezes which require a hard reset -- something WinXP never has. Every version since Dapper Drake has this problem.

The Heron install CD is hopelessly broken and won't dynamically resize the NTFS partition to make room its install because it requires the NTFS partition to be mounted. and it also fucks up your boot sectors and leaves odd garbage on your hard drive.

So go ahead, use Linux. It's stable and reliable as long as you have a Beowulf cluster and don't use a GUI.

Re:Easy

[Godji]

Posts like this lead to another, very important point. The reason we don't have a (good) free software antivirus program* is because that's a hard problem that the free software community does not have a large need to solve. The reason why there is no large need to solve the virus problem is, you guessed it, Linux. Every free software developer, given the choice of dedicating their free time on on antivirus or [insert cool project here], will certainly choose [insert cool project here].

Re:Easy

[couchslug]

"Posts like this lead to another, very important point. "

Fixing the problems of an operating system sold by a bitter opponent of Open and Free software is not a wise choice for a proponent of Open or Free software.

Capturing market share for applications like Firefox helps grab mindshare, and developing alternate operating systems gives that mindshare somewhere to go post-Windows.

Doing for Redmond what Redmond does not do for itself while not getting paid is arguably stupid.

Re:Easy

[turbotroll]

Of course no discussion about Windows security issues is complete without a fanboy shouting "Install Linux". Who the fuck scored this as insightful? Come on, you can do better.

Re:Easy

[niiler]

Interestingly enough, it's related a problem we're going to have to start dealing with. Let me explain. I tend to promote OSS to students, largely because they are too poor to afford anything better. Many have MSWorks and NOT MSOffice on their computers or other limitations. So I recommend products like OpenOffice.org or VLC player (among others dependent on the need). Some of these folks, instead of following my links to the real websites, Google OpenOffice and are finding third party knock-offs, that they claim are installing viruses/spyware on their machines.

So the free-software community's problem is that while we generally tell people to take our source code and do *whatever* with it, some malware writers (on Windows, at least), have noted that this provides an opportunity to them. Is a good anti-virus a fix? Probably not. Rather, there needs to be a way for non-discriminating users to tell that they don't have the original distribution. I can't think of how to do this off the top of my head, but suspect it may mean that code is cryptographically certified before it can be considered to be secure. And of course, this opens up a huge can of worms.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

That worked well, but now I can't find any of my games, audio recording apps or video editing apps. Open office still works though.. whew.

Re:Easy

[pwizard2]

Broadcomm BC43xx? Ugh! Been there. There are fixes documented out there, but it requires some effort at the console (pkg installs + some config changes) to pull it off.

Not really. Ubuntu's restricted drivers section has a B43 module that works with most Broadcom configs I tested with. Granted, it's not open-source kosher, but most people aren't bothered by that if it makes the difference between wireless working or not working.

Re:Easy

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe the guy who posted the original question about anitivirus should have restated the question a bit, as in:

"I am a music producer who uses Sonar/Ableton Live/Cubase/ProTools/Gigasampler/take your pick of pro audio software. There is absolutely no pro audio software available for Linux that is anywhere near ready for professional work, nor are there stable drivers for professional audio hardware that are ready for prime time (without workarounds like Jack). Since I've used Gigasampler for a decade, a Mac is not an option for me.

NOW does anyone know of a free antivirus software that is dependable and relatively trouble-free? etc etc."

Now I like Linux quite a bit and I use it extensively in my work for off-loading effects and rendering cycles (Reaper does this very nicely) and for storage and many other important duties. But sometimes, there simply isn't a viable option to non-Linux operating system. Maybe it won't always be so. I try every new version of Ubuntu Studio and brave the frustration of using Jack.

The guy made a simple and sincere request, and the constant refrains of "you'd be better off if you used Linux" are not only unhelpful, but rude and wrong.

Re:Easy

[aliquis]

Why does a retarded answer like this get moderated 4, insightful rather than -1, off-topic?

I doubt she gives a shit about Ubuntu or wants to use it.

ScrewMaster was correct, a fast lame first post which don't offer any insight or a solution.

What's the purpose of having useless posts like this in the thread? It won't help her.

My suggestion is avira. It's good at its purpose and uses few resources.
I like comodo firewall to and they have an anti-virus called "anti-virus 2" I believe but it's beta and I don't know how good it actually is.
Comodo got plenty of free totally usable products.

Re:Easy

[vadim_t]

Err, no. MD5/SHA checks provide no security. They only let you verify that a file wasn't corrupted in transit. Such things are generally freak accidents and very uncommon, and are mainly useful for checking things like that yep, that CD image was indeed 300MB in size and nothing got cut off anywhere.

If you find a shady site, and download a .rpm or .deb from there, nothing stops them from providing the matching checksum.

Proper security is attained by GPG signatures.

Re:Easy

[couchslug]

""I am a music producer who uses Sonar/Ableton Live/Cubase/ProTools/Gigasampler/take your pick of pro audio software."

For which he surely paid well, which begs the question of why he is asking for a FREE recommendation instead of one for professional AV software. After all, he has his livelihood riding on the performance of his systems.

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

That works with most Broadcom configs I tested with.

But thats sort of the problem with most of the flavors of *nix I've attempted to take a shot at over the years, you can never be *entirely* sure that its going to support whatever hardware you have. The answer is always 'it should' or 'it usually does' or 'it only takes a little tweaking'. No offense but fuck that.....

Re:Easy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not easy, that's an unhelpful suggestion entirely ignoring the problem at hand, which happens to be which free Windows antivirus is recommended by people. Throwing out names of Linux distros is not helpful, not easy (migrating to a new platform never is) and is certainly not clever, having been done thousands of times in any post that asks something like "What X should I use for my Windows machine?"

Re:Easy

[SuperDre]

What a BS suggestion... That's about the same as suggesting not to use a computer at all... and how naive can you be.. because there aren't really any anti-virusprograms for linux doesn't mean there aren't any virusses for it either.. The only reason why there aren't many virusses/trojans for linux, is the fact that it's not as popular as windows.. Because linux has just as many holes as windows has (even more if I look around the internet), but malicious people aren't really interested yet because it still isn't used as much as windows (by really dumb people).. So the 'reward' isn't that much as with windows.. But if you think you are safe with Ubuntu, then think again... especially when it really gets used by a lot of people..

Re:Easy

[nigelo]

Yep, I installed an anti-virus, and turned it off, too.

My machine runs almost as fast as without any AV at all.

And in the 2 years I haven't been using it, I've never once had a problem with viruses.

I second the mention of ClamWin

[tepples]

When school required a Windows laptop, I used Clam AV

I second the mention of ClamWin. The biggest missing feature in ClamWin is scanning every file on fopen(), and that's what usually causes the resource hogging behavior that some people believe to be typical of antivirus. In my experience, a computer user really doesn't need real-time operation unless he's looking at pr0n (erotic web sites), downloading w4r3z (infringing copies of proprietary commercial software), or doing something comparably dangerous. A weekly full scan is enough.

Re:I second the mention of ClamWin

[gad_zuki!]

Or setup the user to run as limited user. You wouldnt let your wife run as root 24/7 would you? Windows is the same way. Limited user + clamav (or no AV) is more than enough.

Re:PEBKAC

[Anonymous Coward]

... you don't need to surf on "weird" sites to get a virus. An unpatched XP machine gets infected within ~10 minutes of being online after a fresh install.

Re:Clam AV

[Epsillon]

ClamAV, as it stands, does not do on-access scanning. I quite dislike the way the Win32 version (ClamWin) installs a little Clam icon into the system tray, as a false sense of security is worse than no security at all.

MoonSecure is a scanner/heuristics engine that uses Clam's signatures and does perform on-access scanning but, when I last tried it, it had "issues".

Avast is my current recommendation of the freebies for personal use, followed by Avira, if you can stand the constant nagging about upgrading to paid versions. Avira's detection rate, last I looked, was slightly better than Avast's but the nag screens are a bone of contention. Also have a look at Comodo's offerings. Note that none of these are free software, just free to use. MoonSecure is GPL'd and may have become a little better since I tried it, so it may be worth a shot if freedom matters to you.

Try this: no antivirus

[Matt Perry]

I'm serious. Stop doing the things that put you at risk for viruses and you won't have to run anti-virus. I don't run anti-virus or anti-spyware software on my computer and I've never had a problem. Occasionally, just to verify that I'm doing the right thing, I boot from a BartPE Windows CD and run anti-virus and anti-spyware tools against my hard drive. They never find anything bad. The last time I had a virus was in 1989 on my Amiga 500.

Re:Try this: no antivirus

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, but some of us actually connect our computers to a world wide network, you've might've heard about it. With shit like the recent all windoze versions spanning wormable vulnerability, common sense don't quite cut it...

Besides, you can never diagnose with 100 percent certainty that you don't have a rootkit...

Re:Try this: no antivirus

[nine-times]

I'd say that you're right, except that you're ignoring one source of problems: stupid people. Stupid people can't "stop doing things that put [them] at risk for viruses" because they aren't smart enough to understand the difference between risky behavior and safe behavior. Even if you explain it to them, they won't understand it, and they'll forget your instructions.

Ok, to be fair, it's not just stupid people. There are smart people who simply don't have the computer or security expertise necessary to be able to understand the difference between a safe download and a risky one. They don't understand, and they have other things to do besides spending all their time learning, investigating, and figuring it out.

For those people, it helps to secure the system through various methods, one of which might be an AV program.

Re:Try this: no antivirus

[redmond]

"I'd say that you're right, except that you're ignoring one source of problems: stupid people."

I really hate this logic. Just because you understand something about a computer or security does not make you smarter than anyone else. You have an area of expertise, that doesn't make you more intelligent.
Think of it like this. An auto mechanic says you should check your tire pressure every 30 days. This will ensure that your tires are properly inflated, don't cause premature wear, and improve gas mileage. You may take his advice for a month or two, but eventually you either forget about it or simply ignore it. Eventually, you end up back at the mechanic needing to have your tires replaced. The mechanic thinks, why don't these stupid people just check their air pressure in their tires. Sound familiar? The mechanic sees the car as a device that requires maintenance and care. You see the car as a tool to deliver you too and from work.
You could make a similar comparison for almost any profession. Simply put, most people have an area of expertise: doctors, lawyers, teachers, mechanics, programmers, engineers all understand things that the average intelligent person does not. This doesn't make them smarter, just more aware of their field of interest.

For perverse definitions of Easy

[Animaether]

Although I do applaud people moving to, say, Ubuntu (I'm playing with the Live CD and loving it), I don't think this is a Funny -or- Insightful reply any time the topic of viruses/trojans/etc. comes up (and this being Slashdot, it does seem to come up quite often).

Ignoring for a moment that Linux -has- its share of malware ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses , cue "wikipedia is unreliable" and "all of those holes are already patched" and "but it's still much less than on M$ Winblows"), and ignoring for a moment that a lot of replies will be that Linux is more secure by design, that a virus can't get root, etc. (and automatically ignoring for a moment the replies -that- will generate on how that's little comfort when your files are gone, or your machine is a spambot all the same (the user does have rights to send e-mail, right?)...

Ignoring all those.. how *easy* is it, exactly, when there are still problems with Linux distributions on some notebooks (hers may very well be one), -and- you have to consider that she'll likely have to switch different bits of software she uses as well (or somebody would have to be willing to put in time to get her stuff working under a Windows emulator).

Getting that Ubuntu Live CD working wasn't *easy*... it took some poking about, and that's for something that should have been "pop into drive, reboot, and enjoy Ubuntu", I'd dread having to get all of my existing software running / switching.. eventually I will, but if anybody suggests that it will be *easy*, they're more than welcome to come figure that all (hardware drivers, software alternatives, methods in those alternatives to achieve the same (or better) as what I'm used to, etc.) out for me.

Don't get me wrong, "Switch to Ubuntu" (or some other linux distribution) may be the perfect answers for this woman, and that would be great - but let's be realistic here and not label that as an easy solution.

Just my 2cts.

Re:For perverse definitions of Easy

[the_bard17]

Ignoring for a moment that Linux -has- its share of malware

There has not yet been a single widespread Linux malware threat of the type that Microsoft Windows software currently faces

Oh, I don't think that Wikipedia's all that bad. *grin*

Honestly, though, I do agree with you. As much as running Linux may be an answer to the "problem", it's not the answer. I've tried converting people over to Linux, and it takes a lot of effort to get their mindset shifted over from Windows to Linux. I've found that if they're apathetic to Windows, they're not going to switch... it takes actual desire on their part to move to something better.

Re:For perverse definitions of Easy

[DaveWick79]

Not only does it take actual desire on their part to move to something better, it takes actual realization that for a lot of people, Linux does not qualify as "better" for their particular usage. It may just be a matter of going into a support forum (something linux users seem to know alot about) and getting some answers as to why AVG is interfering with the wireless connection in the first place. Perhaps submitting a support request with a bug report would be enough to get the problem fixed with the next program update.

What I resent most is a linux junkie who tells a user that "ubuntu is better, therefore thou must switch to my better OS" with no regard for the hassle it is for that user to get acclimated to new software, find software to replace existing software, and get used to an entirely new interface, even if the interface is judged to be better and more intuitive by said linux junkie, and then still having to dual-boot windows on the machine to run games.

Re:For perverse definitions of Easy

[Anpheus]

I'd rather not have to deal with the quirks of Linux on someone else's hardware. I liken Linux and Windows to different levels of programming languages. Sure, you can write great code in C and in Java, but there are just so many more ways to shoot yourself in the foot with one that a lot of developers would rather use the other, even if it's slower.

It's not a perfect analogy, but damn, I hate dealing with the quirks of Linux on -my own- machines. I don't want to spend eight hours staring at a terminal entering esoteric commands to fix someone else's.

Re:For perverse definitions of Easy

[AAWood]

"With Windows having some 80-90% of the Desktop PC OS market, what would be the point in writing a Linux virus?"

I've heard that argument so many times that *I'm* tempted to write a linux virus, just to get people to stop parroting the same response whenever the subject is brought up. What's that phrase that used to be all the rage on here a year or two ago about how "security through obscurity" is a bad thing? Besides, what percentage of the server market runs Linux?

Re:You could use

[hairyfeet]

In case you wanted an ACTUAL answer,and not just a bunch of geeks shouting Linux I would suggest either Comodo if you would like one with a built in firewall,or AntiVir if you just need AV. As a Windows repairman I have used both on many customers machines and they work quite well.

I know that shouting "Linux" is a great way to Karma whore here,but the simple fact is I'm sure he asked about Windows Av for a reason. Sometimes Linux simply isn't the right tool for the job,as anyone who has tried to get those damned Lexmark all in ones to work or run into one of the bazillion SMBs that have custom VB apps that are mission critical can tell you.

Avira is awesome + Other important software

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Avira + ThreatFire + Malewarebytes + Comodo Firewall
for antivirus/spyware/maleware/firewall and these combined do an outstanding job of protecting my system without slowing it down one bit. All are light programs, Avira is updated constantly, and comodo firewall is thought of as one of the best. Threatfire is great for making sure no program infects another, and Malewarebytes is doing good in checking for spyware.

No Easy

[Kludge]

Don't get me wrong, "Switch to Ubuntu" (or some other linux distribution) may be the perfect answers for this woman, and that would be great - but let's be realistic here and not label that as an easy solution.

Obviously if MS were "easy", this guy would not be posting a question to the this web site. Apparently neither he nor this woman know what to do about MS's glaring security holes.

I do not think that the parent post is saying Ubuntu will be easy. It was just easy for him to think of a solution.

Re:No Easy

[g253]

Hence, the original, first post, is bullshit. Hence the reason he (probably) posted as anonymous.

No, it is indeed bullshit but that's definitely not the reason he posted anon.
Replying to any post even vaguely related to Windows with a good old "just use Ubuntu" is a guaranteed +5 Informative (usually it deserves either +2 Funny or -1 Troll...)

Re:No Easy

[Malevolyn]

They do not make the graphics on your screen "melt" or cause pixelated cartoon charactors to appear and spout lines like "You've been pwnd!".

But I think we can all agree that they totally should.

Re:You could use

[rugatero]

Whilst it's useful that customers have enough problems to keep you in work, if they have too many they'll likely conclude you're not doing a very good job.

Re:Kaspersky

[Farmer Pete]

The problem is that a lot of us have multiple computers. Who wants to spend $50 a year on each computer? I've got three computers I take responsibility for in my house (and 2 that I don't). So that's $150-$250 a YEAR for an AV solution. I know a few vendors have a discounted system, but that still is a lot of cash a year. If I could spend $50 a computer and get lifetime virus def updates...I would do it, but this yearly crap is bull.

Re:Trite answer, but on-topic

[compro01]

Linux is not completely virus-proof. Where do you figure the term rootkit came from? Linux viruses are far more rare and often quite limited in what they can do, but they do exist.

Re:Trite answer, but on-topic

[sk999]

Yes, that is what I figured. Makes good sense if you are using the *nix box as an email server. Kind of a stretch if it is just one end-user who MIGHT forward an infected email, which will (likely) pass through additional virus filters. Anyway, I hold to the "each ship on its own bottom" philosophy, and if she doesn't need it, then out it goes. Especially on a resource-limited machine like the eee PC.

Re:Trite answer, but on-topic

[deniable]

Heh, one of the best security add-ons I found for an Exchange Server was a Linux box with clamav and spamassassin acting as a mail relay. The Exchange box had the full suite of commercial AV, but we had trouble seeing if it worked or not. :)

Re:PEBKAC

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Your rose colored glasses have blinded you to the blood stained corpse that is window's security. Never trust anyone using windows without anti-virus real time scanning turned on. Especially not yourself. It's like representing yourself in a murder trial, unless you are incredibly innocent, you're going to get screwed repeatedly.