Spyware, Adware, Anti-Virus Recommendations

[Sakaki]

I also use AVG free, and it seems pretty good. I also used the trial version of AVG with firewall when it first came out. It had a nice balance of blocking/alowance, I have been thinking of going with the pay version of that.

[Sylf]

At home, I started using AVG in 2000 because I was dirt poor back then, and AVG was free. I continue to use it today because I've been happy with the product. Never too intrusive, but it does its job. Paying for commercial product will give me more control over its behavior such as more flexibility on its daily (or you can set your frequency on paid version) system scan.

At work, they've been using Trend Micro's Office Scan since 2002, and I've been happy with that as well. One thing is, like Nightwish said, I don't know how this compares to the personal edition. The other thing is, my usage of the PC at work is much more moderate (no P2P, excellent corporate firewall/spam blocker) that I don't have a chance of getting virii hardly ever, so I can't testify how well it catches virii. (I can only imagine its good - it passed our data security team's assessment. And it damn better be non-intrusive, or non-computer savvy users will be pissed that it's intruding their work.)

[Kamui4356]

Just so you know, you can still update the virus definations after the norton subscription expires by using intelligent updater. Granted it's more work, but at least you don't have to set the clock back to make it think your subscription is still valid anymore.

I haven't had some of the problems with norton not doing what I want it to, but I do agree the interface is dumbed down.

[音楽は死んだ]

I tend to use antivir http://www.free-av.com/ I had to switch from a subscription based one as well, and after trying a few found that it picks up and blocks stuff best for me.

[chris]

Personally i use E-trust (corp edition) cus it was required when i connect with my laptop where i use to work and its pretty good, and at home i use Fprot retail edition. both are small and fast I find, thats in windows tho linux i dont have these problems :P Just msg me if you want to know more or catch me in irc.

[Circular Logic]

I'm using AVG Free eedition. Best antivirus i've used by far.

[chris]

I got sick of norton personally, I dont remember what version i used but it just began to be a pain in the ass, laggint the pc at startup.

[Sakaki]

Another thing I hate about Norton is if you have the Norton Internet Security running, it is just about imposible to get the computer to network.

[Green²]

I've been using the free edition of AntiVir for about over an few years now. I also surf around for a lot of porn. I'm still here.

Some reviews on it: http://www.sofotex.com/reviews/r1839.html

[Ending]

You don't really even *need* AV program -it's enough that you have a firewall and don't mess with strange execs. Speaking about my own case, I haven't had one for years and there hasn't been a single problem. When I want to check "just in case", I use Spybot and Ad-aware. Because of this, I do not have some hefty AV program sucking resources in the background. Or costing me money.

[GHDpro]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

You don't really even *need* AV program -it's enough that you have a firewall and don't mess with strange execs. Speaking about my own case, I haven't had one for years and there hasn't been a single problem. When I want to check "just in case", I use Spybot and Ad-aware. Because of this, I do not have some hefty AV program sucking resources in the background. Or costing me money.

Ah no. Unless you use something else than Windows perhaps.

On Windows, my view is that having anti-virus software installed should be mandatory.
Virusses can come in through so many ways in Windows, so having just a up-to-date
firewall isn't going to be enough. What if someone hands you a CD or (gasp) floppy disk
that has a virus on it? Or a friend sends you some files (=trusted source) that have a virus in it?

To put it most friendly: not having anti-virus software installed on Windows is "not smart".

[Ledgem]

I dislike both McAfee and Norton for the bloat you mentioned. I currently use Norton Corporate Edition - it's provided to my by my university (as is the subscription, otherwise I wouldn't be using it), and I've heard that it's worlds more efficient than the regular commercial version. I can attest to the fact that it's pretty non-intrusive, memory-wise, and the user interface definitely is not dumbed down. In fact, the interface isn't polished at all - it doesn't look like it was intended for frequent access, or access by the average computer person. That's what you'd expect, though.

It seems to detect viruses just fine, based on the Japanese P2P viruses I keep around in archived volumes (the volumes are infected, I don't intend to release or distribute the virus). However, I don't know how it is for virus removal. Usually whenever I'm infected with a virus, it's a temporary cache file, so I just have the software delete the file anyway. So, I can say that from my own usage, it seems to do quite well for detection, but I have no idea how effective it is for data recovery removal.

I'm not sure where you'd get it, either, and I really hate the thought of paying a subscription fee for virus updates (as if buying the software and periodically updating the scan engine weren't enough). I'd probably be using AVG if my university didn't offer this to its students. If you're interested in a virus scanner for Linux, Clam (ClamWin?) is pretty good, if not the only virus scanner out there. It also scans for Windows viruses, I believe, so if you were to load into Linux and scan a Windows partition, it would be effective for detection there. (Though until the NTFS drivers are worked on a bit more, it's only recommended to read files while in Linux; do NOT modify files on the partition, as you risk corrupting the NTFS structure or some such thing.)

[NoSanninWa]

I recently abandoned Norton for the bloat reason as well. It was slowing down my system obnoxiously.

I am currently using ZoneAlarm Security Suite and it seems to work quite nicely. I had to turn down the security settings a LOT though because it was bothering me about the most innocuous behavior. Once I got it properly configured, it has behaved quite nicely indeed.

[SirJeannot]

Originally Posted by GHDpro

Ah no. Unless you use something else than Windows perhaps.

On Windows, my view is that having anti-virus software installed should be mandatory.
Virusses can come in through so many ways in Windows, so having just a up-to-date
firewall isn't going to be enough. What if someone hands you a CD or (gasp) floppy disk
that has a virus on it? Or a friend sends you some files (=trusted source) that have a virus in it?

To put it most friendly: not having anti-virus software installed on Windows is "not smart".

well, i'm obliged to answer here, because of my position on the subject. i don't use any anti-virus on my computer, i turn off everything on IE (which is the greatest weakness of windows), and my windows installations last 2 years. (in fact i'll upgrade from 2000 to xp to have a better multi screen support).
so if you look on a regular basis at the processes list, identify what should and should not be there, if you don't run the random crap like .exe / .vbs / ... thing people send you, you won't get any problem.
i do agree with wihre, a firewall does the trick. the only real protection is a network "filter". if you don't have any problem with the interface chair-keyboard, you'll be fine. i'm the proof of that : i use an old and not up to date os which is still clean.

[Sylf]

Just because it works for you doesn't mean it's recommendable to everyone. I don't execute any random applications or scripts on my PC. But with one wrong slip of my hands, such malware could be executed. And if I don't have AV protection, things can go haywire. Sure, the software firewall should be able to detect unintended internet connections made by such malware, if it was communicating with the net directly. But what if it used the windows regular process, cloaking itself as an innocent process? Maybe there are people who has granted global access to the internet to those generic windows process already. Now, not only you've got your PC infected, but you let that virus leak information to the outside.

Also, there are many people out there who shares PC's within the household. Not every family members, or guests, may not be as computer literate as you are. And once again, one wrong click, and your system is in jeopardy.

And just a side note -
we're talking to GHDpro here - one of the lead people who just restored this very forum which suffered a severe hacks. Can you blame him for being more cautious on internet security? Do you dare convince him that no AV is the way to go? This hack and the virus are not related, but it would still only raise the level of security consciousness, not lower it.

[Ending]

@ GHDpro

Sure it's smart; as smart as slowing down your rig and paying money of nothing. It just depends of your situation and common sense: if you have to toy with many strange execs every day (e.g: sysop) then it is mandatory, but for a regular, somewhat knowledgeable home-user it is barely optional. Like I said previously; Spybot and Ad-aware can do the same job more effectively and it is enough to scan only occasionally (provided that you know what you are doing). Firefox + ZA (+ NoScript extension) is enough to keep any PC clean. Mine, at least, has stayed so for well over 3 years without a single infection.

[Circular Logic]

@ Everyone who doesn't use AV software:

You may be extremely unlikely to get an virus if you're running Firefox and ZA, but that doesn't mean there won't be exploits, hacks, etc. for firefox, or windows - sooner or later, someone will find a firefox exploit, and bingo, you've got a virus. A lot of AV programs take up hardly any resources, and add another layer of security. Prevention is better than cure... It doesn't hurt to use one.

[Sylf]

Originally Posted by Wirhe

for a regular, somewhat knowledgeable home-user it is barely optional.

For one thing "somewhat knowledgeable" is very vague term.
And to me, those are the people who are in most danger, since they claim to know what they're doing, feeling adventurous, and exposing themselves to more dangers than we can imagine.

And if you know that much of what you're doing to keep the PC clean without AV, I categorized such user as expert user, not just casually knowledgeable.

[GHDpro]

@Wirhe & SirJeannot
Sorry, but I firmly stay with my opinion. Unless a Windows PC is completely isolated,
meaning it's not connected to the Internet or any network, and doesn't accept any media,
I still consider the use of anti-virus software on Windows mandatory for absolutely everyone.

As others have mentioned, you may be a knowledgable user, but someone else (even just
a friend, college or family member using your PC for a few minutes) may not be, and existing
software may have exploits that allow virusses to be installed, even if you didn't click
on anything. IE and Outlook (~Express) are/were full of these kind of exploits, but that
doesn't mean open source software like Firefox is safe.

Personally I've never ever knowingly installled or caused the infection of a virus myself too,
but still always use anti-virus, because it's easy to make silly mistakes. Like a few years ago
when I was using an unpatched IIS on a non-firewalled PC. Result: hack attempts within a
few hours, but the exploits they tried to install were "caught" by Norton so no damage was done.

Users who I don't mind not using anti-virus software would be Apple & Linux (and all other less
used platforms). But not using anti-virus software on Windows is like walking in a minefield:
even you're "smart" you can't positively guarantee you won't step on one. Another analogy might
be wearing seatbelts -- even if you think you're a perfect driver, it doesn't mean someone else
will never crash into you.

And by the time you find out a virus snuck in somewhere on your system, you may have already
infected your whole family, friends and colleges (well, those who are as "bright" as you not to use
anti-virus software).

----

Anyway... back on topic: I installed a trial copy of Kaspersky Anti-Virus Personal 5.0,
and so far it's performing pretty good: no noticable slowdown, reasonbly okay-looking
interface and no annoyances found so far.

I tried AVG Anti-Virus Pro a few minutes before that, but was quickly turned off by the
not-as-professional-as-I-would-have-liked kind of interface. Though I might try it again later.

Before I make my final decision I might give Trend Micro's PC-cillin & BitDefender a try too.

[Sylf]

Originally Posted by GHDpro

I tried AVG Anti-Virus Pro a few minutes before that, but was quickly turned off by the not-as-professional-as-I-would-have-liked kind of interface. Though I might try it again later.

I can see how it can give such impression with their graphic icons etc. I think they try to make some attempts of keeping the novice users less scared of their software, and don't have any alternative interface. Also, I've read in some AV comparison articles that AVG is not the fastest scanner out there, compared to other commercial products.