PC Virus Scanners - Which is the Best?

I used to have MacAfee on my home PC but it caused more problems than it solved. It seemed to interfere with everything and made the pc run like a three legged dog.

I now use Norton - which has intercepted everything those b******ds have thrown at it so far.

I use Trend PC-Cillin at home and at work we use Vantage Virusguard. I've never been infected at home and at work where we have a network of 1200 PCs, 400 staff and thousands of students we've never once had anything get through which is quite an achievement.

Norton is effective, but bloated and slow.

I've been eyeing up NOD32 recently (www.nod32.com), it's a very good price (22 quid for 1 year, 33 for 2 etc..) and is written in assembler; it's therefore smaller and faster than some of the bloatier options.

Reports from users are that it consumes far less resources than most and scans very quickly.

I'm going to try it once my existing Norton subscription runs out.

Andy.

I use the free edition of AVG. Seems to do everything the others do, is easy to use and best of all costs nowt.

http://www.grisoft.com/us/us_index.php

Mike

Thanks guys - very interesting so far, but even more confusing, as there's clearly a lot more options than the mainstream products I've looked at so far.

Obviously there are mixed feelings here about both NAV and McAfee, which seems to tie in with reviews elsewhere. On balance though reports I've read suggest that NAV2004 slugs the system far more than McAfee - Mmm the jury's still out!

Mr Seagull Sir,
Which version of McAfee did you have? I had problems with V4 Virus-Shield slugging the system, so I disabled it and just rely on daily overnight scans which have been doing the job OK.

David

I don't use any AV software and have never had a problem with a virus.

This approach is free and uses zero resources.

Matthew

"Which version of McAfee did you have?"

Afraid I don't remember. It came with the PC (about 3 years ago), I soon replaced it.

Matthew, if it were just Mrs S and myself using the pc then I would not bother with AV software either - but I have kids!

I stopped using and recommending McAfee on 2 counts. Most important, a reboot was required after too many updates. Second, they inundated me with ads.

I was a committed Norton customer, using SystemWorks Pro through the 2003 series. Unfortunately, the 2004 version is a pain in the neck.

Their DRM too often fails, requiring a lengthy call to Norton for a fix. The product itself seems to need periodic reinstallation, which furtehr seems to screw up their DRM. Worse, a support call costs more than their product.

Next time, I'll look into AVG, and Trend-micro, which was the first vendor to provide a free online scan.

For business, I'd look at - and probably buy - Sophos.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

---

I don't use any AV software and have never had a problem with a virus.

---

Trouble with this method is it relies a lot on luck, discipline and knowing what you're doing - not really to be recommended for most (fallible!) folk I feel - a bit like relying on the rhythm method for contraception

David

I use Norton firewall/antivirus etc. I have had no probs with it, and its saved my bacon a number of times...

andy c!

I use the Norton suite and like it (apart from the cost).
The no protection but ghost backup to a removable hard drive is another way to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
I don't use any AV software and have never had a problem with a virus.

This approach is free and uses zero resources.

Matthew

---

Be careful these don't turn out to be famous last words. To use the Internet without adequate protection is not only dangerous to yourself, it's downright irresponsible to those you're in regular contact with. You could well be emailing viruses to your friends without knowing it. It's not a matter of just being careful which sites you visit as viruses can appear anywhere, even on the sites of reputable suppliers, disks free with magazines and often the most unlikely of sources.
I would advise you to get some sort of antivirus and firewall in place before it's too late.

In my professional opinion I disagree. 99% of all computer viruses will not effect computers which are properly maintained and operated and I do not believe it's worth £30 a year (or whatever) and the processing/annoyance costs of AV software to get the last 1%.

Its not an approach that suits everyone but I remain unconvinced that I am facing much in the way of actual risk.

Matthew

I concur with Matthew.

Paul

People who are knowledgeable, incapable of making mistakes and willing to tell friends and relatives "Sorry, I deleted the attachment you sent me in case it contained malware" may be safe without AV software. The rest of us would be irresponsible not to use it.

I am currently being deluged with virus-containing emails and occasional complaints from people who think I've sent them a virus - all thanks to someone somewhere in France not using an AV programme...

---

Re AV programs: I use Norton 2002 (with a current update subscription) but its ergonomics are very bad. I tried AVG recently but rejected it for some reason that I've now forgotten. I think I'll have to try it again to remind myself why...

I know I'm gonna get slagged off for this, but, well, who cares?

If you used a Mac you wouldn't be plagued by viruses. Admittedly, at work we are protected by a firewall (we are a Mac environment) and I've never had any trouble.

At home, I've used a Mac since 1991, and have been online since 1998, and, despite a lack of virus software or a firewall, have never been plagued by any infections...

Otherwise, it's down to good practice. Never open any attachment from anyone you don't know, and be suspicious of weird suffixes on attachments. Matthew is also correct in his assertion about AV software...

Kevin

quote:

---

I am currently being deluged with virus-containing emails and occasional complaints from people who think I've sent them a virus - all thanks to someone somewhere in France not using an AV programme...

---

this is the sort of thing that av vendors want you to believe. Unfortunately, however, current av programs are completely useless as they are incapable of detecting virii until their signature files have been updated. Therefore, anyone who's in the habit of clicking on attachments is going to get stung, av software or not.

Therefore, anyone who's in the habit of clicking on attachments ...

Isn't that just about everyone? I have to open my clients' attachments, otherwise I'd never get any work done.

incapable of detecting virii until their signature files have been updated

True, of course. FWIW, Norton prompts me to update the signature files about every second day. I have no idea how useful the updates are, though.

Thomas

quote:

---

I remain unconvinced that I am facing much in the way of actual risk.

---

How do you know your machine is not infected? A virus/trojan could be silently using your machine for all kinds of nefarious activity e.g. denial of service attacks and harvesting of personal details.

"How do you know your machine is not infected?"

I don't. But I bet you a million pounds none of my computers are infected with anything.

"A virus/trojan could be silently using your machine for all kinds of nefarious activity e.g. denial of service attacks and harvesting of personal details"

Only if I had made at least two gross errors that I am not likely to make.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Sheridan:

quote:

---

I am currently being deluged with virus-containing emails and occasional complaints from people who think I've sent them a virus - all thanks to someone somewhere in France not using an AV programme...

---

this is the sort of thing that av vendors want you to believe.

---

It is a statement of fact.

quote:

---

Unfortunately, however, current av programs are completely useless as they are incapable of detecting virii until their signature files have been updated. Therefore, anyone who's in the habit of clicking on attachments is going to get stung, av software or not.

---

Absolute nonsense. The likelihood of receiving an existing, detectable virus that is only prevalent because not enough people are using AV software is far higher than the likelihood of receiving a new, so far undetectable virus.

To the best of my knowledge, I haven't had a computer infected since 1990, when I lost a week's work due to a virus.

quote:

---

If you used a Mac you wouldn't be plagued by viruses.

---

You receive the same email. And the same irritation. Two more just now.

But I've never seen one that I'd be tempted to think was really an attachment I should be opening.

Paul

Oddly enough I recieved a couple of viruses this morning and it's slightly annoying in that one of them came to my actual e-mail address which I guard very carefully to keep it spam free.

The other one was very odd as it came to a made up variant of my address which doesn't exist but requires you to know my full name. I wonder if this means that viruses are harvetsing e-mail addresses from whois entries or something.

Matthew

quote:

---

Absolute nonsense. The likelihood of receiving an existing, detectable virus that is only prevalent because not enough people are using AV software is far higher than the likelihood of receiving a new, so far undetectable virus.

---

really? So you've slept through all of the recent, large virus outbreaks then have you (mydoom, netsky, blaster etc)? They started spreading at a huge rate BECAUSE they weren't initially detectable. I know for a fact that our office, which runs av software, was hit by one of them - well, everyone except me because I don't rely on the Helldesk to keep my pc patched and protected and I'm also the only one in the office that doesn't use av software.

NAI(McAfee) have been pretty good at getting updates out promptly and quite often earlier DAT files will recognise the presence of generic viruses even though they may not be able to completely remove the latest mutants.

At the moment NAI release new DAT files at a rate of 2-3/week, which is just about keeping on top of the problem. Most virus scanners also do Heuristic scanning which can help to spot possible malicious files.

No solution is perfect but AV software intelligently used can help to protect more vulnerable users from serious problems.

David