Author Topic: AVG Corrupt? Anti-virus (Read 4297 times)

zat0x91 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 27, 2009, 06:50:28 PM »

If I was to recommend an anti virus, it'd be NOD32 without a doubt.

Lord of Fire · « **Reply #21 on:** December 27, 2009, 09:41:55 PM »

Quote from: xShadow on December 27, 2009, 06:28:23 PM

Quote from: Lord of Fire on December 27, 2009, 06:15:55 PM
AVG and Avast = fail; Norton and McAfee = epic fail. Whatever you can get from the paid AVs, you can get from the free ones and more (to a certain extent anyway).

Avira has been my AV for nearly 8 years. Its not perfect, but it beats the other two.

AVG, sure, but where's your evidence for Avast?

Easy, personal experience. I had a virus that Avast couldn't detect, which AVG only found parts of and which only Avira managed to fully eradicate for me.

Apparently, Avast became a bit better over the years, as it used to be even worse than AVG at the time (we're talking about three years ago), now it's the other way around.

Still, Avira is stil the best choice for AV: http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests

Note that this site lists the paid version of said AVs, though this site pretty much says the same for the free versions.

rheffera · « **Reply #22 on:** December 28, 2009, 03:58:57 AM »

Meh ive found avast to be pretty good. It may not be perfect; but it beats norton, pc-cillin and alot of others.

PowerMac · « **Reply #23 on:** January 04, 2010, 02:38:51 AM »

Another Avast user here, Just as good as the paid AVs out there. Used to use Command AV years ago then it was bought out and converted into mainly a business/enterprise product.

fohfoh · « **Reply #24 on:** January 04, 2010, 06:50:13 AM »

I've heard good things about Avast, but never tried myself. Avira has always had people screaming bloody murder for "false positives" or w/e but it's a SETTING you can change yourself. Avast have the same thing?

Sosseres · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2010, 08:59:10 PM »

Had AVG running at 99% cpu, all the time, on my sister's windows 7 computer. It is a bit weak, but not that weak...

Takeshi · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2010, 07:43:21 AM »

To be honest, I've done without anti-virus for some time now, sure, I've had AVG installed a few times since it was advertised as a very good one some years ago, but it hasn't been doing anything but use my RAM when I've had it installed.

Several years as a regular user of the internet, and you gradually learn how to avoid any danger/risks to your computer.

PowerMac · « **Reply #27 on:** January 08, 2010, 11:16:11 AM »

Quote from: fohfoh on January 04, 2010, 06:50:13 AM

I've heard good things about Avast, but never tried myself. Avira has always had people screaming bloody murder for "false positives" or w/e but it's a SETTING you can change yourself. Avast have the same thing?

Avast v4 does not have heuristic scanning, just generic Virus Definitions so the number of FPs are quite small. Avast v5 does have a new heuristic engine (or Behavior Shield as they call it) and you can adjust the sensitivity and completely turn it off if desired.

Slysoft · « **Reply #28 on:** January 09, 2010, 01:05:33 AM »

Common Sense Total Protection 2010

Meomix · « **Reply #29 on:** January 09, 2010, 07:15:56 AM »

Quote from: Slysoft on January 09, 2010, 01:05:33 AM

Common Sense Total Protection 2010

Meh when you use google daily no amount of Common Sense can shield you. McAfee Advisor FTW.

Takeshi · « **Reply #30 on:** January 09, 2010, 10:18:19 AM »

Quote from: zat0x91 on December 27, 2009, 06:50:28 PM

If I was to recommend an anti virus, it'd be NOD32 without a doubt.

Unfortunately, it seems NOD32 is not free. Well, I wasn't able to find it free anywhere. And I tend to stay away from pirated software. ~~I just installed Avast, and I must say it's an impressive program. There's lots of settings and features, and it's not as limited as AVG.~~

I installed Avira, and it's even better.

Drew · « **Reply #31 on:** January 10, 2010, 06:47:36 AM »

Microsoft Security Essentials

Everything else is null and void.

fohfoh · « **Reply #32 on:** January 10, 2010, 07:12:26 AM »

Quote from: Takeshi on January 09, 2010, 10:18:19 AM

Quote from: zat0x91 on December 27, 2009, 06:50:28 PM
If I was to recommend an anti virus, it'd be NOD32 without a doubt.
Unfortunately, it seems NOD32 is not free. Well, I wasn't able to find it free anywhere. And I tend to stay away from pirated software. I just installed Avast, and I must say it's an impressive program. There's lots of settings and features, and it's not as limited as AVG.

Sounds sort of like Avira... but yeah.

Nod32 never worked for me. Even the trial was fail back in the day when I used it to try and locate a virus I knew I had. I recall watching the scan to see much of the list go, "System file, unaccessible - etc." which meant there was a setting that allowed me to unlock it. Though, I never ever found that setting.

McAfee

Slysoft · « **Reply #33 on:** January 11, 2010, 07:12:46 AM »

MSE sounds pretty cool. I currently don't have an anti-virus but I've been using spybot S&D. If I installed MSE would it make spybot redundant or should I run both?

rheffera · « **Reply #34 on:** January 11, 2010, 09:47:44 AM »

Quote from: Lord of Fire on December 27, 2009, 06:15:55 PM

AVG and Avast = fail; Norton and McAfee = epic fail. Whatever you can get from the paid AVs, you can get from the free ones and more (to a certain extent anyway).

Avira has been my AV for nearly 8 years. Its not perfect, but it beats the other two.

i agree; Norton McAfee and AVG are fail but avast has never let me down at all. Not one single time. In 4 years.

Avira i dislike.

Drew · « **Reply #35 on:** January 11, 2010, 11:24:46 AM »

Quote from: Slysoft on January 11, 2010, 07:12:46 AM

MSE sounds pretty cool. I currently don't have an anti-virus but I've been using spybot S&D. If I installed MSE would it make spybot redundant or should I run both?

Both. I run both and it keeps me completely covered. Spybot for adware and passive protection w/ Immunize and MSE for malware/trojans/viruses.

Xiong Chiamiov · « **Reply #36 on:** January 13, 2010, 01:59:27 AM »

Since no one has said it yet - Linux*.

* Yes, if you don't pay attention, you can let malicious code run with root priviledges and do all sorts of nasty things, but that's true of every OS. I'll take a smart user over a supposedly "secure" OS any day.

Slysoft · « **Reply #37 on:** January 13, 2010, 02:17:10 AM »

So basically, linux is more secure because if the user isn't stupid enough to download malicious code, you won't have any problems. Sounds alot like all the other OS.

Xiong Chiamiov · « **Reply #38 on:** January 13, 2010, 02:24:34 AM »

Quote from: Slysoft on January 13, 2010, 02:17:10 AM

So basically, linux is more secure because if the user isn't stupid enough to download malicious code, you won't have any problems. Sounds alot like all the other OS.

To a certain extent, yes. There are many other things that are very helpful, though, such as using repositories of (depending on your distro, signed) binaries that are known to not contain malicious code.

This isn't really the place for such a discussion, though (I know, I started it), but if you're really interested come find me or dankles on irc, and we'll chat your head off.

fohfoh · « **Reply #39 on:** January 13, 2010, 02:39:22 AM »

True... yet there's still the fact that there's anti-viruses for linux. You can argue "It's a niceness for email for people not using linux" but the fact remains it's still there and thus we must rate it to a certain extent as to whether it's useful or not at a resource usage level and effectiveness. Macfanboys, don't hide now! You're in this discussion too!