Forums General Discussion anti virus

which AV is actually reliable?

i used Norton AV's for years and i found them very good if i deactivate that stupid background scan that runs on startup

i see today everyone just tells "download PC cillin" or "just use NOD32"

while i proved on my pc that NOD32 is piece of junk and has bad scan, while PC cillin often gives bad virus definitions and theres no chance i use update every day because they blow..

then there is Panda AV which sucks much PC resources for god knows what stupid reasons...

then there is F-prot... when i used newest version was in NOD32 range... very bad

and there is McAfee that i never used and dont know how good it is and reliable...


anyone want give some thoughts ?

I use AVG free combined with Spybot Search & Destroy and ad-aware and I never have any problems. AVG free isn't being worked on any more though so you're not actively protected if you use that. If you get viruses regularly you'll probably be better off with something else.

Like you noted, Norton AV is very good, with that one exception. Fortunately it is easy to turn that off.
I, like you, have been using Norton for years, and prefer it to McAfee (which I have tried). You're not going to get a perfect anti-virus program as the virus programmers are always looking for, and sometimes finding, ways to get around the anti-virus protection.

The only way to make your system 100% uninfected, would be to not connect to the internet and not install any software at all, including an operating system.

I may be the only one here who hates Norton, but oh well. I've used Norton once in awhile from back in DOS days and up to current (or almost current) and just never liked it. It also tends to not always release perfect virus definitions... about every other one, it will either state that the Invision script has a virus or doesn't. They can't make up their minds.

Anyhow, it's really just a personal preference other than the issues with Invision.

I actually do like McAfee and it really does do a great job. I won't say it's better than Norton because I've never tried to compare the two with different virii. However, it has been very rare (only a couple times) in all the years of using McAfee (again, since DOS days) that I've ever gotten a virus. And, when I did, it removed it without a fuss.

I have also tested McAfee now and then by purposely visiting sites known to try infecting you with virii. I even use IE to do so. And, even when I purposely go to these sites to test it, nothing gets through. So, I'd say it works quite well.

Regardless what AV you use, I do recommend running SpyBot Search & Destroy and Ad-Aware regularly just in case. And, if you use IE, you may want to also run Hijackthis now and then. The thing to remember with running these is that they CAN pick up legitimate files in their scans. Making changes to these files can cause the programs associated with the files to stop working. So, always check the path to the file they mention and the information about it to know if it really should be removed/repaired.

Also, I recently found a specified virus scanner that can be useful if you have specific types of virii and trojans and hijackers. It works great for removing the specific ones that it handles. It offers a fully working trial for 5-7 days, so if you know you have a virus that it can fix, you can use it to clean the virus. The program is Ad-Away. I found it by trying to help someone clean the About:Blank virus from their computer. Even the manual cleaning methods recommended weren't working, but this did it right away without a problem.

well i never tested McAfee on my pc so i can neither give compliment to it nor spit on it

but i use Norton since hmm year 2001 i suppose coz i got it
with my 1st pc

and i must say even that version (which is actually from 1999 year) could clean (without any updates) 1 nasty virus from my pc 1 year ago that newest (at that time) NOD32 couldnt

also now i use 2004 pro version coz i cant install above since i use WinME and 2005,2006 are... for xp which blows in my opinion :tongue:

but only thing i literarly hate at Norton is itz integration during instalation without asking user if he/she/it wants it...

but when i remove manually those stupid things (active scan, protected recycle bin, script block) then i find it very good

and i do use other tools... not much tho coz im not on 2k/XP that are magnets for junk...

i use NAV, ad-aware and tauscan anti trojan...
and i must admit in last 2 years i had no troubles at all...
only new is that i have sygate firewall now coz i got dsl recently (finnaly)

and offcourse Opera browser is here that isnt like ie...

i have 1 question tho... what is "boot" scan?
i mean... i would understand active memory scan, or scan
of bios virus (dunno if this is possible with bios scan) but
boot ???

what is that ?

A boot scan is a scan of your system, memory (and if wanted, hard drive(s)) that run automatically when your system is booted (ie: started or re-started). With Windows 95 and above (I believe) it will run after the items in the various start-up locations have been loaded. Personally, I find the boot scan to be a waste of time as it is one thing that will not allow other programs to load into memory at the same time (which makes sense).

Boot scan is useful for specific viruses that cannot be removed after a full boot (even in safe mode). Of course, I've not seen these in a very long time. Most can be removed in safe mode at the very least these days.

I personally don't believe that any AV software is perfect. Norton's is used by alot of peeps and as such any issues like false positives, which do happen alot with that software, become more noticeable. However even stuff used in thousands of commercial environments, including my employer, are subject to the same issues but maybe not as often. Once I had Inoculan, now called eTrust, tell me that mIRC was a virus. I knew it wasn't so I simply waited for new virus definitions to be released which sorted the problem.

One thing to always remember is that having an AV programme that does 'errr' occasionally is far better than having nothing at all.