AV Recommendations

RTmarc

We've had several threads lately regarding anti-virus recommendations. Saw this article today on Ars Technica and I thought I'd throw it out there:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/12/04/av-comparatives-november-2008-report-only-nod32-worthy

AV-Comparatives November 2008 report: only NOD32 worthy

By Emil Protalinski | Published: December 04, 2008 - 02:14PM CT

AV-Comparatives is known for the thorough tests it does on security software. Following its October 2008 performance report, the company has released its November 2008 retrospective report. 16 products were tested against new and unique samples received between August 4-31, split into one and four week periods. Here are the results:

Data source: AV-Comparatives

The company also took false positives into account and then rated the security companies from best to worst:

* Advanced+: ESET NOD32
* Advanced: AVIRA, Kaspersky, Microsoft, Symantec, McAfee, GDATA
* Standard: TrustPort, BitDefender, AVG, Avast, Norman, VBA32
* No Certification: Sophos, F-Secure, eScan

The results are on par with what I have seen recently in the security software area: ESET and Kaspersky are still topping the charts, and I would still recommend either. Microsoft is, of course, out of the game in pay solutions, but we'll keep an eye on how the company's free solution will fare.

Here's a link to AV-Comparatives: http://av-comparatives.org

paintb4707

I noticed the same thing reading through AV Comparatives. ESET is definitely number 1 when you weigh out the false-positives.

Bokeh

I know Sunbelt Software has a new AV pkg out, and price isn't bad for multiple machines. Has anyone used it yet?

http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Home-Home-Office/VIPRE/

dynamik

paintb4707 wrote:

I noticed the same thing reading through AV Comparatives. ESET is definitely number 1 when you weigh out the false-positives.

It's funny, the only complaint I have against NOD32 is that it always quarantines the .exes when I buy and download a new game from Steam

HeroPsycho

AV-Comparatives November 2008 report: only NOD32 worthy

Microsoft is, of course, out of the game in pay solutions, but we'll keep an eye on how the company's free solution will fare.

Well, that's not exactly true. Microsoft does have Forefront, but it provides an API that allows other engines to plug into to scan files. This is crucial to this article that rates them. Forefront allows you to scan content with multiple engines if desired. Would NOD32 be as effective as say two scan engines that might be rated lower than it? Not even NOD32 is the first to have signatures for every single virus, so Microsoft touts having multiple engines with their own updates is advantageous.

Not saying it would or wouldn't, just some food for thought.

Ahriakin

Since they are usually to 2 most recommended (and rightly so) one thing to keep in mind when using sites like AV Comparatives for ESET and Kaspersky is that they use Kaspersky AV only, Kaspersky Internet Security is needed for advanced security features like the HIPS module and application sandbox (They should really be part of the AV package but I guess it's kaspersky's carrot on a stick). In short KIS gives you much better malware prevention than KAV, and the metrics used on AVComparative don't really reflect that.
Both are great choices though, and if you don't want to shell out for KIS then ESET is a better choice than vanilla KAV.

Kasor

Interesting chart...

RussS

I always ask .... Who commissioned the comparison - unfortunately I find too often that when one AV or another comes out top in a comparison there is a link to that manufacturer somewhere in the background. Quite often someonbe doing the testing was involved in AV development or something like that.

dynamik

While I'm the same way, I think AV Comparatives is fairly trustworthy. That's all they do, and they've been doing it awhile.

http://av-comparatives.org/ - Click on the "About Us" link.

blargoe

Where's Trend?

RTmarc

dynamik wrote:

While I'm the same way, I think AV Comparatives is fairly trustworthy. That's all they do, and they've been doing it awhile.

http://av-comparatives.org/ - Click on the "About Us" link.

What he said.

tiersten

dynamik wrote:

paintb4707 wrote:

I noticed the same thing reading through AV Comparatives. ESET is definitely number 1 when you weigh out the false-positives.

It's funny, the only complaint I have against NOD32 is that it always quarantines the .exes when I buy and download a new game from Steam

Odd. Mine doesn't do that. Wonder what is set differently on yours.

tiersten

HeroPsycho wrote:

Forefront allows you to scan content with multiple engines if desired.

Its a pretty obvious and neat idea but ewwwwww in actual operation. Your PC will be so slow running multiple AV packages! There is already a noticeable difference between not running any AV and running one.

I've seen a similar system in operation for mail servers which use multiple AV packages to scan incoming emails & attachments however which does work quite well.

dynamik

tiersten wrote:

Odd. Mine doesn't do that. Wonder what is set differently on yours.

I'm not sure what trips it. It did it for The Witcher and one other one.

tiersten wrote:

I've seen a similar system in operation for mail servers which use multiple AV packages to scan incoming emails & attachments however which does work quite well.

I think that's more what Forefront is geared towards.

HeroPsycho

tiersten wrote:

Its a pretty obvious and neat idea but ewwwwww in actual operation. Your PC will be so slow running multiple AV packages! There is already a noticeable difference between not running any AV and running one.

I've seen a similar system in operation for mail servers which use multiple AV packages to scan incoming emails & attachments however which does work quite well.

I've seen Forefront in action. Two scan engines and its performance is fine. 3 you really start to see slowdowns. Higher than that? Forget it.

But to be honest, for Exchange AV, nothing beats Antigen/Forefront. Great product.