# Anti Virus Progs-recommendations



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

I'm with Talk Talk. My trial on their software is about to expire.

It's Â£2.50 a month to have, but a bit confusing what it's up to sometimes.

Can anyone recommend one, monthly subscription allowed. Failing that, a reliable free one?

Thanks.


----------



## nursegladys (Aug 4, 2006)

On my home pc, i have zone alarm (firewall), AVG Free (anti virus) and Ad Aware; all FREE and I would recommend all three


----------



## chris l (Aug 5, 2005)

AVG from Grisoft.

I work in IT and use it myself. Set it to update daily and you're sorted!

Download it at AVG and save yourself the subscription fee.


----------



## mrteatime (Oct 25, 2006)

chris l said:


> AVG from Grisoft.
> 
> I work in IT and use it myself. Set it to update daily and you're sorted!
> 
> Download it at AVG and save yourself the subscription fee.


i use avast...again another free one. Pretty good it is as well.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Thanks guys

Tried AVG - had bother with it myself.


----------



## limey (Aug 24, 2006)

AVG gets one of my votes.

Had to switch to Avast when I got my 64 bit system at home, liked it an bought it for one of my clients.

Either one would be my recommendation


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

If I'm building a PC for family or friends, like Chris, I put on AVG free. It does a grand job! Our firm does the IT support for local government and at the council they used Norton for years. They've just woken up to the problems it can cause and gone over to Kaspersky. Apparently, there's a free edition of this.

Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV.

A.


----------



## mel (Dec 6, 2006)

I'd go with AVG free version, d/l from the grisoft site and set it to auto update ~ no probs (Shhhh been virus free for ages)









Use Mozilla and* NOT *IE, and look at any other e-mailer than Micro$haft. I use PocoMail, has it's own spam filter and heuristic learning programme. Think it costs around $25 nowadays.


----------



## hotmog (Feb 4, 2006)

I use Avast anti-virus, plus Adaware, Spybot, SpywareGuard and Spywareblaster. I find all of them are very effective and they are all freeware.


----------



## MIKE (Feb 23, 2003)

No problems with AVG here  and more importantly no virus's









Mike


----------



## tom (Jun 2, 2003)

To my mind for total protection Kaspersky is the best(internet securtiy 6) although you do have to pay for it.But it is outstanding and does not cause any of the problems you get with Norton.If you insist on free software then AVG and zone alarm are the way to go but they are not foolproof.

Tom


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Just trying AVG again. But I see you only get anti virus on free one - no spyware ect.


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

Antivirus - AVG Free (auto updates, auto daily scan and NO virii)

Firewall - Kerio Personal Firewall (Free)

Spyware - Spybot SD and Lavasoft's AD-Aware (Free)

Given my almost 24/7 internet connection & data transfer habits







I not had any problems (touch wood) for years with this combo.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

I just installed what I thought were free versions - what it said.

However it says trial on Anti spyware.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

> Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV.










I thought we'd put that ridiculous myth to bed ages ago!

One more time then. I'll grant that traditional viruses targetted at Macs and Linux OS's are uncommon, but they _do_ exist. Secondly, modern AV programs protect against far more than the traditional "virus". So, for example, if you use your Mac or Linux box to do any of the following, you need an AV program, at least one that has on-demand scanning:

1. Browse the Internet, especially with a browser that has Java and/or Javascript enabled

2. Open email, and especially attachments contained therein

3. Open "office" documents containing macros

4. Open various "media" files, especially those in Quicktime format(s)

5. Open graphics files

All of these activities are potentially dangerous. Malign code executed during these activities is often designed to take advantage of weaknesses in the host application and not the OS itself, so just becuase you're running Mac OS X, Linux or whatever is no defence.

Without AV, at best your computer smells bad, like someone who doesn't wash or change their underwear on a regular basis; at worst you're a plague carrier that infects the rest of the community.

To paraphrase Farmer Palmer: "Stay orf my network"


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

rhaythorne said:


> > Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is all I'm going to say on this matter as I can't abide the silly Mac v Windows debates, nor do I have time for Mac evangelists / zealots.

BUT

The last known threat to Mac OS X was in 2006. In order for it to take effect, the root user had to be enabled and the root password had to entered. It was a script that did the damage. It was spread by the iChat program which has since been patched. In short, it was tantamount to a text file telling the user to sabotage their own computer and the user acting on it. Furthermore, it was capitalised by the AV companies and used as propaganda to sell more software and to shut up all those smug ******* Mac users.

I'm not saying OS X is impervious to attacks but it's hardly a "ridiculous myth." What is is though is very unlikely. So unlikely that it isn't worth the cost of buying an AV product. Everything you do requires a root password. Add this to the obvious precautions everybody should take anyway which you covered in your numbered points.

So I still maintain that I don't require an AV program. Unless of course you're saying I should bog down my computer with an AV program just in case I inadvertently pass on an attachment that might infect Windows users? The individual is responsible for their own computer security, not I.

A.


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

Running_man said:


> rhaythorne said:
> 
> 
> > > Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV.
> ...


Ooh - have I started a fight??


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

Mrcrowley said:


> Running_man said:
> 
> 
> > rhaythorne said:
> ...


Ha ha, no Paul - to paraphrase Michael Jackson:

"I'm a runner, not a fighter!"
















A.


----------



## langtoftlad (Mar 31, 2007)

Yup


----------



## tranber70 (Mar 24, 2007)

nursegladys said:


> On my home pc, i have zone alarm (firewall), AVG Free (anti virus) and Ad Aware; all FREE and I would recommend all three


I have exactly the same configuration + Ccleaner.

Bertrand


----------



## strange_too (Feb 19, 2007)

Mrcrowley said:


> I just installed what I thought were free versions - what it said.
> 
> However it says trial on Anti spyware.


If it's AVG the anti virus is free, but the anti spy costs.

Personally I use McAfee, because it works and I don't have to worry about overheads.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Running_man said:


> rhaythorne said:
> 
> 
> > > Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV.
> ...


Good! I'm delighted to hear that you're not interested in Mac vs. Windows debates and that you're not a Mac zealot. Really! Because Apple has released half a dozen security patches this year already so it's hardly correct to say that the last known threat to Mac OS X was in 2006 now is it?

If you decide that you don't need an AV program that's fine, but, as I said, "stay orf my network"









As to your last comment: "The individual is responsible for their own computer security, not I." Well, that's a self-defeating argument if ever I heard one









By the way, I use ClamAV on my Linux boxes. I have no use for a Mac unless the need arises for a novelty doorstop


----------



## Running_man (Dec 2, 2005)

rhaythorne said:


> Good! I'm delighted to hear that you're not interested in Mac vs. Windows debates and that you're not a Mac zealot. Really! Because Apple has released half a dozen security patches this year already so it's hardly correct to say that the last known threat to Mac OS X was in 2006 now is it?


Like I said, no OS is impervious to threats. The patches released were to cover the remotest of possibilities in certain apps. Even then, you have to have root for them to work. The threat in 2006 was said to be a virus.



rhaythorne said:


> If you decide that you don't need an AV program that's fine, but, as I said, "stay orf my network"


Why would I want to come anywhere near?



rhaythorne said:


> As to your last comment: "The individual is responsible for their own computer security, not I." Well, that's a self-defeating argument if ever I heard one


If you read my post again, you'll see that what I meant was that if I accidentally pass on a file that has no threat to OS X but could pose a threat to Windows, the recipient is responsible for what they open.



rhaythorne said:


> I have no use for a Mac unless the need arises for a novelty doorstop


Then don't buy one then!







There's no need to be rude just because you don't like something. 

All the best,









A.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I have/had no intention of being rude. I don't dislike Mac's. I've never used a Mac, I have no intention of using a Mac, I have no need of one. If your Mac works for you then I'm glad, really! However, what I _will_ respond to vehemently is a blase statement, such as the one you made earlier, that "Myself, I use Mac / Linux so I don't require an AV."

_That_ one statement, although meant perfectly innocently I'm sure, is actually quite misleading in my opinion, and requires a challenge, which is all I am doing


----------



## strange_too (Feb 19, 2007)

Just look at the holes in Safari when it was recompiled for Windows. However I haven't heard yet whether the holes are there in the OSX version









When you look at the OS markets, virus writers don't spend the time making the viruses for OSX because the market share isn't sufficient.


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

To quote Apple's website



> A Mac running with factory settings will protect you from viruses much better than a PC, but itâ€™s never a bad idea to run extra virus and security software.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Good post Robert!

[OFF TOPIC]

strange_too said:



> Just look at the holes in Safari when it was recompiled for Windows. However I haven't heard yet whether the holes are there in the OSX version


Ha! yes, the first version of Safari for Windows was a big mistake I think, and Safari for OS X is often found to have holes! The patched version isn't so bad but I don't like it even from an aesthetic point of view. The fonts still don't look right to me and the rendering engine is clearly not entirely compliant:










Compare the various resolved images to the reference "Hello World!" image.

In Windows, I don't like Safari's non-existent window borders so you can't drag it open apart from the bottom right-hand corner, and I don't like their fuzzy fonts either.

I don't find it faster than IE, Firefox or Opera, so I think Apple have their work cut out for them if they're really going to compete.

[/OFF TOPIC]

OK, I rest my case, and you can get back to AV stuff.


----------



## Robert (Jul 26, 2006)

rhaythorne said:


> OK, I rest my case, and you can get back to AV stuff.


Ok 

I used Zone Alarm for a while but found it slows things down and stopped other things working. Canâ€™t remember the details but one issue was it blocked our firmâ€™s remote control software (which I should it suppose).

My laptop runs â€˜etrust antivirusâ€™ from ca.com which, to my knowledge, has never failed. It is currently Â£19.99 per annum for home version. Daily updates included and renewal at same price.

Are things like ad-aware really necessary? The reason I ask is that if you use the delete buttons in IE7 (such as delete files/cookies/history) under Internet Options and then run ad-aware, it finds nothing. Is it just as good to delete files/cookies/history regularly?


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2007)

Useful thread


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Robert said:



> Are things like ad-aware really necessary?


Yes, I think so. They're intended to pick up "spyware" which a traditional antivirus program might miss or not even look for. Having said that, many AV companies have started to build that type of protection into their products so they don't call them antivirus programs any more, but rather "Internet security" suites, or similar. Some personal firewall programs do it as well. The most insidious types of spyware will install themselves in locations that the "delete" functions in IE and other browsers don't touch so deleting your temp files, history, cookies etc. will not remove them (think about ActiveX controls, Browser Helper Objects, Add-ins, Plug-ins, Layered Service Providers and so on, here). Also, even if you can remove them in this way, they're often designed to re-install themselves. Perhaps have a look at Sunbelt Software's blog which often contains some well-written and easy to understand commentary about various new types of spyware they've discovered.

The current rumour doing the rounds (well, actually this has been talked about for ages) is that traditional AV is a dead duck becuase there are just too many virus variants being released too often for the AV companies to be able to reliably release updates and detection patterns for their programs. So the "hot topic" is now "white listing". This is about preventing any executable program from running unless you specifically allow it. Some Windows server OS's have this feature built in (SRP, or Software Restriction Policy) and there are a couple of utilities that can do this for other OS's like ProcessGuard from DiamondCS. These provide excellent protection, but can be annoying (lots of pop-ups and alerts until you've "trained" them sufficiently) and require a fair amount of knowledge about the many system executables and processes that run on your computer in the background. Also, what would happen if you accidentally allowed a malign program/virus to run which then infected your white listing program? Hmmm,







So maybe you need a white listing program _and_ anti-virus _and_ anti-spyware!

Oh, and don't forget an anti-rootkit program too!


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> Robert said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have installed AVG anti virus & Anti spyware.

So do I need Adaware as well?


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

If you want to. But don't run it in the background at the same time as the AVG anti-spyware product as that does the same thing so you'd be wasting your computer's resources.

Umm, haven't we covered this ground before?


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> If you want to. But don't run it in the background at the same time as the AVG anti-spyware product as that does the same thing so you'd be wasting your computer's resources.
> 
> Umm, haven't we covered this ground before?


Probly - sorry.......................


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

That's OK


----------



## Larry from Calgary (Jun 5, 2006)

> However I haven't heard yet whether the holes are there in the OSX version


Here are the results of the "ACID Test" run by Safari under a MAC OSX










I couldn't find any differences


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Interesting. There are obviously some rather fundemental differences between the Mac and Windows versions I guess. Trust the Windows version to be the one that doesn't work properly!


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Just a quick heads-up to inform you that Eset released an on-line version of their NOD32 antivirus scanner a few days ago.

It relies on ActiveX (so you'll have to use Internet Explorer in order to try it) and it's still beta, so please be aware that it may not be perfect. However, you may like to check it out.

http://www.eset.com/threat-center/cac.php


----------



## amish (Jul 6, 2007)

AVG and Nod-32 are very good programs!

Personally, I prefer Avast as it is very thorough and updates regulary. Plus it takes up very little system resources.

www.avast.com

Avast also has a free version which is excellent.

Just stay away from anything that has Symantec in front of it and you will be fine!


----------

