• 0

How good is your antivirus?

Asked by dreamthief,

 Share

Question

Mentor

dreamthief

Posted
Posted (edited)

Since most would like to argue bout what is the best antivirus. I decided to open this thread solely for testing your preferred antivirus. This is a compilation of a group of hackers.

*************WARNING*************

THIS IS NOT FOR THE SCAREDY CATS. THERE ARE ALL VALID VIRUSES. DO NOT OPEN THEM OR EXTRACT THEM TO ANY LOCATION. SAFEST METHOD TO TEST YOUR ANTIVIRUS IS TO SCAN THE COMPRESSED FILE. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES FOR YOUR ACTION.

Here's a link to download an archive file containing the viruses. READ THE WARNING BELOW BEFORE CLICKING HERE

TEST THIS AT YOUR OWN RISK

If you dare to take this challenge, do post the screenshots of the antivirus in action and please do not use any Photoshoping skills to manipulate the results.

Try to post at least the following information for others to evaluate

1) Program/scan engine version (Exm NAV 2004, AVG 6 Paid Version, SAV 9.0.0.338 and etc)

2) Any settings you changed

3) Screenshots (Optional as proof)

EDIT: Contrary to the filename which tells you 455 viruses, no it is not. Actual total is 593. If your antivirus detected them all, well done.

Edited by dreamthief
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/182983-how-good-is-your-antivirus/
Share on other sites

494 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The best virus scanner is no virus scanner :)

It's infinitely fast, always up-to-date, and has no false positives whatsoever.

Of course, to be confident running without a virus scanner, you have to be smart, or have a network admin who's smarter.

As long as your system is up-to-date, you're behind a proper firewall, you have all security settings configured properly (easy in SP2), and don't open e-mail attachments... you're probably fine. And if you ever suspect that you may have installed a virus, use a one-time scanner like Trend Micro's free online version of their software. Or a "Stinger" app.

  • 0
Grand Master

Ironman273

Posted
Posted

Just to reinforce it:

That hasn't stopped English writers from inventing pseudo-Latin plural forms to cover the modern countable senses of the word. Viri is formed on the false assumption that virus is a second-declension noun. (Viri in fact is the plural of Latin vir, "man".) Virii is an even worse mistake. Only Latin nouns that end in -ius form the plural with -ii. There are no really common English plurals in -ii other than radii. That hasn't stopped people from trying out such atrocious forms as virii and penii. Virii would be the plural of virius, if such a word existed in Latin.

From here.

  • 0
Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted (edited)

You'd have an easier time arguing that it is Vira, than Viri (As said above, Virii isn't even close).

But arguing that it is "Vira" requires you to prove that the vocative form was something other than "virus," which is difficult to prove as the Romans never really did that.

As far as we know, in Latin, there was no plural for "virus." The meaning was such that a plural was unnecessary.

In English, the proper plural form is Viruses.

So no, Virii is not the same as viruses.

The only evidence I've seen which could support "virus" being fourth-declension (and thus providing us with "viri") is from Ammianus. Of course, Ammian was a Greek, and so his expertise in Latin is questionable.

Edited by threedaysdwn
  • 0
Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Just to reinforce it:

From here.

Actually, "virus" is a second-declension noun. But it's also a neuter. That's where the "vira" idea comes from, as that's how it would be formed if it were like other 2nd declension neuters ending in -um.

  • 0
Grand Master

Jon

Posted
Posted

I deal with AV software, mailing lists, forums and companies all day long, I hear people interchange between 'viruses' and' virii' quite often. The people who know their stuff stick to 'viruses'. The other is generally used by people who like to sound clever IMO ;)

Personally I couldn't give a flying f*ck which you use as long as the rest of the sentence is correct. There are no alternative meanings for either, everyone knows what you mean. It's very pedantic, you'd be better off having a go at people who advise you not to run AV software. (If you make that choice, fine, but don't recommend it to others.)

  • 0
Community Regular

Biohazord

Posted
Posted
Ehh i dont need one. Im running 2 firewalls and i dont need to worry about viruses.

Some peoples lack of understanding is just scarey. Hence my persistant arguement that user education is (effectively) futile in the long run. Technological advances are the answer. Re-write SMTP. Make patching more dynamic.

Ya iw ould have to agree with you :cry:

  • 0
Veteran

Mike Frett

Posted
Posted

Well, I tested AVK and it just sucked the performance right out my pc. I then tried F-Prot and it only used about 3MB of memory and didn't impact the performance of my pc at all. However, F-Prot never fixed anything, Just reported that it had found it.

Next is Kaspersky, it seems to use about 11MB of memory and hasn't said anything about any virus' yet. (I am unable to d/l the file on page one but will change this if I get it to work). It's also a bit slow opening folders with large exe files in them.

The first one was Norton 2003, (I used it for a long time) It seemed to use the same amount of memory as Kaspersky and at least tried to fix or delete some or all the virus' and I didn't really see that much of a performance hit on my system, nothing noticeable anyway.

Those are the ones I tested on my system and those are the results I got. For me, I may go back to norton because it was the best detection/performance out of the ones I tested on my system.

I hope that helped someone.

  • 0
Experienced

eminem213486

Posted
Posted

one more vote for avast. its nice. works and its better than norton. it does updates without bothering me. jsut the lil part where it says VIRUS DATABASE HAS BEEN UPDATED in a male voice. which is pretty fckin cool. along with when a virus or suspicious file is detected. and after all.. its free! i cant believe i wanst using this ealier. (being a avid norton util 2003 user) but norton broke down on me and i got tired of all the missed updates and freezing problems with the main screen.

  • 0
Contributor

Kobra

Posted
Posted

I use Gdata AVK, zero impact on system, and uses Kaspersky + BitDefender engines. eXtendia AVK is great too, but can be heavy on a system without tweaking it..

Second choice would be MKS_Vir, a truely elite AV product.. Coming out in 2 weeks, their AV will include integrated Antispyware/adware module with around 20,000 spyware definitions! Talk about complete solution..

  • 0
Grand Master

Nexus-

Posted
Posted

didnt run the test on that pack of viruses but i love AVG anti-virus pro it picks up just about everything never had a problem with it never had an issue that i found to be virus related that it didnt catch nice and small. not heavy on eye candy or resources.

  • 0
Mentor

dreamthief

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Virii is a slang, meaning virus in general. I dont think it has been accepted into any Dictionary, not that i know of. Google the keyword "virii", a lot of sites do use it.

@darkobjects

I dont think your option is set to scan within compressed file. If it doesn't, no viruses will be detected. No AV out there is able to scan a compressed file by ITSELF. What most do is, have a sandbox where the file is extracted to reveal the contents inside. That's probably why you got that result and another reason to upgrade to never version or switch another AV product. Definitions alone isn't enough.

New viruses package? Hmm not that i know of. I posted earlier, anyone with it could open up a new thread, probably "How good is your antivirus? Part II". :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to question listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.