• 0

Best Free Anti-Virus

Asked by DaSwissDude,

 Share

Which One:  

127 members have voted

  1. 1. Which One:

    • AVG
      61
    • Kapersky
      22
    • Avast!
      31
    • Other
      13

Question

Proficient

DaSwissDude

Posted
Posted (edited)

I need a new antivirus software, since his expired, best would be if it was free. It needs autoupdate since he never updates it. Same with with Spyware/adware protection, disk cleanup... :rolleyes:

I curently have Kapersky Installed, but i dont like the looks, and its prety slow but probably its just my bros PC :rolleyes:

So any sugestions...?

Oh, yeah and it should have Active Shield Thing.

Edited by The Napster
Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/214061-best-free-anti-virus/
Share on other sites

60 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Contributor

siim04

Posted
Posted

I use avast on one computer, antivir on another, and i have experience with avg too. Anyways, avast is very "futuristic" in the UI meaning - it has become interactive, which I like. Avast is also lots faster and easier on the system than Antivir. I didn't like Avasts default skin - too messy - so i downloaded another one, which made using avast much easier. Also, both AVG and Antivir had trouble auto-updating over ADSL, Avast worked fine. Anyways, avast is and will be my first choice for some years I think.

But I am looking for freeware Linux antivirus with active shield nowdays, but there doesn't seem to be any (only paid versions). Some people say that Linux doesn't need any antivirus, but my experience is the opposite (last year I confirmed/saw 3 virus infections on Linux/BSD systems, that was 3 more than on Windows systems:D).

  • 0
Grand Master

Scorbing

Posted
Posted

I hear AVG is a good one. I tried Avast once but I find its interface very hard to get around and confusing. Plus the skins deal just don't quite make it. antivirus software is not meant to be skinnable. It is a workhorse, not a toy.

  • 0
Mentor

ring0

Posted
Posted

for good antivirus comparisons, go to http://www.virusbtn.com/ and look at their vb100 awards

and about the lawsuit/mcafee thing, it was basically "click here if you agree NOT to sue us and we'll give you free software." dunno what it was all about, but i never pass up a chance for free stuff :p

  • 0
Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted
I hear AVG is a good one. I tried Avast once but I find its interface very hard to get around and confusing. Plus the skins deal just don't quite make it. antivirus software is not meant to be skinnable. It is a workhorse, not a toy.

why can't it be both?

  • 0
Proficient

DaSwissDude

Posted
  • Author
Posted

hes using Kapersky for now, and then i gues ill see what to use, prob AVG.

Or install Kapersky from the other CD i got :p

Damn McAffe didnt do too good, thats what im using :D
and about the lawsuit/mcafee thing, it was basically "click here if you agree NOT to sue us and we'll give you free software." dunno what it was all about, but i never pass up a chance for free stuff 
Link???

Thanks for all the help so far :D

Im not so sure about AVG anymore cuz of :unsure: :

Can anyone confirm that?

  • 0
Grand Master

mAcOdIn Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

The Virus Bulliten tests from NOD 32's website are real, what is not real however is the VB tests indication of real world detection.

McAfee and Kaspersky both detect far more malware than nod 32 yet lost. How can this be? Simple really, the VB test has a lot of strange tests in it some of which have no real basis for real world detection, for one there is a test where you have to find a virus embedded in html, sounds good, but in practive you can't just put an .exe into html and have it infect people, so in essence that virus was worthless. Some AV's missed it and because of that did not recieve a vb award even though it could not affect you. Another one is a zip within a zip. Some anti-virus programs don't scan that deep so they wouldn't find the virus until you got it down to one level of compression, further some don't scan within compressed files at all, yet easily detect the file once it's unzipped. Again a double zipped file can not infect you without you decompressing it first so again this test is not applicable in the real world. Lastly is one false positive on the test and you fail. This is insane, what this means is that if you misdetect even one thing you're out. I don't know about you but I like heuristics and I think as Eset improves work on thier heuristics engine you'll see nod 32 generate some false positives as well, it's already starting to generate false positives on normal users pc's it's only a matter of time until they get one on the VB test.

Basically I'm saying the VB is crap, but unfortunately it's the best test we have, but take every test with a grain of salt, to know why a AV failed a test you have to subscribe to the magazine because the online results wont tell you.

The McAfee lawsuit if I remember properly was for previouse McAfee users who were complaining that McAfee was forcing them to upgrade by not giving them new DAT's. I don't know why McAfee got sued and every other AV company got out scott free because they all do the same thing but that's how I remember it. The date has ended to take advantage of the lawsuit so you can't get a copy now for free.

  • 0
Collaborator

noxcuse

Posted
Posted

Hi guys,

Take a look at this:

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=67&mnu=67

Nod32: is fast, good detection rate and good price too (here in New Zealand)

Kaspersky: solid, strong and excellent @ it detection rate (a bit pricey)

Anything above will do the job. However to prevent virus(es), it is not just about the software itself but the way you play/work ur computer :whistle: :alien: :yes: :cool:

my laptop: nod32 ( i got it 4 free) + zonealarm

my desktop: kaspersky (i paid for it) + zonealarm

both of 'em are survivors over several virus outbreak recently. :whistle: Last words, choose the one that u feel most comfortable with...

  • 0
Rookie

Marseille07

Posted
Posted
McAfee and Kaspersky both detect far more malware than nod 32 yet lost. How can this be? Simple really, the VB test has a lot of strange tests in it some of which have no real basis for real world detection, for one there is a test where you have to find a virus embedded in html, sounds good, but in practive you can't just put an .exe into html and have it infect people, so in essence that virus was worthless. Some AV's missed it and because of that did not recieve a vb award even though it could not affect you. Another one is a zip within a zip. Some anti-virus programs don't scan that deep so they wouldn't find the virus until you got it down to one level of compression, further some don't scan within compressed files at all, yet easily detect the file once it's unzipped. Again a double zipped file can not infect you without you decompressing it first so again this test is not applicable in the real world. Lastly is one false positive on the test and you fail. This is insane, what this means is that if you misdetect even one thing you're out. I don't know about you but I like heuristics and I think as Eset improves work on thier heuristics engine you'll see nod 32 generate some false positives as well, it's already starting to generate false positives on normal users pc's it's only a matter of time until they get one on the VB test.

My understanding of VB is that each antivirus software is given a set of viruses to test and it has to catch them all. So, as far as passing VB, each antivirus should have caught the same number of viruses (since the set of viruses should contain the same number of viruses - otherwise it is not a fair test!).

There may be some strange tests that VB performs, but I'm sure most tests are reasonable, sound tests.

And I don't think it is a coincidence that NOD32 and Norton Antivirus have received good marks on VirusBulletin, especially Norton Antivirus because Norton Antivirus is very good as far as detecting viruses (a resource hog, though).

  • 0
Grand Master

mAcOdIn Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

No the VB is completely fair in how it administers the test notice I said I think it sucks but is the best test we have. However there are more than one kind of test that it tests and that's where it gets flaky. But again you have to subscribe to the magazine to see what test a certain AV failed, and I promise you it's not just a bunch of viruses on the HD and each AV doing a full scan, there are html embedded viruses compressed viruses and other tests.

Plus another thing that is sorta misleading is how they test different platforms. It's all good they should do it, however I don't like how you can't seperate them from the different operating systems. For instance if I have windows all I would want to see is say Windows XP and 2000 since they're relatively the same, I have no need to see if it passed on novell or linux. But that's a minor gripe.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.