• 0

Your favourite Antivirus?


  

2295 members have voted

  1. 1. Your favourite Antivirus?

    • Avast!
      193
    • AVG
      306
    • BitDefender
      42
    • Kaspersky
      261
    • McAfee
      154
    • NOD32
      633
    • Norton/Symantec
      435
    • Panda
      29
    • Trend Micro
      81
    • Other
      161


Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
NOD32 wouldn't be slow unless you've got something else that it's not compatible with. It does seem to disagree with almost as many programs as Outpost though.

585967173[/snapback]

This is the problem that I have found with NOD32. I am still with McAfee ater all these years. NAV has gone to the dogs!!!

  • 0

I've been running NOD32 on my laptop for over a year now. Rock solid and low on resources. I've managed to convert many of my friends over after they've seen how fast everything is ready after a reboot (compared with the 30 second wait of Norton...). They've never had any problems that I've heard of either.

Slowest scanner? NOD32 is known for its fast scanning... my 80GB drive now takes 6 minutes to scan (and it's almost a full 80GB...) compared to the 45mins when I was running NAV2004.

EDIT: Oh and as for services, NOD32 only needs one process to keep your system safe: nod32krn.exe (the NOD32 Kernel Service). The other process (nod32kui.exe) is the GUI for NOD32, which isn't necessary if you've configured things properly.

Edited by Zxian
  • 0
I've been running NOD32 on my laptop for over a year now. Rock solid and low on resources. I've managed to convert many of my friends over after they've seen how fast everything is ready after a reboot (compared with the 30 second wait of Norton...). They've never had any problems that I've heard of either.

Slowest scanner? NOD32 is known for its fast scanning... my 80GB drive now takes 6 minutes to scan (and it's almost a full 80GB...) compared to the 45mins when I was running NAV2004.

EDIT: Oh and as for services, NOD32 only needs one process to keep your system safe: nod32krn.exe (the NOD32 Kernel Service). The other process (nod32kui.exe) is the GUI for NOD32, which isn't necessary if you've configured things properly.

585968461[/snapback]

What do you configure to turn that off?

And yes, for me, it's another vote for NOD32...used to use SAV, slow scanning, updates less frequent, and pretty decent on system resources but not as good as NOD32.

  • 0

Norton was terrible on my laptop and old PC. I use AVG, for the performance I get from it. My PC always loads quickly with even 14 icons in the taskbar it runs smoothly. It scans my 250GB hard-drive (of which there is now 199GB of free space) super quickly and its useful to just right click a file I have downloaded and scan it effectivley with AVG. :D

  • 0

http://www.zone365.com/content/10/96/2

Testbed consisted of 321 Viruses, Trojans and Worms, all for the Windows32 environment, and all reasonably new samples. I don't have any data on whether some of these are zoo, or ITW, but they are all real threats I feel someone is likely to encounter, since I got them off the internet (and i've verified they are real as each sample must be detected by at least 4 AV's for me to consider it). All scanners were installed on a clean system, without any traces of other anti-virus softwares - between each test the system and directories were cleaned, and the registry was sweeped. Each AV product was treated with a double-reboot, one before, and one after installation. Each scanner was set at its highest possible settings, and was triple checked for proper options and configuration. Most products were the full registered version when possible, others were fully functional unrestricted trials. All products were tested with the current version as of 6-14-04, and the latest definitions for that date. Each product was run through the test set a minimum of 3 times to establish proper settings and reliability, the only product to exhibit some variance on this was F-Secure, which had one scan come up less than the other two without any settings changes indicating a possible stability issue.

The final standings:

1) MKS-Vir

1a) eXtendia AVK

2) Kaspersky 5.0/4.5

2a) McAfee VirusScan 8.0

3) F-Secure

4) GData AVK

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie)

6) Dr.Web

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie)

8) ETrust

9) Trend

10) Panda

11) Avast! Pro

12) KingSoft

13) NOD32

14) AVG Pro

15) AntiVIR

16) ClamWIN

17) UNA

18) Norman

19) Solo

20) Proland

21) Sophos

22) Hauri

23) CAT Quickheal

24) Ikarus

Heuristics seemed to play some of a roll in this test, as no AV had every virus in my test in their definitions, and products with stronger heuristics were able to hold their position towards the top of the test. Double/Multi engined products put up strong showings as well, proving to me that the redundacy method works, and I think more AV companies should considering double-engines. The strongest heurisitical AV I noticed was F-Prot/Command, picking up only 247 samples with definitions but they were able to power through 67 additional hits on "Possible Virus" indicators - very strong! Norton with BloodHound activated had 30 Heuristical pickups, and DrWeb rounded up the pack with 20 heuristical pickups. eXtendia AVK grabs the number one slot with double engine scanning, anything the KAV engine missed, the RAV engine picked up with great redundancy on the double engine/definition system. McAfee actually missed only 2 samples with its definitions, but picked those 2 up as "Suspicious File", and therefore, scores nearly perfect as well.

The biggest dissapointments for me were Norman and Nod32. Even with Advanced-Heuristics enabled, NOD32 failed to pick up a large portion of the samples. Norman, while finding some of the toughest samples, managed to completely miss a large portion of them! Showing that their sandbox-emulation system has great potetential, but its far from complete.

________________________________________

Actual test numbers were:

Total Samples/Found Samples (321 total possible) + Number Missed + Detection Percentage

Discovered and tested MKS-Vir2004, from Poland. Surprisingly, this one with caught every sample perfectly on Medium Heuristics. Specifically, nearly 50 samples were picked up Heuristically giving it a perfect score of 321/321. However, when I increased Heuristics to "Super Deep", it picked up an addition 10 more suspicious files. Upon further investigation, it was found that it was picking up signatures of hacktool utilities left over in some of the archives and flagging those files. Indeed, this is impressive. MKS-Vir2004 exhibits the most advanced detection algorithms i've ever seen, clearly it only had signatures for 271 of my samples, but through code emulation, it was able to pick up all 321 samples!! It clearly labeled the Heuristically found ones as things as "Likely Win32 Trojan" or "Highly Suspicious Acting File". In addition, its scanning speed was incredibly quick, and its memory footprint was quite small. Impressive! Furthermore, this is a full featured and fairly polished product that appears to update at least once per day, and tech support responded to me within 5-15 minutes on my emails. Unfortunately, it appears to not be available in the US for purchase at this time.

1a) MKS_Vir 2004 - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

1b) eXtendia AVK - 321/321 0 Missed - 100%

2a) Kaspersky 5.0 - 320/321 1 Missed - 99.70% (with Extended Database ON)

2b) McAfee VirusScan 8.0 - 319/321 + 2 (2 found as joke programs - heuristically) - 99%

3) F-Secure - 319/321 2 Missed - 99.37%

4) GData AVK - 317/321 4 Missed - 98.75%

5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie) - 315/321 6 Missed - 98.13%

6) Dr.Web - 310/321 11 Missed - 96.57%

7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie) - 309/321 12 Missed - 96.26%

8) ETrust - 301/321 20 Missed - 93.76%

9) Trend - 300/321 21 Missed - 93.45%

10) Avast! Pro - 299/321 22 Missed - 93.14%

11) Panda - 298/321 23 Missed - 92.83%

12) Virus Buster - 290/321 31 Missed - 90.34%

13) KingSoft - 288/321 33 Missed - 89.71%

14) NOD32 - 285/321 36 Missed (results identical with or without advanced heuristics) - 88.78%

15) AVG Pro - 275/321 46 Missed - 85.66%

16) AntiVIR - 268/321 53 Missed - 83.48%

17) Antidote - 252/321 69 Missed - 78.50%

18) ClamWIN - 247/321 74 Missed - 76.94%

19) UNA - 222/321 99 Missed - 69.15%

20) Norman - 215/321 106 Missed - 66.97%

21) Solo - 182/321 139 Missed - 56.69%

22) Fire AV - 179/321 142 Missed - 55.76%

23) V3 Pro - 109/321 212 Missed - 33.95%

24) Per_AV - 75/321 - 246 Missed - 23.36%

25) Proland - 73/321 248 Missed - 22.74%

26) Sophos - 50/321 271 Missed - 15.57%

27) Hauri - 49/321 272 Missed - 15.26%

28) CAT Quickheal - 21/321 300 Missed - 6%

29) Vir_iT - 10/321 311 Missed - 3%

30) Ikarus - Crashed on first virus. - 0%

Interesting also to note, is the detection level of the US AVK version with KAV+RAV engines was higher than the German version with KAV+BitDefender engines. Several vendors have free versions of their for purchase AV's, we didn't test the free versions, as it would serve no purpose for this test, but based on the results, none of the free versions would have been very impressive anyway. The term "Heuristics" seems like it should be taken very liberally, as some products that claim to be loaded with Heuristics scored miserably on items they clearly didn't have definitions for. Scanning speed was not measured, as it was totally irrelevant to my testing, and on-access scanners were not tested, as it would have been too time consuming, but considering most products have similar on-access engines as on-demand, and use the same database, results most likely, would be very similar.

Cut through the hype, cut through the marketing schemes, this was a real test, with real samples, and none of these samples were provided to the antivirus software vendors in advance. This is real world, and these are likely badguys you'll encounter, since I got them in my real encounters, and all were aquired on the internet in daily activities which anyone out there might be involved in. (Installing shareware, filesharing, surfing, etc). Keep in mind that with ITW tests the AV vendors have full disclosure of what they will be tested on in advance, not so here, so heuristics and real detection algorithms will play a big part, as well as the depth and scope of their definition database.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • As I've been usually saying lately - we all can thank "AI" for this.
    • Friday Windows 11 preview builds are here. Insiders in the Experimental (formerly Dev) and Beta Channel can download builds 26300.8697 and 26220.8690. My Windows11 device on the Preview Channel just got 26220.8728. My guess is this build is a nightly update from 26220.8690.
    • Traffic has a surprisingly unexpected impact on your surroundings by Sayan Sen Image by Radik 2707 via Pexels A collaborative study by researchers from several Israeli institutions found that everyday pollution from traffic and industrial activity measurably changed the atmospheric electric field over the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, providing new evidence of how human activity can influence the lower atmosphere. The research was led by Dr. Roy Yaniv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Gertner Institute at Sheba Medical Center, Dr. Assaf Hochman of the Fredy & Nadine Herrmann Institute of Earth Sciences at the Hebrew University, and Prof. Yoav Yair of Reichman University. The study also involved Itay Froomer, a student from Hadera High School and the Israeli Museum of Medicine and Science (Technoda), who carried out the work as part of the Ministry of Education's 5-unit physics research track. The researchers focused on the atmospheric electric field under fair-weather conditions. Even in the absence of storms, a weak electric field naturally exists between Earth's surface and the atmosphere. One of the main ways scientists measure this field is through the Potential Gradient (PG), which is the inverse of the vertical component of the electric field. PG is a key part of the global electric circuit, a planet-wide system of electrical currents maintained by thunderstorms and electrified clouds around the world. Scientists have long known that the atmospheric electric field can be influenced by factors ranging from large-scale atmospheric processes to local weather conditions such as dust, fog and clouds. Human-made pollution is also known to play a role, but understanding exactly how urban emissions affect the electric field close to the ground has remained an area of ongoing research. To investigate this relationship, the team analyzed measurements from a newly installed electric field mill, an instrument used to continuously monitor the strength of the atmospheric electric field. The instrument was installed at the Center for Technological Education (Roter House) in Holon and became operational in August 2024. It was funded by Israel's Ministry of Education and the Holon municipality. The electric field mill forms part of a broader monitoring network that includes nearby meteorological stations and air-quality monitoring sites. This allowed researchers to compare electric field measurements with detailed weather data and pollution records to better understand what was driving changes in the Potential Gradient. The study focused on two major urban pollutants: fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), both commonly produced by vehicle traffic and industrial activity. PM2.5 refers to microscopic airborne particles small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere for extended periods, while NOx is a group of gases released during fuel combustion. Researchers examined daily, weekly and seasonal patterns in the atmospheric electric field and compared them with changes in pollutant concentrations. Their analysis revealed a clear relationship between NOx levels and changes in the Potential Gradient, particularly during morning and evening rush hours when traffic emissions were at their highest. “What we observe is a direct physical link between emission peaks and electrical variability,” explained Dr. Roy Yaniv. “NOx reduces atmospheric conductivity very quickly, so the electric field responds almost instantaneously during traffic rush hours.” Atmospheric conductivity describes how easily electrical charges move through the air. According to the researchers, nitrogen oxides rapidly alter this conductivity, causing a near-immediate response in the electric field. PM2.5, however, was associated with a delayed response. The researchers attributed this difference to the particles' longer atmospheric residence time, meaning they remain in the atmosphere for longer periods, as well as their different microphysical interactions with surrounding air and atmospheric components. The study also identified a pronounced "weekend effect." In Israel, traffic volumes and some industrial activity decline significantly on Fridays and Saturdays. During these periods, concentrations of both NOx and PM2.5 dropped, and corresponding changes were observed in the atmospheric electric field. “The weekend signal demonstrates just how sensitive the electric field is to changes in human activity,” the researchers noted. “When emissions decline, the electrical environment adjusts at once, providing a high-resolution indicator of urban atmospheric conditions.” The findings showed that pollution levels can influence not only the chemical composition of the atmosphere but also its electrical properties. Researchers said the results strengthened the case for using atmospheric electricity as an additional tool for environmental monitoring, particularly in densely populated urban areas where anthropogenic, or human-caused, influences are most pronounced. The study also pointed to potential public health applications. By combining air-quality measurements with observations of atmospheric electricity, researchers said they could gain a more complete picture of how urban atmospheric conditions change over time. “Integrating air-quality data with electric-field measurements gives us a clearer picture of how the lower atmosphere evolves moment by moment,” the researchers added. “It’s a framework that can support both scientific insight and practical environmental decision-making.” Beyond the scientific findings, the project highlighted a collaboration between universities, public institutions and secondary education. Researchers said the work demonstrated how students could take part in real-world environmental research while contributing to studies of air quality, atmospheric processes and their potential effects on society. Source: Hebrew University, ScienceDirect This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • We aren't even at the all-star game and Microsoft is talking about an update that will most likely be released during the World Series if not after. A lot can happen in the world between now and the 2026 World Series, including the 2026 FIFA Cup. Tell me about it again after the FIFA Cup is concluded. That should allow plenty of time to prepare for it.
    • Great, tell me when I have a "Bad Pool Caller" elsewhere not in Windoze.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      542
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      186
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      77
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      77
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!