Antivirus Software Comparison

A good comparison done for all antiviruse softwares here.

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

Kaspersky ROcks. YEah ( I have it u know

)

T

yeah its an extensive shootout
but its also old !!
new versions have been released for most .. and the comparison doesnt stand sane anymore!

take for eg kaspersky
its in version 5 now ( peronsal pro )
tho i use kav as well but i wouldnt underestimate the power of the new versions of the other AV's

R

Is Kaspersky better than NAV 2005

Does it offer all the features that NAV 2005 offers ?

Kaspersky and F-Secure have largest virus database than any other AV. They also have good feature set, again, compared to any other AV.

T

ppl dun like norton cuz its bloatware .. not cuz its incompetent

R

Ummmmmmmmmmmmm
What is BLOATWARE ?
Just being curious

Bloatware is one which bloats like an ink mark on papaer, that is, which takes up a lot of resources of PC like RAM, CPU etc.
And Norton is one such bloatware, it needs a lot of RAM, slows the computer, so it's not liked by many people. But it has has commendable Virus detection rates!

swatkat said:
Kaspersky and F-Secure have largest virus database than any other AV. They also have good feature set, again, compared to any other AV.

Well .. IMHO Kaspersky gives too many false alarms ...
Btw ... Apart from what Swatkat said abt bloatware include this too .. Bloatware are the software suites that include too many programs most of which ppl dont use they just eat hard disk space and resources .. Like Nero .. Norton Systemworks ..

Hi everybody,
I dont know properly about the others but why is 8. Norton version 2005 Professional not in the list ???
secongly why is 8. Norton version 2004 Professional after McAfee version 8.0.41, it is way better than McAfee version 8.0.41 !!!!
thirdly if No. 42 is Quick Heal version 7.01 then why was digit giving Quick Heal for some months in the CD's and DVD's ???

R

But what about FEATURES ?

NAV offers many other features other than just scanning for viruses !

Do AV like Kasperspy and others offer same or better solutions ?

If they do.......... I'll surely SHIFT

You wont need Rajkumar ... Nav is much better than any of the competition .. It only cost more ..

T

@rachit ... like i said its an oollllddd shootout
it was done at the time when norton 2005 was only in beta

i somehow disagree abt NAV tho ..
abbey bat i shifted cuz u said so remember ?

anyways ... one of these days .. im trying norton 2k5 and nod32 !! lets hope !

R

Then why does every1 say that NAV sucks and is a prob for most users ?
If it is so ricj in featres then why not use for the Sake of better protection and security ?

T

because it is bloatware ... and it hogs system resources
thats what we've been talkina bt
and its not like NAV is the best ..
there are better antivirii available out there !!!
which have better detection rates as well as less rsource usage !!

as for the systemworks .. its cr@p ...
u get better alternate software .. u just need to look for it !

K

Oh god. Kaspersky AV Personel is the slowest scanner I've encountered. Man just see.............When I tried to Full Scan my computer, it saud that it would take 1 and a half hrs. Even Norton does a full scan in les than half an hour in my computer. Nod32 takes a mere 15 mins and ZA does it in 10 mins. Man........
*www.geocities.com/cyberdony2k/kas.png

Maybe it has the largest virus db but I don't care...................
This is sick...............

well, i think this is because you are scanning for the first time using kaspersky. Even i had a long time on my first scan. Next time the scan time will reduce a lot

KAV use a special technique so that files once scanned and then not at all altered will not be scanned next time. So subsequent scans will be faster.

Yes, aadipa is right. But many AVs use this method, and this is called "Integrity Checking". This is also used by AVG, Avast etc.

AVs scan entire disk and recod the file and disk information, and they create signatures of them, when they are scanned for 1st time.
Then, next time, they simply compare the file with their signature, and if they dont match, the AV engine will scan the file for suspected viruses. If the files and their signatures match, then it will not scan the file for viruses.

Its called Innoculation and its not 100 % accurate cauz there are many 0 Bytes virii around .. It should also track Date Modified ..

ANyway I didn't get any virus problem till today.I am using Norton 2005 now.

Ah .. There you go again ... Extendia is a hoax .. Those ads that you saw were are all to create hype ..
And btw .. Did I told you .. Innoculation was developed by NAV itself ..
And KAV .. Man .. with a crawling speed of scanning it sux more resources than NAV .. Try just selecting a large file on the DVD and you'll know what I am talking about ..

D

ther is no word as innoculation batty,
can u discribe it...........

Read This

Kaspersky AV
Technologies iChecker and iStreams: how they work?

Norton AV
How does inoculation work?

Anyone here used Hauri Virobot? If yes, hows it's (user interface, resource usage, Virus database etc....)?

S

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

42. Quick Heal version 7.01 - 30.13%

damn

21. Nod32 version 2.0.0.9 database 1.840 - 82.68%

double damn

i was relly counting on nod32
it is said to be like 3 times faster than norton

i guess now we know why

Aah .. Dont tell me you never experience your system freezing when you just select a large file ..

And btw .. Try Extendia before you realize what I wanted to say .. :))

D

aadipa said:
Read This

Kaspersky AV
Technologies iChecker and iStreams: how they work?

Norton AV
How does inoculation work?

thanx addipa for explaining but Batty was writing
innoculation which i couldn't find, so thanx for this

N

Such a long argument over nav and kaspersky.

Well I am using McAfee VirusScan 9.0 Pro and it does not strain my system, good virus detection, fast scans and lots of features.

Maybe this should cool down this thread.

I've tried many, but came back to norton. It has the simplest interface...and is good. Thats it!

N

Now I have stopped using av's as I am tired to switch from one av to another.

You cant seriously stop using av's ??
Have been a Norton fan for mnay years now and have had no major problems.

Apart from a good av you also need to be a cautious web and e-mail surfer.

I have norton 2004. Shall i switch to KAV??
Norton cant delete many viruses. How is it in KAV??

G

hpotter606 said:
Norton cant many viruses.

means ??

nyway i think ur using pirated copy of NAV .. rite ??
so the best wud be switching over to KAV...free...light ... nd efficient ..!!

K

grinning_devil said:
hpotter606 said:

Norton cant many viruses.

Click to expand...

means ??

nyway i think ur using pirated copy of NAV .. rite ??
so the best wud be switching over to KAV...free...light ... nd efficient ..!!

I'm using pirated KAV...........
Where is the free version available??

swatkat said:
Kaspersky and F-Secure have largest virus database than any other AV. They also have good feature set, again, compared to any other AV.

Virus database is not everything to detect a virus. I have downloaded those results - though old enough.
While benchmarking we have to test some basic point. How much effective they are? Is their auto-protection really works? There are many Anti-spy or Anti-virus whose auto-protection do not work. Are they capable to scan within archive? How many archives do they recognize? How much time does it take to make a full system scan? How much does it effective to detect non-viral threats or virus like objects?
Finally one more question - are you sure it is much stronger than a virus!!!
i.e., would it be possible for a virus to patch the anti-virus so that if it detects any virus, it won't show it on the scan summary window, also won't delete it. NAV 2004 faced a problem like that. There were some threats having the capacity to patch NAV.

G

khattam_ said:
grinning_devil said:

hpotter606 said:

Norton cant many viruses.

Click to expand...

means ??

nyway i think ur using pirated copy of NAV .. rite ??
so the best wud be switching over to KAV...free...light ... nd efficient ..!!

Click to expand...

I'm using pirated KAV...........
Were is the free version available??

ooooops messed it ...
assumed that nyone can search "cracks" frm gooogle!!

K

grinning_devil said:
khattam_ said:

grinning_devil said:

hpotter606 said:

Norton cant many viruses.

Click to expand...

means ??

nyway i think ur using pirated copy of NAV .. rite ??
so the best wud be switching over to KAV...free...light ... nd efficient ..!!

Click to expand...

I'm using pirated KAV...........
Were is the free version available??

Click to expand...

ooooops messed it ...
assumed that nyone can search "cracks" frm gooogle!!

Oh..............
But you were mentioning KAV like it is an alternative to pirated AVs................

hcp006sl said:
swatkat said:

Kaspersky and F-Secure have largest virus database than any other AV. They also have good feature set, again, compared to any other AV.

Click to expand...

Virus database is not everything to detect a virus. I have downloaded those results - though old enough.
While benchmarking we have to test some basic point. How much effective they are? Is their auto-protection really works? There are many Anti-spy or Anti-virus whose auto-protection do not work. Are they capable to scan within archive? How many archives do they recognize? How much time does it take to make a full system scan? How much does it effective to detect non-viral threats or virus like objects?
Finally one more question - are you sure it is much stronger than a virus!!!
i.e., would it be possible for a virus to patch the anti-virus so that if it detects any virus, it won't show it on the scan summary window, also won't delete it. NAV 2004 faced a problem like that. There were some threats having the capacity to patch NAV.

I am not saying Virus database is the only criteria. Kaspersky and F-Secure are critically acclaimed AVs. Currently these two AVs are the leaders when it comes to number of viruses they can detect.
And, when it comes to features like scanning within archives it supports some 700 compression file formats. Kaspersky is one of the few AVs which is capable of scanning even encrypted archives/files, and it's very good in detecting Trojans (this is where other AVs normally fail).

Coming to F-Secure, it has three Virus scanning engines, Yes three! Each file/folder is scanned individually by three engines, that means if one engine misses something, other two might catch it. This makes F-Secure equivalent to three AntiVirus Softwares. And, F-Secure uses Kaspersky Virus scan engine. Both Kaspersky and F-Secure are very good in detection, but they require slighly high system requirements.

Coming to AVs itself getting damaged by Virus, Norton is the only AV i have heard/seen that gets damaged/corrupted by a virus!

Dude even AVG free edition is good, it also detects the latest viruses and what more its free.

i've been using NAV(2003) for the past two years(it costs hell of a lot), run a virus scan every 14 days, my computer is working just fine and free from any hasseles, only once blaster worm was deteted. I've had no other problem ever since.

grinning_devil said:
hpotter606 said:

Norton cant many viruses.

Click to expand...

means ??

nyway i think ur using pirated copy of NAV .. rite ??
so the best wud be switching over to KAV...free...light ... nd efficient ..!!

NO NO NO
I am using orignal copy from IBM branded.
Its totally updated but it fails to delete virus 75% times.

D

Norton sucks big time. They spend so much on marketting. Wish they would employ good developers. Make them work really really hard and then would NAV would become our fav anti virus. (Only if it consumes low resources that is)

devilhead_satish said:
Norton sucks big time. They spend so much on marketting. Wish they would employ good developers. Make them work really really hard and then would NAV would become our fav anti virus. (Only if it consumes low resources that is)

Well yes it is good. Beg your pardon but it does not suck :wink:

. My experience with it over the years has been quite good bar a few exceptions :wink:

.
Yes it does consume resources, i will give you that. Any game i play it recommends shuting off norton but on my current system even with activating it keeps my system running smoothly.

T

Norton slows computr.
That y it sucks

This is my 2nd post here.

Norton cant delete many viruses.

It's true. But, this would not be solved by just changing your AV. It's not always a fault of anti-virus. Not only NAV (any version) each and every AV has its own limitations. If the OS protects a virus as its extremely important file what can an AV do then? It's mainly an OS fault. Otherwise there was no reason for Microsoft to distribute a free SP-2 CD to everyone who wanted.
Solution: Use Windows XP with up to date security (Always load XP from its original CD from Microsoft and not from its copy). Use a reputed and trustable AV, Firewall, Anti-spy, Anti-spam. Use AMD Athlon 64 for enhanced security.

*www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=67&mnu=67
- I have checked the above link. Surprisingly found an updated version of Kaspersky get less point in comparison to its previous version. I have nothing to say about it at this moment. Windows 2000 SP4!!! CELERON 2400 MHz!!! - cannot find any reason behind them. Should be Windows XP SP-2, Intel P4/AMD 64.

F

Ive found Avast Home Edition to suit my needs for my Windows XP box whenever I use it but could one suggest a free one for Linux

(that is if I need one ...)

U

You don't really need one, however you can use F-Prot or BitDefender Console if you really want it. They are on demand scanners, and purely command line based.

hcp006sl said:
Windows 2000 SP4!!! CELERON 2400 MHz!!! - cannot find any reason behind them.

Obviously they will be testing on average system specifications, considering those are what most people will use. And if something can perform nearly as well while taking less resources, it should certainly deserve a higher rank

hey guys, what about AVG .? It works quite good for my PC. any comments?

i use norton corporate verion 8.
it takes the least memory , i suppose has good detection rates and more or less whether we think norton sucks or not we all have to agree- its got the nice ways to sell its products thats why it is the largest used anti virus.
anyways i had used kaspersky and no denying the fact that it had much much better detection rate(it detected 5 more virus which nod could not) but man how much ram does it suck? Speaking from a wider perspective most anti virus softwares detect the viruses which are really harmful(some viruses just stay and dont affect anything).
so my vote goes to nod32

I'm kool with my Avast.
It's light, good & free for Home users.

Norton & McAfee r huge & irritating. AVG, I just don't get along with it. Kaspersky took time, while Avast... uhmmm... reminds me of good times

rajrulesdear said:
hey guys, what about AVG .? It works quite good for my PC. any comments?

Very Good.

Is AVAST or AVG a smaller software to install, which doesnt take lot of system resources ??? :?:

LATEST TESTS

April 2005 Tests

The link present in the first post is last year's test results. This is this years test results and norton seems to have climbed the ladder. AVG is at low 50s and avast and antivir being the top free ones. Antivir 84.5%. Just take a look

Tux said:
Norton slows computr.
That y it sucks

Thats why I shifted to AVG, runs perfect

N

I am using NAV 2005 with 256MB RAM on XP SP2. Great.

navjotjsingh said:
I am using NAV 2005 with 256MB RAM on XP SP2. Great.

No doubt about that. I am also using NSW2005 on XP SP-2.

I m using avast.
best thing of avast is that quick and smaller update to download.

mr_356 said:
I m using avast.
best thing of avast is that quick and smaller update to download.

The error I got before installation

ASWCLNR caused an invalid page fault in
module USER.EXE at 001e:00002a04.
Registers:
EAX=0000000c CS=16df EIP=00002a04 EFLGS=00000a06
EBX=00458908 SS=5037 ESP=000088d0 EBP=000088d4
ECX=00020004 DS=5037 ESI=000088e6 FS=20cf
EDX=0000000c ES=016f EDI=0045046c GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
67 66 ab e2 f7 c3 66 33 c0 b9 02 00 ad 67 66 ab
Stack dump:
16bf0b1d 38868908 503788e4 00000004 0e700413 0018000c 00300024 01920e70 00000004 0045046c 00000001 c0360006 0045046c 16df2d8c bff714d9 00000167

hcp006sl said:
navjotjsingh said:

I am using NAV 2005 with 256MB RAM on XP SP2. Great.

Click to expand...

No doubt about that. I am also using NSW2005 on XP SP-2.

i tried norton 2005 and my computer slowed down like never before.
i lost near bout 20 mb of my memory which kaspersky didnt even eat and my computer took 20 seconds to load my computer.
i thought there wqas a problem with sp 2 as i had installed it just then with norton2005.
but after i uninstalled norton my copmuter was faster than ever before.
Now i am at risk though as i dont have any anti virus software loaded as i am fed up with changing from one to another.
just have zone alarm , windows firewall and spybot S&D.

achacko@dataone.in said:
Dude even AVG free edition is good, it also detects the latest viruses and what more its free.

yeah ill tell u what-- AVG free detcts virii alright but that poor chap cannot repair or delete them so u know its there but u cant do anything(They say in their website in XXXXXXXXXTREMLY small print -- Healing systems DISABLED. Twice I have used it and suffered

And who says KAspersky has a free version-- Its a month long demo dears

The best option is Check ur MOBO cd it might have an OEM Av so that is all legal stuff..I had suffered all AV woes and finally settled for avast --its freee / faast / can repair damage / and is skinnable.. Now I thot that PC Cilliin 2002 I had in my MOBO CD was a demo but once i used it it was a full version so I switched to PC CILLIN 2002 (I dont think its really good cant exactly repair all damage --- hey only temp files it leaves repaires other alright -- but since I use win 2000 I have no inbuilt firewall and it provides a basic firewall -- which is a bit paranoid and most of the time remains i n warning mode- even if some one pings or tries some NETBIOS Browsing despite that i have disabled it on my Lan connexxion it goes in warning mode -- and I cannot browse my NW without allowing it thru PCCILLIN -- the only reson I use it is that I have its legal version and that is a big relief...

Howzaat , when I tried installing AVAST...

ASWCLNR caused an invalid page fault in
module USER.EXE at 001e:00002a04.
Registers:
EAX=0000000c CS=16df EIP=00002a04 EFLGS=00000206
EBX=00458908 SS=3abf ESP=000088d0 EBP=000088d4
ECX=00020004 DS=3abf ESI=000088e6 FS=3baf
EDX=0000000c ES=016f EDI=0045046c GS=0000
Bytes at CS:EIP:
67 66 ab e2 f7 c3 66 33 c0 b9 02 00 ad 67 66 ab
Stack dump:
16bf0b1d 38868908 3abf88e4 00000004 0bd00413 0018000c 00300024 01920bd0 00000004 0045046c 00000001 c0360006 0045046c 16df2d8c bff714d9 00000167

Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2006 Rocks!!!

A

I think you guys want to read this, virus.gr is NOT trustworthy for testing AVs....

*www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=77033

If you want trustworthy test, see *www.av-comparatives.org

C

is f-secure light on the system?

F-Secure is probably the heaviest AntiVirus! But it is very good in detection though! If you want very good detection, go for kaspersky. If you want a very light Antivirus with almost equally good detection, go for NOD32.

I use NOD32 btw.

F-Secure is heavy on system resources. It uses three AV engines to scan the System. Among those three engines, one from Kaspersky. Effectively, its 3 AVs in 1.

wellif i am not mistaken then NOD 32 shud be one of the lightest on system with excellent detection rates.

You are absolutely right Biplav.

C

May be you all guys should give a try to the free Avast! home edition .it is light,free and detects a large no. of viruses.

C

Have a look at the new virus.gr test results

*www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=69&mnu=69

Virus.gr is very unreliable. I think someone has already pointed that out. Though Avast is a good AV software (Probably the best free AV) but its detection is around 90% whereas NOD32 and kaspersky are in the 98-99% range! *www.av-comparatives.org

Well i am happy with Quick Heal. The interface of new version i.e Quick Heal 2006 (v8.0) is better than previous versions and yeah its also light as compared to many others .No idea about NOD as never used it but lighter than Mcafee,kaspersky and Norton. yeah even in case of virus detections and removal its the best antivirus ever used by me so am happy with it.

Offtrack : AVG IS WORST ANTIVIRUS I HAVE EVER USED.

It never removes any virus neither deletes the file containing virus nor let us delete or move or use that file.

BTW even Kaspersky was good but it was little heavy for my system (PIII 64 SDRAM)

I have tried Norton Systemworks, AVG, Avast, Zone Alarm, Nod32, Quick Heal, McAfee and at last feel like Kasperskp is the best...

Avast! gives lot of false alarms too! A file reboot.exe from my Mainboard CD was labelled as virus which no other AV software did.

I think kaspersky 2006 is the best right now.See you shouldn't compare kaspersky 5 with 2006 beta.See as mentioned here norton is good but its heavy on resources very much like panda security suite.
I think as and when kas2006 is launched it will be the best available then.
As for comparitives i use virus-bulletin(virusbtn.com) which gives the popular VB100% award.

this is reality that i am not using antivirus from 2-3 years.
with internet & lots of HDD to HDD Xfer no problems.
i tried Norton & kaspersky norton is much slows doun ur pc
but recenty i installed kav persnol pro 60 day Evl ver it also slows down my pc so i stopped its service. i got single problem partition lost so i recovered from GetDataBack NTFS :lol:

fast & full.

Norton Antivirus is the best one available though..