Best Virus Software for Windows Vista

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Security' started by Cameron, Mar 18, 2007.

  1. Cameron

    Cameron Guest

    Anytime we get a computer we need virus protection. But with Windows Vista
    already using alot of system resources its hard to fine one that makes you
    computer run fine instead of acting likes it was made 1990.
    I've tested Avast , Mcafee , and Nortan on a laptop and desktop. Plus on a
    UMPC(the oqo)

    Here are the results for the laptop(Dual Core @ 2.0 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
    Mcafee - Slows down way more than it should on a 2 GB ram system!
    Nortan - Works as good as it did on Windows XP. It runs fast.
    Avast - Its the fastest. But this is because its very "light weight" . Its a
    good choice for laptops I think.(Maybe just mine) [Good Choice]

    And the results for the Desktop(Dual Core @ 3.6 GHz ; 2 GB Ram)
    Mcafee - Runs a fast as avast. When running a game(Guild Wars) it slows down
    a bit.
    Nortan - Great. It scans very fast and without a freeze now and then. [Good
    Choice]
    Avast - I was shocked to see that Nortan a large and bulky Security app ran
    better than a light weight one! On a desktop too!

    UMPC results(1.5 GHz ; 1 GB Ram)
    Mcafee - had to uninstall it on first run
    Nortan - had to uninstall it because it crashed some apps
    Avast - Worked well but not as fast as it should of been[Good Choice]

    Well before buying any Expensive software I'd advise you to check out Avast.
    If you don't like it try Nortan. Don't try Mcafee though.


    Testing by zllive.com ( z l l i v e . c o m )
     
    Cameron, Mar 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Cameron

    B. Nice Guest

    Yes. At least that is what the security industry wants you to believe.

    The question is: Why do you deliberately plan on using your computer
    in a way that makes you vulnerable to viruses?
     
    B. Nice, Mar 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Cameron

    Dan Guest

    All you need to do is use e-mail to be vulnerable.

    Dan
     
    Dan, Mar 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Cameron

    B. Nice Guest

    How? E-mailing itself is not vulnerable.

    Security requires that you use robust software, which rules out stuff
    like Outlook/Outllook Exress.
     
    B. Nice, Mar 18, 2007
    #4
  5. Cameron

    Robert Moir Guest

    Your tests would be a lot more credible if you spelt "norton" correctly and
    documented your testing methodology.
     
    Robert Moir, Mar 18, 2007
    #5
  6. Cameron

    Mark Guest

    I've had my current Windows 2000 laptop for 4 years. The anti-virus software
    I've had installed (originally Sophos, now Avast) has never detected a virus.
    I've only ever had 2 viruses on that machine, both of which got through
    before the anti-virus updates to detect them were available. One was detected
    by me noticing that something wasn't right, and the other by the nework
    admins noticing a lot of activity from my machine.

    Neither of those viruses resulted from using email or www. They got in
    through vulnerabilities in background services before there were either
    patches to the vulnerabilities or updates to allow anti-virus software to
    detect them. They certainly didn't get in through email or web browsing.

    So using anti-virus software has done nothing for me. I still use anti-virus
    software just in case I accidentally do something silly, but I wouldn't pay a
    lot (preferably nothing!) for it.
     
    Mark, Mar 18, 2007
    #6
  7. Cameron

    Mark Guest

    AVG (from www.grisoft.com) is another frequently reccommended free
    anti-virus tool. I've not used it myself, but you might want to look into it
    before buying a commercial one, if Avast doesn't suit your needs.
     
    Mark, Mar 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Cameron

    Dan Guest

    Are you suggesting that a more robust email client will stop bad attachments
    and hidden code within emails?

    Dan
     
    Dan, Mar 18, 2007
    #8
  9. Cameron

    Carl G Guest

    AVG Free works great on my Vista Home premium.
    I don't install the e-mail scan part of it and I didn't on XP and haven't
    had a virus in 4 years now.
    And I scan the net a lot.
     
    Carl G, Mar 18, 2007
    #9
  10. Cameron

    B. Nice Guest

    E-mail itself does not make you vulnerable. Period.

    If you open weird attachments you are breaking security rule #1.

    E-mails don't contain "hidden code". Or maybe you are thinking of
    stuff like scripting? - having such stuff enabled breaks another
    security rule.

    Mail clients of course may have vulnerabilities in itself - but don't
    expect your anti-virus product to protect you against exploits for
    such vulnerabilities.
     
    B. Nice, Mar 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Cameron

    RayG Guest

    I have to say NOD32 has always done the business for me.

    http://www.nod32.com
     
    RayG, Mar 19, 2007
    #11
  12. Cameron

    Dan Guest

    Using it does.....
    How many users, typical users, not power or pro users, know what is safe and
    what is not? How many will be able to discern that an email from a friend is
    infected and therefor the friends computer is infected and is acting as a
    host for Malware? My point was that using email does expose a computer to
    risks. Whether you are a novice, a power, or pro user, you are still taking
    chances. 0 day exploits, new vulnerabilities, and new exploits are
    discovered daily. To think that one person could be good enough to keep up
    with all of these changes and protect their computer with the effectiveness
    of a good security solution is IMHO a fantasy.
    Scripting or malicious code can be embedded in attachments as well as some
    native mail formats. You are right though, allowing these to run in a email
    client is also foolish, but again how many typical users know how to do
    this, much less know what the heck scripting or embedded code is and how to
    avoid it?
    No, that is what security updates are for, as well as hardware firewalls and
    other such measures. Do some security vendors prey on the fears of those
    that are less knowledgeable? Absolutely. But there is a good middle ground.

    I myself use a Cisco router with configured firewall as my first line of
    defense. Second line is using the windows native firewall on all internal
    machines, along with a good lightweight AV solution from Bitdefender. I also
    use Windows defender as a backup AS solution. Do I have problems, or have I
    had an infection in the past few years? No, but if I inadvertently do, I
    have the tools to clean it up and keep my network up and running.

    The typical user with a decent router/firewall, a good security suite such
    as Bitdefender AV+, and a little bit of coaching can be kept safe. That is
    until you add a teenager to the equation, then all bets are off.

    Dan
     
    Dan, Mar 19, 2007
    #12
  13. Cameron

    B. Nice Guest

    Internet Security rule #1: Don't click links in e-mails and don't open
    e-mail attachments unless you are 100% confident what it is.

    A user unable to grasp something that simple should'nt be allowed on
    the internet. Such users can install all the security apps they like
    and still they will get burned.
    No idea. Problem is anti-virus products are'nt really very effective.
    Yes. But virus protection won't be of any help there - which was the
    claim you made.
    I don't know. I've been running without antivirus, firewall
    illusionware, anti-spyware a.so. for years without problems.

    BTW, "a good security solution" in the form of software and hardware
    alone is a fantasy.
    If they don't know they better learn.

    Maybe. Unless they run inherently insecure software like IE or
    Outlook/Outlook Express of course.
    Kids and teenagers should'nt have admin rights until they understand
    what that means. Problem is most parents don't have a clue :)
     
    B. Nice, Mar 19, 2007
    #13
  14. Cameron

    Dan Guest

    90 percent of my customers are in this bracket. And I seriously doubt my
    area of the country is any different from the rest of the U.S. People for
    the most part look at a computer as an appliance and expect it to work like
    one as well. Unless you are in direct contact with end users on a daily
    basis, its hard for the us to realise how far away from useable a computer
    is for the average person.
    Heuraistic scanning has come a long way. But then the user are needs to be
    smart enough to know of the detected "possible" malware is legit or not.
    And how do you know for sure? How would you know if a rootkit hadnt been
    malicously installed for instance?
    Agreed, brain matter is needed above all.
    Sorry, but from my experience with the public, this isnt going to happen.
    There is a huge gap between what techies think is easy to use software and
    OS's and what the public actually needs.
    Most of my users are switched over to Opera and its built in email client.
    Not all are willing to switch. Outlook is hard to get business users away
    from, especially if they are used to using it.
    To True
     
    Dan, Mar 19, 2007
    #14
  15. Cameron

    -Draino- Guest

    I am a Comcast user and there FREE version of MacAfee works flawless with
    VistaU

    D
     
    -Draino-, Mar 20, 2007
    #15
  16. Cameron

    B. Nice Guest

    I deal with regular home users every day (outside US). I don't find
    the situation that bad. People seem to be able to follow a few ground
    rules if it's explained to them why they are important.
    A computer is a tool. The usage of any tool requires education before
    proper and secure use can be expected. Problem is that a computer is
    probably the most complex and versatile tool there is. What other tool
    can turn a typewriter into a music studio mixer with just a click of a
    few buttons? Still people expect their 5 year olds to be able to use
    it properly w/o the nescessary preconditions. "My little son is SOOO
    good with computers. He knows a lot more about it than I do <big cute
    smile>" - Yearh, right. He is most likely f*cking it up pretty badly,
    mommy ;-)
    That's definately not my experience. And most AV products are still
    signature based. The vendors may use heuristics at their labs and then
    distribute signatures for the viruses found, but that won't help our
    home user facing an unknown malware.
    Yes, and that will of course fail.
    I will never claim to be completely malware free. On the other hand I
    know enough about what is running on my computers to be 99.7% sure -
    which is enough for me. I monitor what is running, what is installed
    and what networking is taking place. When I ocasionally do run scans
    for malware or rootkits I never find anything but a few harmless
    cookies - so the chance that something really nasty got in is very
    small.
    I'm a little more optimistic. It will improve. Realising that social
    engineering is the biggest security problem, that is were we need to
    put some effort. The problem is that the "common knowledge" on home
    computer security has been: Install a firewall, install an anti-virus
    product and install anti-this and anti-that. That does'nt really add
    much - except for a lot of extra vulnerable code, of course :)
    Unfortunately that's the easy "solution" - and well, it does'nt really
    work.
     
    B. Nice, Mar 20, 2007
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.