Antivirus software

#21
msr said:
Baldrick66 said:
I must admit I concur with MSR about NOD32 (He put me on to it last year) excellent bit of kit that does what it claims without a massive use in resource.
Happy to help ;)

Trust you have updated it to version 3.

msr
Do Bears s**t in the woods?
Is the pope a catholic ?
Are Labour MP's all liars ?
 
#24
Whiskybreath said:
Aye but it costs 50 nicker for a licence :(
1 x ESET Smart Security (Home Edition) Licence for one computer, laptop or workstation
£39.99 1 Year
£60.00 2 Year
£84.99 3 Year

Or if you only want the antivirus:

1 x ESET NOD32 Antivirus (Home Edition) Licence for one computer, laptop or workstation
£26.99 1 Year
£38.99 2 Year
£54.99 3 Year

Cheaper than re-installing your PC....

msr
P.S. Also available online if you want to check your PC for free: http://www.eset.com/onlinescan/
 
#25
I have also heard good things about NOD, but I personnaly have gone with Kaspersky based on some reviews I read. They are currently doing a deal with a 2 year licence around £32 i believe.

Norton and Macafee are both living off their previous glories, though to be fair I have read reviews that say that Norton 360 is a dam site better than their offerings of the previous few years, but they will have to be consistantly good for a few years running to get them back in my good books
 
#26
a nod for AVG from me. i used to use AVir, but it doesn't play nice with vista. or at least it didn't when i put vista on (april) it might have been put right since then :?
 
#27
Just read a review by PCPRO in the Sep 07 edition (while scrabbling through the reading material next to the seat of comfort) which puts ESET fairly low on the scale of competency; top of the list with an outstanding 98% record of catches was Kaspersky. The MESH computer which I've just bought for the boy comes with 'Bullguard' free for a year, but it's pretty duff too, according to PCPRO.
 
#29
Seen. I don't believe any of these people now. They're all lying on behalf of their vested interests. I'll stick with the copy of Norton my company hacked for me all those years ago.
 
#30
duffdike said:
jinxy - that might be an exceptional case. But 99.9% of viruses are not sent by friends are they? Beside which most linux users would not accept a kernel from anywhere. Lets not trivialize this. Linux just DOES NOT HAVE the security issues that Windows does. Why argue with that and confuse people?
Yes, infact a very large %age of viruses (well, worms and trojans mainly) are sent by friends, not intentionally but they are sent by friends.

Linux has not had the security issues 'Identified' that Windows has. One of the biggest reasons for that is the significantly smaller userbase. Windows has the problems highlighted because it is the biggest target, it is the biggest target because it has the biggest userbase (especially 'average joe's). There is only one way to 100% ensure your PC is virus free and that is to never turn it on.

If you always work on the assumption that you 'may' be at risk, regardless, then you will probably be fairly safe.

I personally use AVG Free and Windows Firewall (along with Crap Cleaner and Spybot S&D) and so far have had no problems at all with them. Before that I used Norton for years and had no problems with that either.

When I first switch away from Norton I went to AVG and Zonealarm, much to my surprise I found, in Task Manager, the listed memory useage for AVG & ZA was actualy 2.5 times higher than my Norton installation when the system was idle! ZA being the main sponge.
 
#32
Cairngorm said:
http://www.personalfirewall.comodo.com/ is a good bit of gear, also comes with antivirus prog. Have run it for about 12 months now and find no probs.
Do you have a link to the antivirus prog?

msr
 
#34
Harry_Monk said:
Yes, infact a very large %age of viruses (well, worms and trojans mainly) are sent by friends, not intentionally but they are sent by friends.

Linux has not had the security issues 'Identified' that Windows has. One of the biggest reasons for that is the significantly smaller userbase. Windows has the problems highlighted because it is the biggest target, it is the biggest target because it has the biggest userbase (especially 'average joe's). There is only one way to 100% ensure your PC is virus free and that is to never turn it on.

If you always work on the assumption that you 'may' be at risk, regardless, then you will probably be fairly safe.

I personally use AVG Free and Windows Firewall (along with Crap Cleaner and Spybot S&D) and so far have had no problems at all with them. Before that I used Norton for years and had no problems with that either.

When I first switch away from Norton I went to AVG and Zonealarm, much to my surprise I found, in Task Manager, the listed memory useage for AVG & ZA was actualy 2.5 times higher than my Norton installation when the system was idle! ZA being the main sponge.
(My bold). Not strictly true on the suggestion that "Windows only seems more vulnerable because of more users" for a couple of reasons, H_M.

First, from the point of view of virus writers, Linux (and Macs) are a far more tempting target. bear in mind that virus writers generally get nothing out of their efforts except the buzz, and the chance to become a legend amongst similar minded people. What better way to gain hacker immortality than to be the person who proves that Linux or MacOS is vulnerable? To do that you don't need to infect the entire net, so the size of user-base doesn't matter.

Second, it's in the nature of most Linux users to be far more tech-savvy than the "average joes" using a lot of those Windoze boxes. That means that a Linux security issue is far more likely to be found, and found quickly, than an equivalent MS vulnerability.

As for the rest of your post, couldn't agree more - except there's no need to leave it switched off. Just never connect to the net, and never put any disk or memory stick in it that's been near any other machine ;).

AVG (free) and Zone Alarm have worked for me for over 4 years now without a single threat getting onto my PC - I check (a little) more thoroughly every so often, so I know it's not just that they're missing them. As they're both completely free - and for a couple of years of that my PC was connected virtually 24/7 - that seems a pretty good record!
 
#35
After much convincing from a fellow Gnarly arrser i just off-loaded norton for NOD32 and SpywareBot.

I thought norton was very good, but after running spywareBot i had 289 parasites on my system!!!! Norton, very gimmicky.

Now ditched it.

Result, PC speed has pretty much doubled, as for protection....i'll report back!
 
#36
goon_bde said:
After much convincing from a fellow Gnarly arrser i just off-loaded norton for NOD32 and SpywareBot.

I thought norton was very good, but after running spywareBot i had 289 parasites on my system!!!! Norton, very gimmicky.

Now ditched it.

Result, PC speed has pretty much doubled, as for protection....i'll report back!
There's a reason I recommend NOD32 ;)

msr
 
#37
Sadly, MSR it wasn't you who recommended it to me....it was a fellow airborne skygod!!!

but i take your endorsement as furtherproof!
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
scotlass Gaming and Software 22
msr Gaming and Software 3
msr Army Reserve 0

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top