Antivirus+firewall

[Guest]

[LeoniAquila]

On highest settings, with most usagle (Highest protection settings, and while updating.)

1% CPU
2,000 KB

I can hardly believe it's true! Well I do believe you, but you know what I mean. It's amazing.

LA

[Info-Sec]

I can hardly believe it's true! Well I do believe you, but you know what I mean. It's amazing.

LA

Well it depends on the system of course.  A clean streamlined system (like mine) will run much better then other systems.  So of course it all depends on the system.

Here is a pic:

Its a little small....So rightclick on it and hit view image, then click it should magnify it.

[donnyd]

The new version of PCTools Antivirus V4 free edition is what I'm currently using. It is extreamly low on system resources, aprox. 6Meg of ram including the system tray icon running with intelligaurd on(real time monitoring). you have the option of running a intelli-scan, full scan or custom scan either scheduled or on de-mand. A full system scan on my PC with over 40Gig of data took only 63 minutes. Comparing this to the other AV's mentioned in this topic which I did give a go at this scan engine is a hell of a lot faster. It also passed the VB100. I'm running this along side of CFP V3, BoClean 4.25 and Comodo Verification engine and all are living together very well. I also run Spyware Doctor 5.5 only on-demand.

Try it you may like it    

[MorphOS REBOL]

If it was more secure than Avira, I'm sure we'd give it a try, friend. But it obviously isn't, same with Comodo AV at this mom. (Sad to say so, but let's stay true)

Cheers

The REBOL

[MorphOS REBOL]

And, please remember:

FASTER does not always, and not necessarily mean: Better

I recommend you use Malware Destroyer by www.emco.is, just to see.

It will scan your system in a few seconds. It is NOT a rogue prog, by the way.
It's database download is about 20 mb i fear. Only thing I can say about it: It's not reliable (yet?)

Now come on, for a viking proggie, it is really weak.

I won't bash it, though, as it's a free scanner. Uninstall without problems. So you may have a try?

[donnyd]

Hey rebol,
         You say it's obviously less secure then Avira. To make that comment I'm sure you've come across some sort of comparative data to prove it. If so, I would like to see it, or if you can direct me to a site or sites that has this info I'd appreciate it.  ditto on "let's stay true"   

[Ragwing]

There's lots of different anti-virus tests, that all give different results.
Anyways, you might take a look at this topic.
The malware collection has been tested with CAVS, NOD 32, Kaspersky ISS, Dr. Web and Avira Free by Comodo users (Burillo and me).

Else we got sites like AV-Comparatives and VB 100 (registration needed).

Cheers,
Ragwing

[andyman35]

If it was more secure than Avira, I'm sure we'd give it a try, friend. But it obviously isn't, same with Comodo AV at this mom. (Sad to say so, but let's stay true)

Cheers

The REBOL

I have to agree there,I'd rather a scanner takes all the time it needs and finds all the malware over pure speed.Avira isn't slow by any means in that respect,but both CAVS and PCTools are new products and as such are improving all the time,so they're certainly worth keeping an eye on.

[Info-Sec]

There's lots of different anti-virus tests, that all give different results.
Anyways, you might take a look at this topic.
The malware collection has been tested with CAVS, NOD 32, Kaspersky ISS, Dr. Web and Avira Free by Comodo users (Burillo and me).

Else we got sites like AV-Comparatives and VB 100 (registration needed).

Cheers,
Ragwing

VB 100 gives its highest regards to NOD 32.  I think VB is the biggest determiner of detection rate, because it uses samples you will most likely run into the in the wild viruses.

[Ragwing]

VB 100 gives its highest regards to NOD 32.  I think VB is the biggest determiner of detection rate, because it uses samples you will most likely run into the in the wild viruses.

Yeah that's true. But still you shouldn't trust those 'independent' tests too much. I don't doubt they would fake the results for some cash.

Cheers,
Ragwing

[donnyd]

Just a note on test results reguarding AV software, here is some info I found on AV-comparatives
  www.av-comparatives.org:

Products with a high rate of false alarms do not diserve the proactive detection level they would fall in. They get penalized and receive only the STANDARD award (i.e. AVIRA,  Bitdefender,  Dr. Web,  F-Proto,  TrustPort),  as users can not rely on a product that causes too many false alarms (also because  it is much easier to score high in test  [also the ones from Feburary and August] with a heuristic which is more prone to false alarms them other products).

And just for clarification,  I never said faster was better. I do believe a top AV product should have a fast scan engine, with a high detection rate and little to no false positives. I think we are all looking for that. In the case of AVIRA too many false positives is something I do not want to deal with. It can cause more problems than a true virus...

I'm still running PCTools AV V.4 and have no complaints. And still waiting on Comodo AV V3 
   

[Info-Sec]

Yeah that's true. But still you shouldn't trust those 'independent' tests too much. I don't doubt they would fake the results for some cash.

Cheers,
Ragwing

True.  However, I never get viruses its just there for emergency, so it dosnt matter too much

[MorphOS REBOL]

Ok, just to make this clear (again):

Some years ago, I changed (from Avira free, don't know why) to a certain paid AV solution (praised as the best then because of  having two independent AV engines, now guess which one that was).
(combination of Casper and BeerDefender or something, the latter one being replaced by another defender clone).

I got infected (heavily) three times.

I returned to Avira free some years ago.

Sometimes, there where (as we all know) server problems, so updating the database was kind of a hassle.

As time went by, Avira free turned out to be not but the oldest (1986), most finely crafted (Made in Germany, whatever that means today, blah) and best-of-detection rated AV, but simply the best.

I am happy with it, and hope this will stay so.

(Almost the same with CPF now, somehow it's hard way reminds me of the Avira history)

I've got a certain feeling about Comodo (and it's somehow positive, in a similar kind of way).

Avira/Comodo
Sister/Brother (no, not the Big ONE, lol)

Ok, no more Orwell in this thread.

Would I change to unknown indonesian AVs or PCTools software (just look at their FW....LOL and LOL, again!) from what I've gathered now? (i.e. Avira/Comodo)

Well, if I should happen to do so one day, call me the madhatter, plz.

Cheers,
The REBOL

[Info-Sec]

Ok, just to make this clear (again):

Some years ago, I changed (from Avira free, don't know why) to a certain paid AV solution (praised as the best then because of  having two independent AV engines, now guess which one that was).
(combination of Casper and BeerDefender or something, the latter one being replaced by another defender clone).

I got infected (heavily) three times.

I returned to Avira free some years ago.

Sometimes, there where (as we all know) server problems, so updating the database was kind of a hassle.

As time went by, Avira free turned out to be not but the oldest (1986), most finely crafted (Made in Germany, whatever that means today, blah) and best-of-detection rated AV, but simply the best.

I am happy with it, and hope this will stay so.

(Almost the same with CPF now, somehow it's hard way reminds me of the Avira history)

I've got a certain feeling about Comodo (and it's somehow positive, in a similar kind of way).

Avira/Comodo
Sister/Brother (no, not the Big ONE, lol)

Ok, no more Orwell in this thread.

Would I change to unknown indonesian AVs or PCTools software (just look at their FW....LOL and LOL, again!) from what I've gathered now? (i.e. Avira/Comodo)

Well, if I should happen to do so one day, call me the madhatter, plz.

Cheers,
The REBOL

Gdata is honestly crap.  Because its a migitation, not the actual two engines (Kaspersky and Bitdefender) so there is some stuff lost in translation if you will.  Kaspersky is even higher rated then avira on some sites. 

Just in general multi-engine, or licensed engines arent as good as their original products.

[jon.bean]

OK, I have Comodo Firewall Pro 3 (latest build) which asks to scan for viruses. But I don't see a distinct antivirus component of CFP?? And it doesn't update every few hours for signature files like my Avast antivirus.

QUESTION: Is antivirus always on with Defense+ (resident protection)? If so, how often is it updated?

I ran a full scan and it found two "infected" files that I was sure were false positives. I submitted to Virustotal and they WERE false positive.

[Tags:]