True, but this was my excuse: (:D)
Anyway, we all have different views upon the need of AV. I may be foolish who goes without it right now, but then I’ll learn it the hard way, eventually… unless CAVS 3 arrives before I get a virus. CAVS 3 will be probably be a nice security layer to use.
(B)
/LA
I have no idea. 
This is on the one hand a never ending topic, on the other hand a topic which could end right here…
Anyone, is it even possible to know which AV is the best? We can’t just count number of signatures, we need to analyze efficiency and scanning (on access + on demand) deepness as well. And I think there are very few persons here who are able to do that. Surly some Comodo staff, but is it even possible to analyze a non open source AV program? Well I guess it’s not too difficult to make some practical tests, but does it even matter?
Whether one gets infected or not can not only depend on the AV program, it should also be a result of where the specific malware was picked up from. And that is all random, I believe. So if there’s bad luck and the top AV product does not have that signature, then it doesn’t matter if the AV wins a test.
I can never rely to 100% on a black list system. Thus I believe in prevention - not getting anything in, in the first place. This makes the choice of AV less important, I think.
/LA
I find a combination of AntiVir (on access) and the free version of Bitdefender 10 (on demand only),offer a level of detection similar to the very best paid-for AVs.Of course once CAVS 3 is finally completed we can forget about all other products (:WIN)
The best AV is surely the one with the best detection rate, and Avira wins that, see…
Vote Avira!
Good article there,this quote made me laugh:
Symantec, which sells the Norton line of products, said that while there “certainly” was “good basic free software” available, it wasn’t as comprehensive as the paid-for varieties.
Anyone who’s ever had the misfortune of using Norton bloatware will know that a combination of Avira AntiVir and CPF blows it away in level of security,resource usage and any other criteria you can think of! (:LGH)
Absolutely. Every machine I saw with Norton installed was much more responsive and faster after I switched it to AntiVir/CPF.
Well, I feel somewhat of a relieve now. Finally, at least some people have recognized what is the best free antivirus, I tried so hard to teach them… lol
But I find McAfees answer really cooler than Symantec’s:
McAfee, another established provider, said that the advantage of all-in-one packages was that customers didn’t have to go to different sites for different types of product - as was the case with free software - and that updates were automatic.
Nice.
But, as always…
LOL, wanna know why?
You can have your ■■■■ directly from the bottle.
It will go down your throat like a little waterfall.
Fresh.
You could also use some glass, this would be a noble thing, but this is where it starts to be more difficult.
Everyone will know where his ■■■■ glasses are being stored at…either in the kitchen or in the living room most purposely.
But.
After having having installed your 10th pint or so…
You may ask yourself: Now, where is my kitchen again?
Oh, that was the window, third stock, wrong door…
That is the obvious problem with freeware, if McAfee is right.
A big kiss to McAfee.
Now, they introduced the infallible “Drunkard-Ware” term to the world, of which we are a miserable part only.
yeah yeah, you win, i give up ;D.
really 
?
;D (:CLP)
Hiya,
I cast my votes for Avira and Kaspersky. Avira has really become a wonderful product over the years and I cannot but acknowledge what they’ve accomplished. I tried Avast, AVG, CAVS,… and always came back to Avira. I also tried Kaspersky and NOD32 quite recently (free trials) and liked them both. However, my second vote went to Kaspersky for it’s more my cup of tea (just a feeling and NOD32 is said to have deteriorated a tad lately - though I cannot say that myself due to lack of knowledge; it’s just from what I’ve read).
That’s what I did. However, I don’t quite agree with you on your logic (no offence ).
Let me explain:
If you have a wonderful AV like Avira’s, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? But what if that AV could be easily terminated by malware, like it seems to be the case with AntiVir? (Again it’s just parroting what I’ve read as I’m too daft to test it myself). So ‘the best’ AV with a lousy self protection = not the best AV.
This leads me to a question…
Does anyone know how decent a self protection CAVS has at the moment?
And please refute: … could be easily terminated / circumvent by malware, like it seems to be the case with AntiVir :-
Just my 2 pence.
Cheers,
grampa.
Are there third-party programs than can harden other programs against malicious termination? Because it would seem more reliable having one programs that’s very good at protecting all your programs than having to rely on every single program’s self protection, and if only one of them is not so good you’re exposed.
Anyway I guess that in order to terminate any of your programs, any malware has to execute, and if its signature/behaviour is recognized then it should be blocked on access and it shouldn’t have the opportunity to attempt to kill your programs even if their self protection is poor. I imagine this is likely wrong but would like sage advice.
EDIT: On second thought I guess HIPS contributes to protect your programs from malicious termination, however can HIPS programs be terminated before they get to block or allow the malware? ???
Hey Japo,
thanks for the quick reply.
I’m have little to no understanding how these things work. But what you say seems to make sense: How can a malware terminate my AV if it is blocked by the on-access scanner?
Btw, could you plz name some progs that can harden my progs against malicious termination? I’ve never heard of any.
Any further clarification is highly appreciated.
Thanks again, Japo.
Cheers,
grampa.
P.S. tansco, if Japo is right, I might not disagree with your logic so much after all, although I’m still not 100% with you
I don’t know of any either, I was just digressing uneducatedly, and asking like you. 
EDIT: On second thought I guess HIPS contributes to protect your programs from malicious termination, however can HIPS programs be terminated before they get to block or allow the malware?This is part of the point of kernel-level installs - drivers, hooks, etc, self-protection in the registry, and so on. This is why there are "termination tests" for firewalls; one presumes for HIPS as well. Some users are running tests of various "proof of concept" exploits against v3 and comparing to other HIPS such as EQSecure, Prosecurity, SSM, and so on.
The idea is that the HIPS should be able to protect itself first and foremost; if it can do that in the face of danger, then it should protect the system. If it can’t protect itself, well, you’re probably toast…
LM
I have over the last week had to rebuild my pc about 5 times. Each time I would get to a certain point and viruses would attack nearly every .exe file. I tried bitdefender and was dissapointed, it deleted or quarantined crucial running processes so on a reboot couldn’t load anything. My solution was Dr Web’s free cureit. It was the only virus checker that successfully healed the viruses rather than deleting or quarantine them. The viruses in question were win32.virut.5 and win32.virut.4
Now I have installed comodo anti virus for real time protection, I use the firewall too and really like it’s ease of use. I am dissapointed though, I scan a file that I know contains the win32.virut.5 virus and comodo doesnt even detect it, let alone heal it!
awilson3rd,
You may still quarantine the file in CAVS, and also Submit to Comodo so they can analyze and make sure the database is updated. CAVS’s database is limited compared to some other products, as they are developing their own product from the ground up (engine, virus definitions, etc) rather than utilizing someone else’s product.
LM
mmmm, on second thought, i change my mind ;D ;D
even CAVS HIPS can’t detects it?
There are programs such as Processguard that’ll protect software from termination.As to Avira being ‘easy to terminate’ I ran a couple of tests attempting to unhook processes etc and it was resistant to them all.It was by no means a thorough test but Avira certainly has some inbuilt resistance.
I use Avira AntiVir, and haven’t looked into anything else since I started using it.
try CAVS then ;D