What is the best antivirus for REALTIME PROTECTION???

SEE LINK BELOW FOR proof (:CLP)

http://www.anti-malware-test.com/?q=taxonomy/term/16

The results may surprise you!!!

It seems that not only the user but even malware have a hard time at disabling Norton, LOL.

Why is the ESET suite tested a beta? Why didn’t they test the latest release, did it perform even worse?

Anyway I think (not really know what I’m talking about) that negating malware the chance to have admin rights, and also HIPS software, must make this particular threat way less worrisome. Am I wrong?

No you are not totally wrong. Hips is indeed the first line of defense against mallware :BNC
Remeber HIPS Is only as efficient as the person using it if he clicks allows on all everthing he sees there may be chance he will let the mallware & he clicks deny on everything he may stop almost all his applications from working. So it pays to have a 2nd line of defense. (:KWL)

My advice is to stick with trustworthy testing sites.

www.av-comparatives.org (Paid For Antivirus Program Test Results

www.virus.gr - Both Paid and Free Antiviruses Tested and Results shown.

Eric

etc…

One thing about those so called independent results you say,

One fact about them you didnt know they are sponsored heavily by antivirus companies, it is their main bread & butter, they will always try to satisfy their corporate sponsor. guess who contributed the most to their tests??? NORTON!!! They will lie you know

Interesting results,it’s not surprising to see Kaspersky topping the list,it’s a superb piece of software all round.
A well configured HIPS will block all these issues if operated correctly,but greater protection should be inbuilt in these other products in order to better protect more inexperienced users.

Lol! :smiley:

Cheers,
Ragwing

Yes, All of you must remeber that DETECTION RATES & REALTIME PROTECTION & SELF DEFENSE ARE entirely different things. For EXample AVIRA does rock in detection rates. You want to knpw why
It uses 3 detection methods compared to kaspersky, bitdefender, nod32 & the rest only two. (:KWL)

a) signature detection (detecting already known malware by the signature method)
b)heuristic detection =detecting yet unknown malware by the method of emulation / code analysis
c)detection of suspicious cryptor / packer (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of informing the user about the unknown / rare / suspicious packer / cryptor or about the fact of multiple packing / crypting (Only Avira has this method of all antivirus),Kaspersky & NOD32 & the rest does not have it.

It is common sense that AVIRA is superior. (Three detection methods are better than two) :THNK

But its Realtime & Self defense that is a different story. It sucks in that department. Useful only as a on demand scanner. (:SAD) Guess nobody perfect it even applies to antivirus :■■■■

Well, friends, I URGE YOU:

DO NOT TRUST THIS SITE

Wanna know why? Well…

Just read that:

About us:

About Anti-Malware Test Lab

Anti-Malware Test Lab is an independent, international, sharing organization of information security software testing. We are not controlled by any software vendors or their affiliates.

Out experts provide accurate test reports of leading anti-malware solutions. Anti-Malware Test Lab aims to share our expertise and knowledge with users and professionals.

OUT EXPERTS—

Contact:

Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.

If being honest, I’m glad to be not authorized to contact them.
Now, really!

Forum:

In total 3 postings!!!

Seems to be a rather new forum, right???

Anyone tested the origin of this site? Maybe this is…ok, i shut up now :slight_smile:

Just THINK

That’s all I ask of you

Actually maybe IT could mean the opposite. Remember that AV comaparatives, AV Test & Virus Buliteen are sponsored by Antivirus companies. They will always satisfy their corporate sponsors because it is their main bread & butter. Norton by the way has sponsored these independent tests the most by the WAY,

Here is my question, are all the tests really indepenent???, NO, A contradiction, they are dependent on antivirus COMPANIES for income, they would not dare anger their sponsor who contributed the most to their tests.
So Let just say the truth may be sacrifice for the money. :THNK

Is it better to have someone that is not dependent on other antivirus comapanies, Somoeone who is truly unbiased & INDEPENDENT. :THNK

I guess you’ve said it all. :frowning:

Now I neither do trust Norton anymore.

Nor do you allow me to trust you.

Nor will I be able to trust anything anymore unless it’s your handcrafted scissors by Wilkinson.

Therefore, I will get rid of my old companion AVIRA that’s kept me free from virus infection and even cancer for many years now (even if being a heavy smoker), and buy me some scissors in your shop’s tool dep to finally stay secure from all those threats from the outer world by cutting all my cables.

With hq scissors.

Cheers.

Avira is the ultimate in detection. Guess you didnt completely read my post.

It uses 3 detection methods compared to kaspersky, bitdefender, nod32 & the rest only two. (:KWL)

a) signature detection (detecting already known malware by the signature method)
b)heuristic detection =detecting yet unknown malware by the method of emulation / code analysis
c)detection of suspicious cryptor / packer (detecting yet unknown malware by the method of informing the user about the unknown / rare / suspicious packer / cryptor or about the fact of multiple packing / crypting (Only Avira has this method of all antivirus),Kaspersky & NOD32 & the rest does not have it.

It is common sense that AVIRA is superior. (Three detection methods are better than two)

Like I said its defense is lacking?? I use AVIRA premium myself as on demand scanner. Would it be great to have the best of both worlds EX. Kaspersky the best defense in real time & AVira, the best in detection (3 detection methods) & nod32 the best in heuretics as an on demand scanner. Guess you must have misinterpret what i post. What I was suggesting was to a very powerful combo that compensates for all their weakness.

Nope

Dear Ultragunner, I tend to read through the lines before posting.

As everyone here does know, there’s no difference in detection rate (concerning viruses) between the paid and free version of avira.

Using a reliable HIPS like SSM (you did never mention it, now, did you? be honest) will secure your AV against being stopped by malicious intrusion attempts in a better way than, let’s say, Kaspersky’s self protection. Agreed? or not, well…

Again. Please stop the ads here.

No need for them, really. We all perfectly know how those packages look like.

Actually there is a difference between Avira Classic & Premium.

Special protection against email viruses (POP 3)

Protection against spyware and adware

Fast updates through the Premium server

Also I seem to get the feeling that you hate paid products very much, correct me if im wrong?? :THNK

I believe that these vendors deserve some compensation for their hard work, would you say… (:CLP)

Well, friend, I GUESS ALL OF US are aware of the differences. Read the older postings on that topics if you like to.

There are better AS progs out there than the pay-for addition in the paid version of Avira.

Anyone who still uses e-mail progs on his own pc should really know what this means (concerning virus danger) . Never heard about webmail?

Even if still using mail programs, Avira will have THE SAME DETECTION on mail program viruses if one tries to OPEN them. So, there’s no difference in detection rate HERE. Not really. Hope you understand?

The update problem is history (at least, for me). They have adressed it and I never encountered any delay in updates (3 to 5 every day) for the last month.

And, just to answer your last question:

No I don’t hate payware because of being payware as such, having been a heavy payware buyer for over a decade.

It’s just because there are NOW better solutions for free.
If you try to deny that, I understand your reasons.
But it’s a fact. And if you try to tell the opposite, well, sorry, then I have to call this a LIE.

I think there’s no one on this planet who hasn’t ever told a lie. So, no problem. But please, not in the future. If you know, what I mean.

Cheers.

hmmmm… definition of firewall has changed over years…
why shouldn’t the definition of AV change over years?

Anti - Virus
Anti - Spyware
Anti - Malware

Well, heck… the best Anti all this… is CFP v3!!!

If the name of the game is Anti… meaning protecting from, who says, the only acceptable method of protecting the end user is by “detection” only!?

So please allow me throw CFP v3 into the pot and (what the heck…) challange every single AV out there to a test to see who “Protects” the user better :wink:

Melih

My point, supported by Melih’s post I think, was that I use Avira for real-time and I’m not worried at all, why? Let me explain with more detail.

Strong self-protection might be critical for beginner users, and specially if they use one single real-time suite (such as Symatec/Norton, Kaspersky, McAfee, ESET, etc.). Because the different components of the suite (firewall, AV, etc.) will be more or less consistent, equally resistant to malicious termination; or maybe the suite will include one self protection service for all its components. But specially if you use different products to make your own security suite, it doesn’t make so much sense any longer to expect high self-protection from each and every of these programs. The weakest link in the chain will compromise your whole security. And if you go for strongest self-protection as a criterion to choose your programs, you may have to sacrifice detection and stuff, and that’s not satisfactory.

But I don’t think it’s very logical anyway to expect strong self-protection from each single program when improving that for all your programs is in your hands. That’s like setting your browser to allow-all with admin rights and then expecting from it to be resistant to the hijackers that you’re thus letting in on your own; no I prefer stopping nasties from entering my machine rather than letting them in and chasing them afterwards.

Run Windows as limited instead of admin, and if you want specialized protection use programs designed for that, use a HIPS, use CFP v3; don’t rely for this on programs who only include this protection as a secondary feature.

Totally Agree. Like the saying goes “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”..

I mean why suffer from AIDS if you could prevent AIDS from infecting you . I believe HIPS is the future of security. Actually even those antivirus companies know it that why they are introducing HIPS into their own products. Talk about the sAying "If you cant beat them, join them."LITERALLY.

Hi Ultragunner

forgive me.

Quote:

I mean why suffer from AIDS if you could prevent AIDS from infecting you . I believe HIPS is the future of security.

Now really, the sentence about AIDS is not only tasteless, but mindless.

The sentence about HIPS is a clone. I’ve already mentioned this some lines above. Still, it’s not mine.
It’s common sense.
Since 2003 or so…

But the first line was more of an insult to humanity.
HOW can people, especially in Africa, but not restricted to that poor continent, prevent AIDS from infecting them? Now, tell me that, exclusive wisdom?

Maybe they could stop f…? Is it that what you meant? Or, why don’t they use condoms?

Well man, I guess (and hope I’m right with my assumption…) you’re very young, cause if not, this sentence was really, really mean.

Cheers, though.

The REBOL

Actually No offense intended, Just a figure of speech. You really should stop being so sensitive & have a sense of humor. My friend. :■■■■ Enjoy life & live life to the fullest & see new places & for god sakes, :BNC lighten up man & stop always taking things so literally, . (:AGL)