Anti-Virus, Malware and Spyware

Hi, <p> Wondering what the latest and greatest in Anti-Virus, Malware and Spyware software is, for a Win XP

machine.<P>Thanks, <P>Warren

My personal favorite is McAfee, but you'll get a lot of different responses.

ESET Nod32 on anti-virus; Malwarebytes Anti-Malware for spyware/malware, etc.

I'm currently using Norton Internet Security 2009. I'm not at all knowledable about the pros-and-cons, but this latest NIE seems to not be using a lot of resources, and does it's job fairly efficiently without disprupting me, an improvement over previous releases.

 

I previously tried Trend Micro for a year: found it's interface somewhat frustrating, *and* discovered their wonderful practice of automatic renewal of subscription, the hard way. A long distance phone call to a difficult-to-find direct phone number *finally* got that charge reversed. I lost $5~ due to varying exchange rate, the cost of the phone call, and any interest in using Trend Micro in future.

So far so good on Norton AV 2008. It updates itself regularly, actually advises me real time when it catches something evil, but does seem to exercise my hard drive a lot when I'm not at the keyboard.

Check out Zone Alarm. They offer a great security suite that has everything you're looking for (plus a

great firewall) without the memory leak issues of Norton. I've had lots of frustrations with Norton over the

past and can't recommend...

 

Zone Alarm's having a deal on a 3 pc license right now. Give the demo a try and see if you like it. http://www.zonealarm.com/store/content/home.jsp

I used ZoneAlarm (the suite), not the free version) on XP and am now using ZoneAlarm AntiVirus on Vista. I recommend the paid versions over the free version because the free version omits the outging program control component of the firewall that is included in the paid versions.

 

For ad-hoc anti-spyware/anti-malware I have run SuperAntiSpyWare (SAS) and MalwareBytes AntiMalware (MBAM).

 

I'm Vista-centric these days, but there are more details regarding my choices <a href="http://pc.akajohndoe.com/index.htm">here</a> .

Michael, I purchased 2008 close to 2 months back, and received a notification through the software that 2009 had become available and I was eligible to upgrade for free. I'd also installed 2008 on my wife's pc (3 installs are allowed per purchase), and for some reason the notification through the software did not happen with hers. Still, I was able to legally upgrade her pc to 2009 as well. There was a few more hoops, I can't recall the exact steps, but it was doable. Your status might be the same, I would check into it.

I've used CA Antivirus (Computer Associates) since 1999 8 PCs & laptops, XP and Vista (for my biz). I believe CA is a bigger antivirus company than any of the others, known mostly to businesses.

 

Online all day long, lots of downloaded attachments from strangers. No grief. It updates unnoticed in the background, deals unnoticed with virus in the background...I don't want my time wasted by antivirus that wants attention.

 

IMO Norton is itself a virus and McAfee is a time-waster. I doubt anybody would use either if the intro versions weren't included with their PCs.

"I doubt anybody would use either if the intro versions weren't included with their PCs"

 

John, I did ;)

 

Norton Internet Security has been a less than stellar experience for me in the past. How about this for a gotcha:

 

Upon completion of the install, if you happened to move the NIS additions to the Windows Start Menu, say shift them

to a sub-folder, Norton soon thereafter warned you that there was a problem with the installation, that could *only* be

resolved by complete uninstall/reinstall. Actually there was another resolution: just move the Start Menu items back

to where they started, "problem" resolved.

 

But I was pleasantly suprised this time around. A lot of things you mentioned regarding staying in the background,

doing it's job, etc: apply also to the *current* NIS. The price is reasonable and there's often rebates or deals.

 

Here's one comparison source:

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/140127/top_allinone_security_suites.html

Something I've found: nothing stands still, and software is no exception. Yesterday's "dogs" can turnaround, not always, but it happens. It's comforting to try to latch onto one thing and stick with it, but the ways of the world are always shifting. Cripes, I'm getting religious, LOL.

"if you happened to move the ... say shift them to a sub-folder," and

 

"Norton soon thereafter warned you that there was a problem with the installation"

 

why would anyone want to do that ? Norton installation would not know where to chase after moved files...

 

It is definitely not a Norton's problem.

lavasoft ad aware is good, free and unmentioned, as is AVG free antivirus by grisoft, I think.

Frank, I'm not talking about moving the program, *just* the links within the Window Start Menu.

 

When you quote me, the "..." explains this.

Here I consider Norton to be a virus too. It remove Norton is like removing manure from deep waffle tread shoes; part of the ilk is still in the cracks no matter how many times one tries to clean them; and there is whift of Norton that still fouls the air.

I used to swear by Norton, but these days I swear at it - in my experience it causes more of a performance degradation than most viruses!

 

The thing with most packages is that they have to "err on the safe side" and configure themselves accordingly - so whereas you may just want an anti-virus product, you end up with anti-virus, anti-spyware, popup blocker, firewall, parental control, privacy protecter etc etc etc.

 

Personally (after doing this for a living for many years) I settled on CA anti-virus & anti-spyware - they seem to have by far the least performance hit.

I once was a big fan of Norton and had in on many boxes years ago. <BR><BR>Once with a normal virus signature upgrade we had all our Autocad verisions down except for boxes that didnt have Norton. After many panicy calls Norton didnt know anything; we found some obscure panicy folks with the same issues a week later on an obscure web site; to fix the problem required new dll files ; screwing around in the registery; a huge jack around factor; ie a HUGE lost time futzing. I would not feel bad if Norton paypaled us 5 grand for that crap to deal with. We had all these Autocad drawings to print by converting the dwg to plt's for a major customer; and most all our boxes got hosed by Norton. Thus the ancient slow boxes that are not even web connected were used to do all these conversions thru the night to meet a deadline; while the main guard dream machines sat hosed by Norton; true virus in itself. <BR><BR>One has a program that during a virus signature upgrade goes out an fools with bowels of windows and replaces dll files that are required for programs; and the new versions halt the launch of programs that have worked with no issues for years. <BR><BR> If I every tried Norton again it would be on just a few boxes; and never on many since I still have the Norton funk ie bad taste of wasting so much time futzing around to fix Nortons problems during a deadline.

Steadfast commitment and a hammer will fix any Windows computer.

 

Provide yourself some personal grief therapy afterwards and pick up an Apple. I'm serious. Few things have been better than to kiss the

clashes between applications that occurred so often goodbye. Probably the biggest problem with multiple virus scanners on a Windows

box is letting them slug it out to determine which one is dominant. One virus scanner may tell on another. And, it will usually take a

variety pack of them to root out most difficulties.

 

Solving security problems with porting out a Windows box can be like watching a tribal war among a pack of baboons. The most

aggressive application wins. Meanwhile, with every clash, you can have the pleasure of clicking on some dialog box. After many years of

this, I just gave up on it and finally got an Apple. I now live in computer bliss, and recommend it highly.

There was a time that CA or Computer Associates antivirus was one of the best, but now they are one of the slowest to provide updates for new threats. That comes from using it personally and in a large business environment for about 10 years. Only reason I still have it is they auto-renewed. Next year I will switch to something else.

 

ClamAV is actually pretty good, and it is free. Cisco Systems is actually integrating it in to some of their security software.

If you are not bound to Windows for your work, Linux offers excellent protection from all the usual Windows annoyances. I enjoy my D700 and Bibble Pro and the occational Gimp for RAW post processing on SuSE Linux and Ubuntu.

 

I know this does not help you with your Windows trouble, but it may be worth a try.

 

For customers, friends, and family who must use Windows, I usually suggest the free version of Grisoft's AVG for anti virus. Several tests have deemed it just as good or bad as commercial software. Spyhunter is also free and offers good protection against various Trojans.

 

Be aware, though, that most free software of this nature may only be used for private purposes.

 

My day job is that of a freelance IT consultant.

Eset NOD 32 has a package that includes it all. It updated daily and seems to leave a smaller "footprint" as far as how much computer resources it takes. Been using it two years and very happy with it.

"I just gave up on it and finally got an Apple. I now live in computer bliss, and recommend it highly.

"

 

They say that ignorance is bliss - I guess this must be what they're talking about.

 

Ask any McZealot about computer security, and their answer is always the same; "Macs are more secure" the PCs. Unfortunately, the facts show otherwise. In a recent study around 3 times as many security vulnerabilities were discovered in MacOS than were discovered in Windows Vista in the first year of it's release, and it took Apple - on average - around 3 times longer than Microsoft to patch them. So are Macs more secure than Windows Vista? The answer is no they're not.

 

The next McZealot argument is that Macs are more secure because "nobody bothers writing viruses for Macs". Personally, I find the argument of "you're more secure on a Mac because our market share is so small virus writers don't get a sufficiant return on investment to be bothered trying to attack us" to be somewhat less than comforting as a security strategy - and additionally - it just doesn't hold up anymore in that the thrust of malware writers has long since shifted from writing viruses that replicate via eMail to ones that attack via infected web pages - to which the Mac platform is proving to be just as vulnerable.

 

The reality is that all most anti-virus packages are only good for "closing the stable door after the horse has bolted"; the best defence is to (a) Keep your system patched (Windows users can have this done automatically), and stay away from "sites of ill repute" - sites like hp.com, amazon.com, photo.net etc are not going to try to exploit security vulnerabilities. Sites like "xxx-porn.com" & "bad taste sites" are almost guaranteed to try to exploit any weaknesses.

"Provide yourself some personal grief therapy afterwards and pick up an Apple."

 

Take a look at some 2007 Mac -v- PC security hole stats - Mac now up to FIVE times as many security holes.

 

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=758

 

Mac for me? NO THANK YOU - I prefer a far more secure operating system.

Amazing that no one has recommended Kaspersky. I think it's the #1 anti virus program in the world. I suffered w/ Norton for years and finally got tired of how it hogged my computer's resources and slowed it down. Their support was a nightmare. No one spoke english as a first language (not fun when dealing with computer technology!) and their corporate attitude was that if was always your fault if you had a problem. The solution was always to upgrade to the newest Norton version, which was inevitebly more expensive, bigger, and slower. I read the reviews and went w/ Kaspersky and it's been great. System updates itself several times a day and doesn't slow the computer down. Best of all I downloaded the 2009 Security Suite trial version for free and found legal 1 year licenses on eBay for under $10 each. So for $20 total I have both our computers protected, daily updates, and excellent support if we need it.

I agree to steve mareno, Yes kaspersky is the Number 1. I also recommend Bit defender though a bit heavy on the processor and AVG as other alternatives.

 

But again, I feel its AVs are a personal choice.... Be happy with what comforts you :)