Which Antivirus should i have?

[urioz]

I dont know if this is right place to post this but:

I wanna hear from you what the best antivirus is , i want it to detect everything if possible thats the most important thing ,

So what do you think i should have ?

Thx for answers and suggestions !

[Marik]

if you want an anti-virus which picks up everything, including false positives, is lite on resources and has a fast scan, then chose Avira AntiVir Personal Edition Premium Edition :smartass:

if not, then just go with either the hogger kaspersky or the lite on resources eset nod32 v4

[SacredCultivator]

Well just from prowling the SSUpdater site, there is not 'best' so tos peak... just depends on your own preference. Although Avira has the 'best' detection rate, you don't see everyone using that, the list of most used Antivirus ranges, NOD32 rank isn't that high yet it's popularity is through the roof. Which applies to others as well.

I personally use Avira, but I'm sure if you conducted a poll on various forums,t he results will vary, as I'm sure NOD32 is probably the winner on this forums and on others it might be the lowest.

Up to you.

A good place to start would be Here

It's just your own call as to which you'd use.

(Previously I used VIPRE, and before that, NOD32)

[urioz]

thx for the answers guys , but one question is VIPRA good?

[SacredCultivator]

VIPRE, it isn't bad, I switched because I didn't like the way their Updates worked, slow, even though you can just dl the Virus Database from their site, but even then kinda a hassle. And it's still 'new' so it has room for improvement. The Antispyware program they use is CounterSpy, which is a great product. So the future will only tell, hopefully they do improve though, as I did like the program for it's logo =P

[Jota.Ce]

I have Smart Security in laptop and KIS in desktop. Default config for dephts os analysis. Customized config in Firewall.

ESET sometimes freezes my pc when scanning EXEs, compressed EXEs, installers, packed EXEs,... eating 100% of CPU, which is very irritating.

KIS is very light when browsing files, the only thing i'd say is it eats many memory when scanning large compressed files. But i saw its heuristics by default are lowered or disabled, and if you enable/raise it, then it becomes the same as ESS.

Firewall in KIS is seriously effective, but it's included in an "application surveillance" that is always scaring you about what programs are making (reading here, writing there,...). It has also a strange way of classifying programs (all from M$ is good and have permission to make anything, almost everything else is not good and have permisson for little thing). Install many things with KIS and you end very tired of questions asking for permission. And when one program wants to connect to internet there's no way to grant permission only temporally... ESS firewall is a joke against real threats, but it defends you with a basic protection and it works fine.

I'm divided (if ESS weren't so stupid with EXEs...).

[Bizarre™]

@urioz:

The answer we give is based upon our factual experience, so it may vary.

My suggestion: try the Top 10 AV, then pick the one you prefer the most.

[KotaXor]

I dont know if this is right place to post this but:

I wanna hear from you what the best antivirus is , i want it to detect everything if possible thats the most important thing ,

So what do you think i should have ?

Thx for answers and suggestions !

Norton!! :lmao:

[LeetPirate]

I dont know if this is right place to post this but:

I wanna hear from you what the best antivirus is , i want it to detect everything if possible thats the most important thing ,

So what do you think i should have ?

Thx for answers and suggestions !

Norton!! ;)

I second this notion. Norton 2009 has the highest detection rate and the lowest false positives of them all. Use with box trial reset. Surprisingly Norton 2009 has better performance rates than NOD32, I can admit that even though I am practically a NOD32 "fanboy" at this point. Still I won't lie when the evidence points in a different direction :lmao:, NAV2009 beats NOD32 in many benchmarks.

As for your other question, VIPRE is not what I would call "good". They lie in their marketing, it takes up plenty more RAM than they claim, and the virus definitions total 200MB. Not to mention it will detect and delete all your "cracks" and even legitimate software like commercial password crackers.

[ssj100]

I dont know if this is right place to post this but:

I wanna hear from you what the best antivirus is , i want it to detect everything if possible thats the most important thing ,

So what do you think i should have ?

Thx for answers and suggestions !

Norton!! ;)

I second this notion. Norton 2009 has the highest detection rate and the lowest false positives of them all. Use with box trial reset. Surprisingly Norton 2009 has better performance rates than NOD32, I can admit that even though I am practically a NOD32 "fanboy" at this point. Still I won't lie when the evidence points in a different direction :lmao:, NAV2009 beats NOD32 in many benchmarks.

As for your other question, VIPRE is not what I would call "good". They lie in their marketing, it takes up plenty more RAM than they claim, and the virus definitions total 200MB. Not to mention it will detect and delete all your "cracks" and even legitimate software like commercial password crackers.

Norton 2009 has the higest detection rate? Please give me evidence of this. In all reliable tests that have been done (in the last 2-3 years), Avira is always either number 1 or number 2.

I have never received a false positive with Avira, so please don't believe those who say Avira gives a lot of false positives. My suggestion is to try them out and see which you like best.

Avira has a free version, which is more than enough. No dodgy cracks needed that stop working with each new release!

I used NOD32 for about 3 years, wanting to ignore the fact that its detection was losing to Avira. I tried very hard to stick with NOD32. Then I tried Avira 9, and I was very pleased to see how light it was! Pretty much as light as NOD32 2.7 (lighter than NOD32 4.0 for sure) and with the highest detection! Such a peace of mind to know that Avira detects so well, and consistently much better than every other product out there.

Sorry, but there's just too much evidence that Avira is the king right now. Furthermore, the free version uses the same engine as the paid version! The paid version is just bloatware.

Good luck!

[Bizarre™]

Are there any Avira v9 Portable out there?

I got v8, but it's already outdated.

[KotaXor]

I dont know if this is right place to post this but:

I wanna hear from you what the best antivirus is , i want it to detect everything if possible thats the most important thing ,

So what do you think i should have ?

Thx for answers and suggestions !

Norton!! :D

I second this notion. Norton 2009 has the highest detection rate and the lowest false positives of them all. Use with box trial reset. Surprisingly Norton 2009 has better performance rates than NOD32, I can admit that even though I am practically a NOD32 "fanboy" at this point. Still I won't lie when the evidence points in a different direction ;), NAV2009 beats NOD32 in many benchmarks.

As for your other question, VIPRE is not what I would call "good". They lie in their marketing, it takes up plenty more RAM than they claim, and the virus definitions total 200MB. Not to mention it will detect and delete all your "cracks" and even legitimate software like commercial password crackers.

Norton 2009 has the higest detection rate? Please give me evidence of this. In all reliable tests that have been done (in the last 2-3 years), Avira is always either number 1 or number 2.

I have never received a false positive with Avira, so please don't believe those who say Avira gives a lot of false positives. My suggestion is to try them out and see which you like best.

Avira has a free version, which is more than enough. No dodgy cracks needed that stop working with each new release!

I used NOD32 for about 3 years, wanting to ignore the fact that its detection was losing to Avira. I tried very hard to stick with NOD32. Then I tried Avira 9, and I was very pleased to see how light it was! Pretty much as light as NOD32 2.7 (lighter than NOD32 4.0 for sure) and with the highest detection! Such a peace of mind to know that Avira detects so well, and consistently much better than every other product out there.

Sorry, but there's just too much evidence that Avira is the king right now. Furthermore, the free version uses the same engine as the paid version! The paid version is just bloatware.

Good luck!

I am not talking about false positive detection!! I am talking about DETECTING EVERYTHING!

This include your internet browsing, spyware....and whatever a noob would do!

[LeetPirate]

Norton 2009 has the higest detection rate? Please give me evidence of this. In all reliable tests that have been done (in the last 2-3 years), Avira is always either number 1 or number 2.

I have never received a false positive with Avira, so please don't believe those who say Avira gives a lot of false positives. My suggestion is to try them out and see which you like best.

Avira has a free version, which is more than enough. No dodgy cracks needed that stop working with each new release!

I used NOD32 for about 3 years, wanting to ignore the fact that its detection was losing to Avira. I tried very hard to stick with NOD32. Then I tried Avira 9, and I was very pleased to see how light it was! Pretty much as light as NOD32 2.7 (lighter than NOD32 4.0 for sure) and with the highest detection! Such a peace of mind to know that Avira detects so well, and consistently much better than every other product out there.

Sorry, but there's just too much evidence that Avira is the king right now. Furthermore, the free version uses the same engine as the paid version! The paid version is just bloatware.

Good luck!

Yes Avira beats Norton by a fraction of a percent or a few percent at times, no big deal because those sample sizes contain dead viruses that won't ever resurface. The more concern is modern viruses that actually have the capability of infecting your pc. This is why NOD32 and Norton are still effective regardless to their benchmark detection rates. The only reason I did not suggest Avira is that I have used it, a few versions of it up to version 9 and it does have a load of false positives, it even detects commercial security tools. The fact that you got zero false positives means you don't use a certain type of applications. I didn't like that Avira tried to delete a load of security auditing tools from my pc. The good thing about Avira is that their tech support is very fast and efficient and I got many false positives removed from the definitions by contacting them. Norton 2009 really does use between 5 to 10MB RAM on average, NOD32 v4 uses 50MB.

I also don't like the adware that has to show up each update telling me to buy the premium Avira, clearly if I wanted to buy premium I would not have bothered with the free version. The guide to stop the adware screen is not n00b friendly either. Avira has also caused system lock ups and slow booting up for me. There are also incompatibilities with other security tools that cause dead locks whereas NAV2009 and NOD32 can work just fine together with Windows Defender + MBAM + SAS. I have tested these things, this is why I don't care that NOD32 detection rate is a couple percent less, the odds are far less that a virus would get past 3 or 4 AV tools running realtime protection instead of depending on 1 Avira that does not want to play nice. I didn't test version 9 fully because I could not locate the option to disable archive scanning and deemed it unfit for use. If they removed archive scanning altogether then I would support it, however I don't know that for sure and to me it just looks like they removed the ability to disable it from the free version. You have to remember also that the free Avira is nagware. I think this file might be a false positive, especially since Avira rebuilt their virus defs recently.

All those things aside, I could also agree with you that urioz should try it for himself to get the full experience. Avira does have the highest raw detection rate and it scans very fast.

Some links for consideration:

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02.

http://www.passmark.com/ftp/antivirus_09-p...testing-ed3.pdf

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...formance08a.pdf

Notice in the passmark performance benchmarks, Avira has faster scan speed than NOD32 (page21), however they are both topped by NAV2009, lol.

Avira does add 10 more seconds to boot time than NOD32 though. The benchmarks are to compare the new NAV2009 products against the competition but they are not biased else they would not recognise that NOD32 is #1 on page 7.

;) Note these independent tests and benchmarks were performed by complete amateurs, there are pro users who know better. :D

[Zeus_Hunt]

Quite agree with the LeePirate.

Had NOD32 v4.0 ... Felt sluggish..

Have NIS 2009 Win7 version on the unit with a beauty from box.

I am quite with its performance. Memory Usage is slightly less than 5Mb. This from antivirus and firewall solution. Amazing.. :)

File xfer speeds (which I do quite a lot) are around 5% less than without NIS, but I can live with that.

Amazingly fast scans too..

Totally transparent..

I would still love NIS even though it might be 2-3% less in detection rate than the leader, bcoz of its meager affect on system performance.

[irefay]

Wow- the world sure does come full circle. I remember when I would have traded just about anything to get a hold of some Nort. Corporate. I think I will wait another year before switching back from NOD. AV/ Firewalls are not something I chance in order to be on the bleeding edge.

[ssj100]

Wow- the world sure does come full circle. I remember when I would have traded just about anything to get a hold of some Nort. Corporate. I think I will wait another year before switching back from NOD. AV/ Firewalls are not something I chance in order to be on the bleeding edge.

All those saying that Avira beats Norton by a fraction of a percentage in terms of detection obviously have not read the latest AV-comparatives, where Avira nearly doubled the detection of Norton. And it only takes ONE piece of malware to get infected.

Avira runs very light on my system with barely any noticeable slow-down (none at all really). It's lighter than NOD32 2.7 for me overall. Please note I am talking about version 9, not version 8. Different systems will run it differently, so please try it out yourself first!

Best of all, Avira is free. It's got the highest detection (and NOT just by a fraction!). Norton is good for sure, but you have to pay for it, and it's got lower detection. If you have a high-end system, slow-down is not noticeable for either Avira or Norton. Avira is free. Norton is not free. Avira has higher detection (and NOT just by a fraction, and you only need ONE piece of malware to get infected, so consistently higher detection by Avira is a huge bonus). Pretty easy which program to choose...don't you think?

Enjoy!

[ssj100]

Norton 2009 has the higest detection rate? Please give me evidence of this. In all reliable tests that have been done (in the last 2-3 years), Avira is always either number 1 or number 2.

I have never received a false positive with Avira, so please don't believe those who say Avira gives a lot of false positives. My suggestion is to try them out and see which you like best.

Avira has a free version, which is more than enough. No dodgy cracks needed that stop working with each new release!

I used NOD32 for about 3 years, wanting to ignore the fact that its detection was losing to Avira. I tried very hard to stick with NOD32. Then I tried Avira 9, and I was very pleased to see how light it was! Pretty much as light as NOD32 2.7 (lighter than NOD32 4.0 for sure) and with the highest detection! Such a peace of mind to know that Avira detects so well, and consistently much better than every other product out there.

Sorry, but there's just too much evidence that Avira is the king right now. Furthermore, the free version uses the same engine as the paid version! The paid version is just bloatware.

Good luck!

Yes Avira beats Norton by a fraction of a percent or a few percent at times, no big deal because those sample sizes contain dead viruses that won't ever resurface. The more concern is modern viruses that actually have the capability of infecting your pc. This is why NOD32 and Norton are still effective regardless to their benchmark detection rates. The only reason I did not suggest Avira is that I have used it, a few versions of it up to version 9 and it does have a load of false positives, it even detects commercial security tools. The fact that you got zero false positives means you don't use a certain type of applications. I didn't like that Avira tried to delete a load of security auditing tools from my pc. The good thing about Avira is that their tech support is very fast and efficient and I got many false positives removed from the definitions by contacting them. Norton 2009 really does use between 5 to 10MB RAM on average, NOD32 v4 uses 50MB.

I also don't like the adware that has to show up each update telling me to buy the premium Avira, clearly if I wanted to buy premium I would not have bothered with the free version. The guide to stop the adware screen is not n00b friendly either. Avira has also caused system lock ups and slow booting up for me. There are also incompatibilities with other security tools that cause dead locks whereas NAV2009 and NOD32 can work just fine together with Windows Defender + MBAM + SAS. I have tested these things, this is why I don't care that NOD32 detection rate is a couple percent less, the odds are far less that a virus would get past 3 or 4 AV tools running realtime protection instead of depending on 1 Avira that does not want to play nice. I didn't test version 9 fully because I could not locate the option to disable archive scanning and deemed it unfit for use. If they removed archive scanning altogether then I would support it, however I don't know that for sure and to me it just looks like they removed the ability to disable it from the free version. You have to remember also that the free Avira does NOT include a spyware/adware scanning engine so the detection rate of those are 0% not the 99% you see on the benchmarks.

All those things aside, I could also agree with you that urioz should try it for himself to get the full experience. Avira does have the highest raw detection rate and it scans very fast.

Some links for consideration:

http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02.

http://www.passmark.com/ftp/antivirus_09-p...testing-ed3.pdf

Notice in the performance benchmarks, Avira has faster scan speed than NOD32 (page21), however they are both topped by NAV2009, lol.

Avira does add 10 more seconds to boot time than NOD32 though. The benchmarks are to compare the new NAV2009 products against the competition but they are not biased else they would not recognise that NOD32 is #1 on page 7.

Please, those performance tests are old, and only tested Avira 8. Avira 9 has since been out mate! Avira 9 is even lighter than Avira 8. Please don't be mis-leading!

I have a lot of programs mate. Avira has never given me a false positive. I test a lot of programs out too. I guess Avira works really well for me. Or maybe they have really fixed their false positive rates since releasing version 9? I only used version 8 for a very short while.

Anyway, black-listing technology (antivirus etc.) is almost useless, since no program can detect 100% of all malware. It only takes ONE piece of malware to stuff your computer up for good. The best way to go is PREVENTION. I use Sandboxie as my first line of defense, Comodo Firewall and Defense+ as my second line of defense, and Avira as my third line of defense. Trust me, Avira will never have to do anything. I find it hilarious that people are so worked up over choosing which antivirus to use. No antivirus out there can detect 100%, and it only takes ONE malware to stuff you up badly.

We need to educate more people to learn to use Sandboxie to its full power, and to get used to classical HIPS like Comodo's Defense+ etc. I know we'll never achieve this though, as a lot of people can't be stuffed with spending time learning about computer security.

But my point is that Antivirus software is pretty much useless in prevention of malware. Sure, they can be useful to clean an already infected system...but of course by then, it may already be too late.

To sum up, Norton, Avira, NOD32 etc etc, whichever one you choose (none of them have 100% detection rates), it doesn't really matter as it only takes ONE piece of malware to kill your computer. Of course, the higher the detection rates (Avira has proven to be the best at this...read the latest AV-comparatives test), the better. But the way to go is PREVENTION!

EDIT: here's the latest AV-comparatives test May 2009: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...vc_report22.pdf

As you can see, Avira won by a huge margin, especially over Norton (Symantec). Again, it got penalised by false positives...but I've never had one! Please just try out Avira, and if you're getting lots of false positives, then get rid of it. But if you have a similar experience as me, you'll keep it for sure! Also notice that they only tested Avira version 8, not version 9.

[LeetPirate]

Please, those performance tests are old, and only tested Avira 8. Avira 9 has since been out mate! Avira 9 is even lighter than Avira 8. Please don't be mis-leading!

I have a lot of programs mate. Avira has never given me a false positive. I test a lot of programs out too. I guess Avira works really well for me. Or maybe they have really fixed their false positive rates since releasing version 9? I only used version 8 for a very short while.

Anyway, black-listing technology (antivirus etc.) is almost useless, since no program can detect 100% of all malware. It only takes ONE piece of malware to stuff your computer up for good. The best way to go is PREVENTION. I use Sandboxie as my first line of defense, Comodo Firewall and Defense+ as my second line of defense, and Avira as my third line of defense. Trust me, Avira will never have to do anything. I find it hilarious that people are so worked up over choosing which antivirus to use. No antivirus out there can detect 100%, and it only takes ONE malware to stuff you up badly.

We need to educate more people to learn to use Sandboxie to its full power, and to get used to classical HIPS like Comodo's Defense+ etc. I know we'll never achieve this though, as a lot of people can't be stuffed with spending time learning about computer security.

But my point is that Antivirus software is pretty much useless in prevention of malware. Sure, they can be useful to clean an already infected system...but of course by then, it may already be too late.

To sum up, Norton, Avira, NOD32 etc etc, whichever one you choose (none of them have 100% detection rates), it doesn't really matter as it only takes ONE piece of malware to kill your computer. Of course, the higher the detection rates (Avira has proven to be the best at this...read the latest AV-comparatives test), the better. But the way to go is PREVENTION!

EDIT: here's the latest AV-comparatives test May 2009: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...vc_report22.pdf

As you can see, Avira won by a huge margin, especially over Norton (Symantec). Again, it got penalised by false positives...but I've never had one! Please just try out Avira, and if you're getting lots of false positives, then get rid of it. But if you have a similar experience as me, you'll keep it for sure! Also notice that they only tested Avira version 8, not version 9.

New thought for today: Avira FTW! Everything else FTL.

:welcome:

;)

haha.

[ssj100]

Please, those performance tests are old, and only tested Avira 8. Avira 9 has since been out mate! Avira 9 is even lighter than Avira 8. Please don't be mis-leading!

I have a lot of programs mate. Avira has never given me a false positive. I test a lot of programs out too. I guess Avira works really well for me. Or maybe they have really fixed their false positive rates since releasing version 9? I only used version 8 for a very short while.

Anyway, black-listing technology (antivirus etc.) is almost useless, since no program can detect 100% of all malware. It only takes ONE piece of malware to stuff your computer up for good. The best way to go is PREVENTION. I use Sandboxie as my first line of defense, Comodo Firewall and Defense+ as my second line of defense, and Avira as my third line of defense. Trust me, Avira will never have to do anything. I find it hilarious that people are so worked up over choosing which antivirus to use. No antivirus out there can detect 100%, and it only takes ONE malware to stuff you up badly.

We need to educate more people to learn to use Sandboxie to its full power, and to get used to classical HIPS like Comodo's Defense+ etc. I know we'll never achieve this though, as a lot of people can't be stuffed with spending time learning about computer security.

But my point is that Antivirus software is pretty much useless in prevention of malware. Sure, they can be useful to clean an already infected system...but of course by then, it may already be too late.

To sum up, Norton, Avira, NOD32 etc etc, whichever one you choose (none of them have 100% detection rates), it doesn't really matter as it only takes ONE piece of malware to kill your computer. Of course, the higher the detection rates (Avira has proven to be the best at this...read the latest AV-comparatives test), the better. But the way to go is PREVENTION!

EDIT: here's the latest AV-comparatives test May 2009: http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...vc_report22.pdf

As you can see, Avira won by a huge margin, especially over Norton (Symantec). Again, it got penalised by false positives...but I've never had one! Please just try out Avira, and if you're getting lots of false positives, then get rid of it. But if you have a similar experience as me, you'll keep it for sure! Also notice that they only tested Avira version 8, not version 9.

I'm sorry, now why don't we all just use Avira 9 FTW! :D That AV Comparatives test is very old, they only used NOD32 v3.0 and NAV v16.2, pathetic if you ask me. NOD32 v4 and NAV 16.5 is way better. Ok enough sarcasm... LOL.

You seemed to completely bypass my legitimate reasons for not wanting to use Avira. While I am totally glad that you get zero false positives with it, it probably means you are not into the security auditing business. I have to perform penetration testing and make networks secure and Avira deletes half of the tools I used to do that job claiming they are bad files. Some of those false positives have been removed as I have emailed Avira tech support and they agreed to remove some of the False Positives. I am certain they are working hard to fix the F/P issues as they take it very seriously when you email them about a possible false positive.

You said the benchmarks I provided were "very old" even though they were from Feb 2009, now I am reading the one you linked to and it says "This test report is the second part of the February 2009 test. ... The products used the same updates and signatures they had the 9th February, and the same highest detection settings were used." That's enough reason for me to just stop trying to have an intellectual discussion with you. You did not even read the file you sent. Did you read the part where it said the numbers also considered the false alarm rates? Do you understand what that means? the 69% that Avira gets is inclusive of the false positives which does not mean anything useful and hence their grading system removed points and Avira did not receive an Advanced+ rating. It sucks that I have to explain this to you.

Anyway my previous post has why I prefer not to use Avira and it has to do with the random deadlocks, version 9 cannot be configured to bypass archive scanning as in previous version 8, the adware screen that pops up is annoying, adds many seconds to boot time, the umbrella takes longer than necessary to load at user logon, especially slow on lower powered notebooks. Yes this goes for v8 and v9. I am not going to repost everything because you didn't read it the first time, hell you didn't even read the document you linked to. Don't take it personal, I do like Avira else I would not have been helping them remove false positives.

On the other hand if I were to think like you I would say Prevention is the best method and we need to educate people how to use the internet so they don't need 3 utilities for online defence. Guess how many I use on my private PC? A whopping NOD32 alone, and trust me it will never have to do anything. Why would I need to have so many things running to waste cpu cycles anyway. I set up an iron clad hardware/software linux gateway firewall on my network to handle that sort of thing. I would say only a complete novice needs software firewalls on client computers and things like sandboxie. Do you know how basic you have to be to get tricked by an online attempt to install a virus on your pc? The fact is that people get tricked into running viruses on their PC with admin priviledges. I know because they pay me lots of money to fix it after the fact. All the AV protection they have, they disable it to execute a file that convinced them it was safe.

See what I did there? I bet you didn't like it when I try to impose my way of using the internet.

Just so you know, I do try to be unbiased in my statements, and you would realise that from my previous posts where even though I am open that I am a NOD32 fanboy, I still vouched for NAV2009 because the evidence and facts were in its favour. I would do the same for Avira if they improved their software. Once again please don't take anything personal except the part where I accused you of not reading and understanding the document you linked to, that really didn't help your point at all. :yes:

Haha. I feel fine mate. Again, I stand with my PREVENTION is key. 69% takes into account false positives? Wrong mate. Please read the document again. Avira detected 69% of the malware samples. That is almost double what Norton picked up.

Mate, prevention is key for sure. And don't worry, I didn't take anything you said personally...good to see I worked you up though haha. What a post above haha. Just shows you aren't 100% sure on your prevention system.

By the way, Sandboxie is amazing mate. I can test malware in it, and nothing escapes it etc.

Good on you for just using NOD32. Good luck testing malware and trying out new programs and surfing the dark side of the internet with just NOD32 haha.

Have a nice day mate.

EDIT: also please re-read my previous posts mate...otherwise you are making a bit of a joke out of yourself. I said the "performance" (the tests which looked at how how the program influenced system boot-up etc) tests are old, not AV-comparatives' tests mate haha. Please carefully read posts before making your own posts. Thanks mate. You can get rid of Norton now haha. Don't take this personal. I like Norton too, else I wouldn't be talking about it.

EDIT2: man, sorry, but I just can't get over the irony of your post. You accused me of not reading the document I sent. Haha man...everything I said was correct. You were the one who mis-read the document (and also mis-read my posts) and thought that 69% included false positives. The only reason why Avira got docked from Advanced+ was because it probably had just a few more FPs than eg. Norton. Heck, I'd prefer to detect several thousand more malware and give out eg. 5 more FPs haha. But, I am not a narrow-minded fool though, so I would like to continue intellectual discussions with you. I know people make mistakes...and learn from it. I hope you learn from this one. And it did NOT suck to have to explain all this to you, since I like helping people out and it's nice to correct people's mistakes. Otherwise no one would learn, and also it's just plain rude. Have fun!

[LeetPirate]

Haha. I feel fine mate. Again, I stand with my PREVENTION is key. 69% takes into account false positives? Wrong mate. Please read the document again. Avira detected 69% of the malware samples. That is almost double what Norton picked up.

Mate, prevention is key for sure. And don't worry, I didn't take anything you said personally...good to see I worked you up though haha. What a post above haha. Just shows you aren't 100% sure on your prevention system.

By the way, Sandboxie is amazing mate. I can test malware in it, and nothing escapes it etc.

Good on you for just using NOD32. Good luck testing malware and trying out new programs and surfing the dark side of the internet with just NOD32 haha.

Have a nice day mate.

EDIT: also please re-read my previous posts mate...otherwise you are making a bit of a joke out of yourself. I said the "performance" (the tests which looked at how how the program influenced system boot-up etc) tests are old, not AV-comparatives' tests mate haha. Please carefully read posts before making your own posts. Thanks mate. You can get rid of Norton now haha. Don't take this personal. I like Norton too, else I wouldn't be talking about it.

EDIT2: man, sorry, but I just can't get over the irony of your post. You accused me of not reading the document I sent. Haha man...everything I said was correct. You were the one who mis-read the document (and also mis-read my posts) and thought that 69% included false positives. The only reason why Avira got docked from Advanced+ was because it probably had just a few more FPs than eg. Norton. Heck, I'd prefer to detect several thousand more malware and give out eg. 5 more FPs haha. But, I am not a narrow-minded fool though, so I would like to continue intellectual discussions with you. I know people make mistakes...and learn from it. I hope you learn from this one. And it did NOT suck to have to explain all this to you, since I like helping people out and it's nice to correct people's mistakes. Otherwise no one would learn, and also it's just plain rude. Have fun!

New thought for today: Avira FTW! Everything else FTL.

:yes:

:D

haha.

[ssj100]

Mate, you need to relax, and you are obviously worked up haha. Enough with the insults too; they don't become you.

Again, pease re-read my posts, and re-read the link I posted. Everything I said was correct. I did not contradict myself at all. You are putting extra words in my mouth. Testing malware in Sandboxie is indeed 100% (as of this date). Nothing escapes the Sandbox. Try it yourself haha. Again, please read posts more carefully. It's hilarious mate. You're the one who needs to "quit while you are behind".

69% detection is all malware mate. Please read the document again. Avira detected 15,745 out of 22,685 of the malware tested, which equals 69.407% (they rounded it to 69%). Norton detected 7,831 out of 22,685, which equals 34.521% (they rounded to 35%). FPs were NOT included in this detection rate mate. All 22,685 samples were malware.

The reason why Norton was given only Advanced was because it only detected 35% of the malware samples. Maybe you are getting confused with the sentence:

"The below table shows the proactive on-demand detection capabilities of the various products, sorted by detection rate. The given awards (see page 8 of this report) are based not only on the detection rates over the new malware, but also considering the false alarm rates."

They go on further to define how they "considered" the false alarm rates by providing a table near the bottom of the document, and how programs would be penalised when giving out respective awards.

Anyway, just relax mate, it's okay to be wrong sometimes. It happens.

With regards to just about everything else you said in your last post, it's rather irrelevant to what we're discussing.

And no, I am not a fan boy of Avira. I use it because based on all the objective evidence, it comes out on top. And based on my personal experience, I have never had a FP. I am not saying to anyone that they HAVE to use Avira. I simply ask people to look at the evidence, and try out programs to see what suits them most. If you don't like Avira (because it slows down your system or for other reasons), don't use it! Simple as that. For me, Avira has been perfect.

Extra 10 seconds on booting up? That wouldn't worry me much anyway, and to be honest, I don't even notice any slow down on boot up. Programs will behave differently on different systems, with different software installed. I had been using NOD32 for about 4 years, until I made the switch to Avira. NOD32 4.0 definitely slowed down my boot-up time noticeably by the way. Avira does not.

Have fun mate haha!

EDIT: by the way, can you get any more cynical in your posts? The really bad thing is that everything I've said is either correct, or my own opinion. You've also got your own opinions too, which is fine. But you have resorted to insults and extreme cynicism for no good reason at all. It's okay to be wrong mate. It happens. You sound like a professional in your work, so please try to be professional here too. Many thanks.

[LeetPirate]

Mate, you need to relax, and you are obviously worked up haha. Enough with the insults too; they don't become you.

Again, pease re-read my posts, and re-read the link I posted. Everything I said was correct. I did not contradict myself at all. You are putting extra words in my mouth. Testing malware in Sandboxie is indeed 100% (as of this date). Nothing escapes the Sandbox. Try it yourself haha. Again, please read posts more carefully. It's hilarious mate. You're the one who needs to "quit while you are behind".

69% detection is all malware mate. Please read the document again. Avira detected 15,745 out of 22,685 of the malware tested, which equals 69.407% (they rounded it to 69%). Norton detected 7,831 out of 22,685, which equals 34.521% (they rounded to 35%). FPs were NOT included in this detection rate mate. All 22,685 samples were malware.

The reason why Norton was given only Advanced was because it only detected 35% of the malware samples. Maybe you are getting confused with the sentence:

"The below table shows the proactive on-demand detection capabilities of the various products, sorted by detection rate. The given awards (see page 8 of this report) are based not only on the detection rates over the new malware, but also considering the false alarm rates."

They go on further to define how they "considered" the false alarm rates by providing a table near the bottom of the document, and how programs would be penalised when giving out respective awards.

Anyway, just relax mate, it's okay to be wrong sometimes. It happens.

With regards to just about everything else you said in your last post, it's rather irrelevant to what we're discussing.

And no, I am not a fan boy of Avira. I use it because based on all the objective evidence, it comes out on top. And based on my personal experience, I have never had a FP. I am not saying to anyone that they HAVE to use Avira. I simply ask people to look at the evidence, and try out programs to see what suits them most. If you don't like Avira (because it slows down your system or for other reasons), don't use it! Simple as that. For me, Avira has been perfect.

Extra 10 seconds on booting up? That wouldn't worry me much anyway, and to be honest, I don't even notice any slow down on boot up. Programs will behave differently on different systems, with different software installed. I had been using NOD32 for about 4 years, until I made the switch to Avira. NOD32 4.0 definitely slowed down my boot-up time noticeably by the way. Avira does not.

Have fun mate haha!

EDIT: by the way, can you get any more cynical in your posts? The really bad thing is that everything I've said is either correct, or my own opinion. You've also got your own opinions too, which is fine. But you have resorted to insults and extreme cynicism for no good reason at all. It's okay to be wrong mate. It happens. You sound like a professional in your work, so please try to be professional here too. Many thanks.

You have won me over, Avira FTW! I am convinced. Thanks. I guess every professional benchmark in the world was wrong all along, NOD32 does slow down performance and Avira does not, how could I have missed this. :D

Thanks man, you showed me the one true path. I was wrong all along. Off to install Avira on my enterprise LAN. :yes:

[ssj100]

Wow, once again, relax mate. I'm not trying to win anyone over. I'm just stating some facts and some of my own opinions. Thanks for re-reading the document again too, as it seems you've finally reaslied what they meant by "taking false positives into account".

By the way, please feel free to send me that written malware program that can apparently destroy my security setup - I'd like to test it inside Sandboxie. I know quite a few others who would like to do the same. By the way, my classical HIPS would deny your program from even trying to execute anyway, so I doubt it would defeat my setup unless I let it haha.

EDIT: with regards to performance, I agree that NOD32 2.7 and even 3.0 were just about as light as Avira 9. However, NOD32 4.0 is not...much to my disappointment. This is on my system, and I'm sure there are millions out there who will have the same experiences. That's why it's important to test out software for yourself and see which one you like, rather than just go by what others say.

[LeetPirate]

Wow, once again, relax mate. I'm not trying to win anyone over. I'm just stating some facts and some of my own opinions. Thanks for re-reading the document again too, as it seems you've finally reaslied what they meant by "taking false positives into account".

By the way, please feel free to send me that written malware program that can apparently destroy my security setup - I'd like to test it inside Sandboxie. I know quite a few others who would like to do the same. By the way, my classical HIPS would deny your program from even trying to execute anyway, so I doubt it would defeat my setup unless I let it haha.

haha.

[dumble]

nod32 av