Which antivirus is better?

[mrkool123]

Do you think norton internet security 2011 is better than eset smart security?What is your personal opinion?

[majithia23]

Noton IS is better than Eset Smart Security, as of now , in my opinion ...

but you need to wait a bit and see for the final releases ,

as both the corp have released the beta for there new versions ...

Norton IS 2012 Beta and Eset Smart Security 5 Beta .... ;)

[Nima]

But I think ESET Smart Security is a better choice than Norton Internet Security.

[Gabben]

But I think ESET Smart Security is a better choice than Norton Internet Security.

Why? :o

[coolng]

norton is rated top almost by all the UK top magazine for its good protection and for its performance because it wont slow down your PC and "eat" your RAM as much as other AV (most notable one is Kaspersky)

[ben01]

I think that your BRAIN is the best antivirus, really. The primary vector of infection is user's foolness.

If you have children, please explain them to use a VM or a sandbox. :ph34r:

[toyo]

Oh well, for the periods when your brain is incapacitated for some reason, you still need an antivirus.

[Bizarre™]

Q: Which AV is better?

A: The AV that you feel comfortable using.

Although, I prefer a multi-layered security setup since nothing is unbreakable.

Always take into consideration Murphy's Law. It will save you a lot of grief.

[Nima]

But I think ESET Smart Security is a better choice than Norton Internet Security.

Why? :o

Because I'm more comfortable with ESET products; I just recommended, I myself do not use any AV right now.

[niharjhatn]

I'd have to say norton is better, but the reason I stick with ESET is that it is much easier to add exceptions... in Norton, often times you ignore a false +ve and it keeps bloody bugging you about something you know is safe!

Give avast a shot as well - absolutely dramatic improvements in past couple of years.

I use ESET over Norton IMO as it didn't slow down startup of my PC as much as Norton, and it is not CPU intensive at all, although recently (last year or two) Norton as a product has become much better with regards to resource management.

Much better for a guy who spends way too much time on nba 2k11 :P

EDIT:

Just thought I'd add... I use nod32 + Comodo firewall - one of the best firewalls out there - and highlights another one of esets strengths - you CAN install it with other antivirus software without errors all the time!

[Siddharta]

In AV Comparatives Norton (Symantec) doesn't show a top performance. There are several AVs with a much better performance than Norton, among them ESET, Kaspersky and et.al. -_-

[a2z]

Useful information about the comparison of vendors.

• AV-comparatives.org
• AV-test.org

[mrkool123]

Thanks everyone,will stick with ess from now, along with MBAM.I was just wondering because recently nod detected a virus, but it got through the system,and i had to use MBAM to remove it.

[hackerz14]

Antivirus Software is the most important software you can buy for your computer. It can be a very tough decision to choose the right antivirus program, however, with this Independent Antivirus Reviews & Testsyou'll be able to quickly select the best antivirus program for your needs.

http://www.antivirusware.com/

[nclr11111]

I´d choose NIS of thoose two.

But i actually prefer CIS over nay other! It´s free, top FW and acceptable AV.

Uses this with Malwarebytes Antimalware.

[Atasas]

I recon answers of this topic near "sticky" (as on any other warez board) :ph34r:

[ns870152]

ESET is better than any other antivirus

don't believe any test, let try and see

(sorry my english)

[Gabben]

Norton is the best, no doubt.

[joeyp]

Norton is the Worst of all

I will not use it under any circumstance because of its history as a resource hog and "phoning home" with personal data

if you knew the data it sends back,including your viewing history and any logins to financial institutions and the like, youd be shocked

they encrypt all this data and send it back to themselves

[toyo]

For such harsh accusations, you need hard proof.

[PurplebeanZ]

Norton pays it's way to the top of reviews ;)

[OhMyGod]

Why just compare Norton Internet Security with Eset Security Suite??

When you can have a much better security setup by using individual AV + Firewall combos.

Many freeware security products when used in a layered approach will provide better protection than any security suite. The paid vendor's don't want you to known that because it will cause them to loose profits.

Of coarse you should never depend on security products to protect you alone, no matter what products that you use, you can still get infected if you don't watch your own actions.

Malware is always a step ahead of security products, your brain is really your best weapon against malware.

Thanks. :D

[Fixxxer®]

"What kind of women do you prefer?" :)

There are a number of AV specs which are important for a user. I never believe any of "independent" authorities who make some comparison test, but one of them looks like almost true: and please pay attention which features are most important for the user - it is not something very technological or secure, but same old ones: speed, resources, stability, falses etc.

As for me - I am sure Internet security packages which include antivirus + proactive security / HIPS + firewall are always more stable and secure than separate products because of close integration. You will never can make web module of antivirus work with firewall of other vendor without decreasing of functionality of both. Some HIPS will BSOD with some antivirus without appropriate adjusting of both. Etc...

I know several very stable IS products. If you want very strong firewall/HIPS with moderate AV - it is Comodo Internet Security (btw - it is free). Quite strong product, but with a lot of bugs is Kaspersky Internet Security. And the most stable is the products from Symantec, but they have quite few settings, so if you are experienced user you will not be able to adjust it for your special needs. Now it looks like Avast has made quite good product...

But once again - it always depends - and depends on user. Someone does not need any antivirus - and he is right, because of using virtual machines (just as an example). Another one needs fully automative complex solution without user intrusion - and he is right also because he works as system administrator in big office and he has no time to adjust every PC in this office. So the answer will be always different in different situations.

[macehardtek]

kaspersky internet security 2011 is the best real time protection i use a long time for now a got no problems with viruses, other antiviruses infiltrates the strongest viruses but kaspersky does not allow any infiltration into the system immediately finds an infected file before it is downloaded and the download stops now and does not allow any contact with the infected file in the system while other antivirus reward program find something missing something like esset good time and do not care, because although I recommend kasperski compared with other antivirus draws more resources one can entertain his system but with a better computer that not happens to me is working grat and everything is OK at best

[Fixxxer®]

I will not agree with you. Kaspersky is approach - and possibly good approach, but it has several weakness.

1. Looks like Kaspersky Lab cannot come to final decision: do they want customized product with fine adjustment for all needs - or a simple automated product for unexperienced user. In one hand - a lot of settings. In other hand - it is not possible to manually add a policy for some program, I have to run it at first and then define the policy. The list of program rules is quite huge - and there is no any possibility to purge it manually against all old entries corresponding to deleted / uninstalled programs. And there is a lot of the same inconvenient stuff!

2. Kaspersky Lab has one of the best curing mechanism against file infectors. Yes, it's true and only competitor (but I must say - very strong competitor) is DrWeb. But now it looks like signature adding is not the primary task for the Lab, because for some samples the delay in weeks can be observed. Using some automated replier system leads to lot of false postives etc.

3. Kaspersky Lab insists on the fact that if any malware becomes active no one can stop it. That's why actually KIS has no strong self-defense mechanism in the case if it was disabled for some time - and then infection occurs. In fact if something will stop loading GUI - the whole antivirus protection is down and GUI is not kernelmode application. It is not integrated deeply into the system with low level booting (in fact - yes, drivers are integrated, but they are nothing without GUI) - so if someone create a good rootkit which can infect system because of 0-day vulnerability / packer / absence of signature - you are down. TDL family is a good example.

4. Sandbox in KIS is nothing but a buggy joke.

5. Some quite ugly PR for a security-related company: the exploit which allows to bypass license verification and use of pirated product has been worked well for about a year (and moreover it's author didn't give up and promised to release a new version right after release of KIS 2012), leaking of old KIS sources into public - all these facts do not make a good face for Kaspersky Lab.

Yes, combination of HIPS+Firewall+AV is the best in the case of KIS. But if it was possible to integrate DrWeb or Kaspersky antivirus with Comodo firewall | HIPS- it would be even better. But unfortunately it is impossible.