Buying an AV software

[null]

From all the tests I have seen KAV and F-Secure have the best scan detection
rates. But they have an insane price for their products also. I believe
KAV is like $79. I would never pay that for an antivirus program no matter
how good it is.

I think I've seen KAVLite for $29


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[kurt wismer]

Matter of personal opinion as to how one sees the role of the AV.

sorry, can't agree... the name of the game is prevention first, and
clean-up only if prevention fails...

viruses don't just make the computer run slow, there are all kinds of
things that can become compromised (including sensitive personal
information) if one's computer becomes infected... prevention *must*
have priority because not all compromises can be undone...

 

[Jeff]

Jeff wrote:


That's one way to look at it. Another way is "how much did you pay for
your PC?". Or, "how much are your data and your time worth to you? More
than $ 79?". In the big scheme of things, it's only money. And most
likely, you're going to spend that $ 79, anyway.

Comparing the price to my PC isn't fair. Might as well compare the price to
a house then and call it pocket change. Most antivirus programs are close
enough in detection rate that it doesn't justify the high price that some
companies charge.

It depends more on how rich you are I suppose. To me $79 is way too
excessive. But if you make good money its probably pocket change to you.

 

[Jeff]

I think I've seen KAVLite for $29

I had forgotten about the KAV lite. I don't recall seeing it mentioned when
I visited their website last time, but do remember that name before.

 

[null]

I had forgotten about the KAV lite. I don't recall seeing it mentioned when
I visited their website last time, but do remember that name before.

And if you're just interested in using the power of the KAV scan
engine to detect far more stuff than most other scanners do for free
and on-demand, download SUPER from my web site. It's for people who
use their heads and are into prevention rather than getting infested
and cleaning/deleting


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Jan Il]

sorry, can't agree... the name of the game is prevention first, and
clean-up only if prevention fails...

viruses don't just make the computer run slow, there are all kinds of
things that can become compromised (including sensitive personal
information) if one's computer becomes infected... prevention *must*
have priority because not all compromises can be undone...

And I do respect your right to your point of view. ;-)

Jan

 

[FromTheRafters]

Well...I'm not sure what you are referring to with that,

Referring to your stated opinion that AV is for virus recovery
rather than for preventative measures, followed now by your
statement "I worry more about getting them than cleaning them".
It is precisely this preventative aspect of AV that is needed.

Most other threats can be negated by safe computing practices.
It is the nature of "viruses" to go beyond socially engineered
ploys to trick users into running malicious code. They hide
*within* programs that the user actually does want or need to
execute. AV was needed to mitigate this approach to getting
users to run malicious code.

but, I really don't recall saying that I was not worried about
getting a virus,

Oh, you didn't say that. You did say that AV was for "cleaning
up the mess" that using poor practices allowed to happen. It
is sort of like the idea of crisis management - let it become a
major problem and then deal with it rather than taking steps
to avoid the problem altogether.

otherwise, why would I use an AV at all?

Because your machine runs too fast without it? :O)

The fact that I do should indicate that I have a strong concern
in that direction.

Yes, but on access scanning is *definitely* preventative because
detection and cleaning could be done at any time. On demand is
also of a preventative nature (if used correctly). Saying that AV's
primary role is to clean up the mess is just wrong - it is an added
feature that apparently gets people to misunderstand its primary
role - detection.

However, the fact that I have not had one while using the AVG6
does not mean that I have a false sense of security, or that I am
not concerned about the one chance that *I* might screw up and
get one.

I was only taking issue with the whole "AV is a mop and bucket"
approach.

The chance of my being the cause of getting a virus is likely higher
than the AV.

True (same for me), which is why I have to laugh at some of the
posters when they say "I switched to BrandX AV after ACME-
AV let a virus slip through" - it usually tells more about the poster
than it does about ACME-AV (the one that is preferred by nine
out of ten genius coyote's)

As for singing...only with a bucket handy... <g>

Can't be *that* bad (or can it?).

Of course, no AV can be 100%, no matter which one it is.. right? You are
correct in that people are confusing programs like Stinger and CWShredder
and all with actual AV programs. And, the way they are presented can be
misleading as well.

True, and AVs calling everything a "virus" doesn't help either.
(Grrrr)

In many ways that is right, and there are people who most likely believe
just as you say, that they don't need to worry with an AV on their system,
or what they do. If they get a virus or something, they can just go online
and get the stuff they need to get rid of whatever it is with an online
magic scanner or download a fix-it. They most likely don't bother with
updating their AV, if they have one, or have anything to clean the scumware
off their systems either. If they are spreading their garbage in the mean
time is someone else's problem.

When malware adopts the use of retaliatory payloads for any
attempt to remove it while active, you will find more people
leaning toward prevention.

I keep the 'Silver bullets' at hand only because there was a time when
I had McAfee and got a virus, and could not access the Internet to
download the cleaner. I learned a good lesson from that event. And
there have been a few times since that I have been unable to access
the Internet for other reasons. I just think keeping them at hand, and
backed up is being prudent, not paranoid, with the types of viruses
around there these days. <g>

I agree with that view, and I don't have anything really bad to say about
removal tools in general - just that they are not AV programs. They only
scan for a small subset of known malware, and their primary function is
to remove the malware that it knows how to remove.

 

[FromTheRafters]

Matter of personal opinion as to how one sees the role of the AV.

Yes, a matter of an opinion being right or wrong about what AV is. :OD

 

[Jan Il]

Referring to your stated opinion that AV is for virus recovery
rather than for preventative measures, followed now by your
statement "I worry more about getting them than cleaning them".
It is precisely this preventative aspect of AV that is needed.

Most other threats can be negated by safe computing practices.
It is the nature of "viruses" to go beyond socially engineered
ploys to trick users into running malicious code. They hide
*within* programs that the user actually does want or need to
execute. AV was needed to mitigate this approach to getting
users to run malicious code.

I know that no matter what AV I have, it can not protect me 100%, I also
know that there is always the chance I will get a virus, no matter if I buy
the most expensive, highest rated, state of the art virus slayer on the
market. It can only 'try' to protect you, but, in the event of a failure, a
shortcoming on it's part, or the users. It's efficiency as an impenetrable,
efficient coat of armor is just not there. Therefore, I am concerned. (i.e.
worried). To me, it's primary job is to be able to clean the curd if you do
get one, for whatever reason, and recover the system without damage.
However, the virus may be of a stain that requires other methods of cleaning
outside the normal capabilities of any AV. . The fact that I don't agree
with you, or others, in my thinking of the AV priorities, is merely a matter
of opinion, and not necessarily wrong. It just means you don't agree with
me. That's fair enough.

Oh, you didn't say that. You did say that AV was for "cleaning
up the mess" that using poor practices allowed to happen. It
is sort of like the idea of crisis management - let it become a
major problem and then deal with it rather than taking steps
to avoid the problem altogether.

It is.....in a way of thinking. I see it with people at work all the time,
and with some of my friends, who consider themselves computer savvy users.
But, they do stupid things, or sometimes, just make a mistake. And then they
run their AV to clean the curd. For them, it is crisis management. A
majority of people don't know, and don't want to waste their time to get the
tools that are available, most of them even free, that will help them keep
their system clean and running at peak performance. Besides, once you get
them, then..Dang! ...you have keep them updated. Right? If it don't up date
itself, then it's too much trouble so they don't bother. Why? Because, they
have an AV..right?

Because your machine runs too fast without it? :O)

Ahhh....hee hee and hee.... ;-)

Yes, but on access scanning is *definitely* preventative because
detection and cleaning could be done at any time. On demand is
also of a preventative nature (if used correctly). Saying that AV's
primary role is to clean up the mess is just wrong - it is an added
feature that apparently gets people to misunderstand its primary
role - detection.

Sure, it is prevenative, and yes it can look for the dust bunnies under the
bed and wax any it finds all at the same time, no argument there....
well..... I don't think my view makes me totally wrong. I would indeed
be wrong if I held that detection was not important. I agree that it is a
very important part of the over all program function.

The on-demand AV is a real Ace in the hole. Especially, the DOS versions.
But, I've had need of my F-Prot on more that one event with both Norton and
McAfee, and it has earned my confidence and loyalty.

I was only taking issue with the whole "AV is a mop and bucket"
approach.

Oh......'k.....I forgive you.

;-)

True (same for me), which is why I have to laugh at some of the
posters when they say "I switched to BrandX AV after ACME-
AV let a virus slip through" - it usually tells more about the poster
than it does about ACME-AV (the one that is preferred by nine
out of ten genius coyote's)


Can't be *that* bad (or can it?).

Well...I dunno....but...my fellow members of the choir make me hum the
songs.........silently. ?..?

True, and AVs calling everything a "virus" doesn't help either.
(Grrrr)

That is very confusing. My cousin is elderly and not very computer
experienced, especiailly with viruses and scumware. He called recently and
said he got his e-mails to me be back saying they had something in them
called MyDoom. Did I know why they had been sent back. After a good deal of
explaing things in as few, easy words as I could, I asked when he had last
run his AV. He said he had run it several times after he got the last
e-mail back, and it didn't find anything at all. I asked what the name of
his AV was, and he said SpywareHunter, that he had bought it off the
Internet and downloaded it a couple of months ago.
GHAK!!! I explained the difference and asked if he had ever had a different
AV before. He said yes, and he still had the Norton. When I asked when he
had last updated it, he said he hadn't done that yet. I asked how long he'd
had the Norton. Oh..about 2 years or so. <sigh> But, see, here is a
perfect example of someone thinking that the SpywareHunter was an AV, and
not taking the time to learn how to properly use the AV he already had.

When malware adopts the use of retaliatory payloads for any
attempt to remove it while active, you will find more people
leaning toward prevention.

Well...in view of what has been happening recently and what is out there
now, and due only to get worse, you'd think most would already be convinced
to take some responsibility on their own. And learn how.

I agree with that view, and I don't have anything really bad to say about
removal tools in general - just that they are not AV programs. They only
scan for a small subset of known malware, and their primary function is
to remove the malware that it knows how to remove.

Agreed. Omigaw! Did we just agree on something here?!?! Dang! How did
that happen? Now stop that!

;-)

Jan

 

[Jan Il]

Yes, a matter of an opinion being right or wrong about what AV is. :OD

Well...... I can't help it if you're wrong.... ;-D!!

 

[FromTheRafters]

Well...... I can't help it if you're wrong.... ;-D!!

Wrong? Never!
I thought I was wrong once, but as it turns out.....<g>

Actually, I just read one of Chris Quirke's posts where he says
much the same as you did (but iirc he used a sponge analogy).

It just goes to show you that even the more savvy amongst us
can be WRONG. <g>

 

[Jan Il]

Wrong? Never!
I thought I was wrong once, but as it turns out.....<g>

Ah ...a person of confidence.....and modesty. ;-))

Actually, I just read one of Chris Quirke's posts where he says
much the same as you did (but iirc he used a sponge analogy).

It just goes to show you that even the more savvy amongst us
can be WRONG. <g>

This is true....and I'm sure that must be very difficult for you. <G>

Jan

 

[FromTheRafters]

Ah ...a person of confidence.....and modesty. ;-))

....and big feet - but that's another story. :O)

This is true....

To be fair, Chris was referring more to *his* use of AV as an aid
in the recovery process of "victims" of malware. I am sure that he
also knows the primary function of AV programs is detection in
order to help to avoid *becoming* a victim.

....and I'm sure that must be very difficult for you. <G>

Hey, that was a pretty good slam. <G>

 

[Jan Il]

...and big feet - but that's another story. :O)

No doubt. ;-))

To be fair, Chris was referring more to *his* use of AV as an aid
in the recovery process of "victims" of malware. I am sure that he
also knows the primary function of AV programs is detection in
order to help to avoid *becoming* a victim.

...and I'm sure that must be very difficult for you. <G>

Hey, that was a pretty good slam. <G>

Thank you..... <vbg>