Good lightweight anti-virus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allan
  • Start date Start date
A

Allan

Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone could recommend a anti-virus for windows. I am
looking for one that has real time scanning that is easy on system
resources, but detection is also important.

The interface and ease of use don't really matter to me. It would be a
bonus if it was free, but I don't mind paying for it.

Thanks in advance,
Allan
 
Allan said:
Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone could recommend a anti-virus for windows. I am
looking for one that has real time scanning that is easy on system
resources, but detection is also important.

The interface and ease of use don't really matter to me. It would be a
bonus if it was free, but I don't mind paying for it.

I like NOD32 at www.eset.com. There is a 25 day full trial version you can
use.

Duane :)
 
I like NOD32 at www.eset.com. There is a 25 day full trial version you can
use.

Duane :)

I second Duane's suggestion. NOD32 is one of the best and it's easy to
configure and maintain.

Second choice would be F-Prot for Windows. It sells for $29.00 and can
be used on up to 5 PCs.

A lot of folks in this NG like avast! and AVG. Last week end I installed
them on my test PC just to see what everyone was talking about.

They are both highly rated products but I don't care for their GUIs and
I find both of them to be intrusive on my system. They both attempt to
make a PC "Idiot Proof" and turning features for the PC challenged are
not easy or intuitive to disable.

Chas.
 
eTrust Anti-Virus, free one-year trial, full updates.
http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/ eTrust uses fewer system resources
than most A-V and is also used by ZoneLab. I've used eTrust since it was
developed by Cheyenne and I keep coming back to it. I wouldn't call it
"light-weight" by any means.

Bill
 
Hey guys,

I was wondering if anyone could recommend a anti-virus for windows. I am
looking for one that has real time scanning that is easy on system
resources, but detection is also important.

The interface and ease of use don't really matter to me. It would be a
bonus if it was free, but I don't mind paying for it.

Thanks in advance,
Allan

The upcoming Kaspersky KAV 6.0 which is now a technical release - ie it
is most likely to be the Official Release - in May some time - is
actually lighter than Nod32 whilst offering greater functionality.

ftp://kav2006:[email protected]/

6.0.0.299 is the one to download

and you use one of the keys from here:

ftp://kav2006:[email protected]/ActCodes.txt

An extremely good program and by the time the key expires the official
release will be out.

Peter
 
I was using f-prot. I had been a big fan of f-prot for it being
lightweight, and having a nice interface. But twice now I've been hit
by viruses while running f-prot. Once at the office about a year ago,
due to a public directory on one of the servers and one 8 days ago at
home. In the first case clamav got it in the def file inside 3 days,
f-prot took about 6. This time, neither clamav or f-prot have gotten
it in their defs, but McAfee (after submiting it) got it added in a
custom def file after less then 48 hours. Now, several vendors can
find it. NOD is not in the list of vendors that detect this, but Dr.
Web is. - So that's what I'm running right now. After installing, it
found and removed the problem file (which I backed up for testing). I
have not even gotten a response from f-prot after 8 days. (This is
after having paid for (and renewed) site licenses 3 times...)

Cheers,
Ryan
 
I was using f-prot. I had been a big fan of f-prot for it being
lightweight, and having a nice interface. But twice now I've been hit
by viruses while running f-prot. Once at the office about a year ago,
due to a public directory on one of the servers and one 8 days ago at
home. In the first case clamav got it in the def file inside 3 days,
f-prot took about 6. This time, neither clamav or f-prot have gotten
it in their defs, but McAfee (after submiting it) got it added in a
custom def file after less then 48 hours. Now, several vendors can
find it. NOD is not in the list of vendors that detect this, but Dr.
Web is. - So that's what I'm running right now. After installing, it
found and removed the problem file (which I backed up for testing). I
have not even gotten a response from f-prot after 8 days. (This is
after having paid for (and renewed) site licenses 3 times...)

Do yourself a favor and download KAV 6.0.0.299 from here:

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Kaspersky-Antivirus-Personal.shtml

And rectify whatever it is you're doing wrong. There's no excuse for
taking hits of malware, with or without a realtime av scanner.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Thanks for the replies guys. I've narrowed it down to NOD32 and Kaspersky.
I've looked both up on google and it seems that that NOD32 uses less system
resources, but has trouble detecting trojans.

However most of the posts and comparisons I read were from 2004 or earlier,
and things might have changed. Does anyone know if NOD32 still have
problems detecting trojans?

Thanks,
Allan
 
KAV was about 6th in line for getting it added to their defs after I
submitted a copy to them. Getting a virus does /not/ mean doing
something wrong. Have you been in a corporate environment with shared
storage? If someone gets a network drive infected, and you use the
files on there, you will be infected if the corp or local av program
can't catch it.

As of this second - here is who catches the last one, and who doesn't.
AntiVir found (just added)
Avast negative
AVG found
Avira found
BitDefender found
ClamAV negative
DrWeb found
eTrust-InoculateIT negative
eTrust-Vet negative
F-Prot negative
Kaspersky found (added today)
McAfee default is negative but they sent a def file that finds it
NOD32v2 negative
Norman found
Panda negative
Sophos negative
Symantec negative
UNA found
VBA32 found
 
KAV was about 6th in line for getting it added to their defs after I
submitted a copy to them.

Very unusual. KAV has the fastest reponse of all. They usually have
updates before any of the other av products.
Getting a virus does /not/ mean doing
something wrong. Have you been in a corporate environment with shared
storage?

You said you got hit at home as well. There's no excuse for that.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Art said:
Very unusual. KAV has the fastest reponse of all. They usually have
updates before any of the other av products.


You said you got hit at home as well. There's no excuse for that.

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

Are you daft? If there was 'no excuse' for getting hit with malware,
why on earth do you run KAV? Not everyone that gets hit with malware
"deserves" it. If you do nothing with your computer but word
processing and printing - sure, you're safe. Go on the net? network
with other computers? You're not safe.
 
Are you daft?

Perhaps. But not stupid. There's a difference.
If there was 'no excuse' for getting hit with malware,
why on earth do you run KAV?

I don't use any realtime av. I practice "safe hex" instead.
Not everyone that gets hit with malware
"deserves" it.

Saying there's no excuse and saying "they deserve it" are two entirely
different things.
If you do nothing with your computer but word
processing and printing - sure, you're safe. Go on the net? network
with other computers? You're not safe.

You're not safe, but you're ignorant if you take hits. Do yourself a
favor and learn "safe hex" :

http://www.claymania.com/safe-hex.html

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Are you daft? If there was 'no excuse' for getting hit with malware,
why on earth do you run KAV? Not everyone that gets hit with malware
"deserves" it. If you do nothing with your computer but word
processing and printing - sure, you're safe. Go on the net? network
with other computers? You're not safe.

I agree with you in a corporate environment with sharing of resources. You
cannot account for what someone else is doing with a computer in a LAN
situation that will lead to other machines being compromised. I have seen
malware spread like wild fire in one corporate LAN situation. On another
corporate LAN situation, it spread like wild fire and knocked out the AV on
the machine as it spread.

In a home situation, if you're the only one using the machines and are
practicing safe hex or you're have a single machine and are practicing safe
hex, you got a chance. If you don't have those situations and there are
others involved, then that's questionable to say the least about it, with
the MS O/S platform.

Duane :)
 
Art wrote:
[snip]
You're not safe, but you're ignorant if you take hits. Do yourself a
favor and learn "safe hex" :

false premise leads to false conclusion... safe hex does not guarantee
one won't take hits, therefore the fact that he has taken hits does not
imply that he wasn't following safe hex nor that he was ignorant...
 
Art wrote:
[snip]
You're not safe, but you're ignorant if you take hits. Do yourself a
favor and learn "safe hex" :

false premise leads to false conclusion... safe hex does not guarantee
one won't take hits, therefore the fact that he has taken hits does not
imply that he wasn't following safe hex nor that he was ignorant...

The false premise too many users seem to operate on is the
inevitability of taking hits. Obviosly there are no guarantees. It's
all a matter of reducing the likelyhood of taking hits to such a small
anount that in practice it may never happen. Also, the plural "hits"
is even more unlikely. I expect I might take a hit sooner or later but
I would be surprised if I ever take two :)

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Art said:
Art wrote:
[snip]
You're not safe, but you're ignorant if you take hits. Do yourself a
favor and learn "safe hex" :
false premise leads to false conclusion... safe hex does not guarantee
one won't take hits, therefore the fact that he has taken hits does not
imply that he wasn't following safe hex nor that he was ignorant...

The false premise too many users seem to operate on is the
inevitability of taking hits. Obviosly there are no guarantees. It's
all a matter of reducing the likelyhood of taking hits to such a small
anount that in practice it may never happen. Also, the plural "hits"
is even more unlikely. I expect I might take a hit sooner or later but
I would be surprised if I ever take two :)

since there are no guarantees, taking a hit *is* inevitable... just as
inevitable as losing money at the casino... in the long run you always
lose...

your only real hope is to quit while you're ahead...
 
However most of the posts and comparisons I read were from 2004 or earlier,
and things might have changed. Does anyone know if NOD32 still have
problems detecting trojans?
No, nowadays it is a very good trojan detector, and it is good also
finding spyware etc. malware.

Jari
 
Art said:
Art wrote:
[snip]
You're not safe, but you're ignorant if you take hits. Do yourself a
favor and learn "safe hex" :
false premise leads to false conclusion... safe hex does not guarantee
one won't take hits, therefore the fact that he has taken hits does not
imply that he wasn't following safe hex nor that he was ignorant...

The false premise too many users seem to operate on is the
inevitability of taking hits. Obviosly there are no guarantees. It's
all a matter of reducing the likelyhood of taking hits to such a small
anount that in practice it may never happen. Also, the plural "hits"
is even more unlikely. I expect I might take a hit sooner or later but
I would be surprised if I ever take two :)

since there are no guarantees, taking a hit *is* inevitable... just as
inevitable as losing money at the casino... in the long run you always
lose...

Lousy analogy. In this game we can stack the deck in our favor.
your only real hope is to quit while you're ahead...

More bullshit. You're dealing here with probabilities, not
certainties. It's quite possible that some of us will never take a
single hit.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Back
Top