The anti-virus softwares that we are used to using in the past, and some that are still loyally using until now, just don’t cut it anymore. I know I can’t generalize all of the products, but most of them just don’t work. Back when windows 3.11 is still new and I’m a user of DOS interface, I run at least five anti-virus softwares in my PC. Among the 5 products, the ones that I remember using were McAfee and Trend Micro’s PC-cillin the other 3 if already forgot. Anyway, the first time my PC got compromised by a virus, only 1 of the 5 detected it, and it was McAfee. Yes, the ant-virus program detected it but couldn’t remove it. It just showed me the name of the virus and that’s all.
At the time of Windows 95, I was using only McAfee as my anti-virus program and nothing else. That is until my PC got infected again by a virus. McAfee didn’t even detected it nor blocked it. Good thing the virus was not damaging any files, it’s just consuming the PC resources. It was a TSR-type virus (Terminate and Stay Resident), it loads into memory upon boot, then kills itself on shut down. It was eating my PC’s extra memory. Although I didn’t blame McAfee for that incident because it was my fault. My anti-virus software wasn’t updated, and thus didn’t detected the new strain of viruses.
After a few more years, I upgraded to Windows 98, and eventually Windows ME. On both OS, I used Symantec’s Norton anti-virus. It was recommended to me by my cousin, and I have been regularly updating it since then. I didn’t have any virus problems and Norton was performing the way anti-virus softwares should have. I was already using Windows XP and I still used Norton. Although, there was a time when I tried AVG anti-virus but then discontinued it because it is detecting too much false positives among the innocent files. And then the problems came, it wasn’t a virus, but a memory resource hog problem. Every year when Norton upgrades its product, it also increase it’s usage of your memory and processor. It’s already hogging my too much of my PC resources when I was already using Norton 2007. That’s when I thought I should change into another, and presumably better, anti-virus software.
I think it was July or August this year that I changed from Norton Anti-virus to BitDefender. Why I chose BitDefender? Because it was at the top of the top ten reviews chart. It is currently at the number one position ahead of other AV softwares. I know, I shouldn’t base my decision on some comparison review chart. But still, BitDefender uses less memory than Norton AV. It was doing well, that is until it failed to block the SSCVIHOST.exe worm. I didn’t know what happened. My initial thought was maybe BitDefender didn’t detected the virus because it wasn’t updated, but I checked and it was currently updated. And as far as I can tell, it recognizes the virus. I just didn’t know how the virus from the USB flash drive automatically launched and was not blocked by BitDefender. It was the event that led me to change to another Anti-virus. This time with much smaller use of system resources and have a much better detection rate.
I’m now using ESET Smart Security (NOD32 anti-virus, firewall, anti-spam, and anti-spyware) as my primary anti-virus software. Primary, meaning I have another alternative AV software but its not currently running because it might conflict with ESET. It updates every hour, so it is updated to the latest viruses found in the Internet.
It has always been ESET NOD32 and Kaspersky that are head-to-head in competition. Both are great AV softwares, and both have vast loyal users. I’ve been around many forums, and topics relating to AV’s are always fought by these two products. Most of my friends (online friends) usually recommend ESET NOD32, and most of them are current users of this product. The first thing they notice about it is it uses a lot less memory compared to other AV’s.
I have yet to test the capabilities of this product, since it’s only been a day since I installed it. And if I’m satisfied, I’m sticking with it, or else I switch to Kaspersky.
Av-comparatives.org released a comparison report on various AV products. Regarding NOD32, it scans slower than Symantec Norton, but faster than AVG and BitDefender. On scanning and detecting viruses, it was only second to Avira. But on the false positive test, it ranks the first with zero false alarm.
A false alarm (or false positive) is when an Anti-virus product flags an innocent file to be infected when it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much troubles like a real infection.
You can read the detailed comparison on the 17 anti-virus softwares that were put to test at Av-comparatives (PDF). Meanwhile here is the Certification Levels that were awarded to the various products after the test.
These are some of the anti-virus softwares I suggest you try. In order of recommendation, 1 being the most recommended and last being the least. Take note however, that these are only my recommendations, if you run a large scale computer networks or corporate-type use; Symantec Norton, Mcafee, or Sophos. And I don’t recommend Microsoft Anti-virus. There are many other anti-virus products out there, but these are the most popular among them.
1. ESET NOD32 Anti-virus or ESET Smart Security
2. Kasperksy Anti-virus
3. BitDefender Anti-Virus or BitDefender Total Security
4. Symantec Norton Anti-virus or Norton Internet Security
5. McAfee Anti-virus
6. Sophos Anti-virus
7. Trend Micro PC-cillin
8. Avast Anti-virus
9. AVG Anti-virus
10. Panda Anti-virus or Panda Internet Security
So to answer the question: what is the better anti-virus software?
Actually the precise answer is none. Everyday coders, hackers, and crackers creates a virus. And to combat that, programmers of AV softwares try hard to detect and add it to their blacklist file which we call virus definitions in order for our AV software to work properly. A single hour of not updating your AV software, means an hour that you are not protected against the latest virus threat.
So if anti-virus isn’t really reliable in combating viruses, how do we protect our computers from this infection? To answer this, I’ll just quote an interesting topic I’ve just read.
The performance cost of virus scanning (lose 50% of disk performance, plus some percent of CPU speed) does not justify the benefit of a 33% detection rate and marginal protection. I would argue the illusion of protection is very, very dangerous as well.
Ask yourself this: why don’t Mac users run anti-virus software? Why don’t UNIX users run anti-virus software? Because they don’t need to. They don’t run as administrators. Sadly, the cost of running as non-admin is severe on Windows, because MS made some early, boneheaded architectural decisions and perpetuated them over a decade. But the benefit is substantial. There’s almost nothing a virus, malware, or trojan can do to a user who isn’t running as an administrator.
source: codinghorror.com
The answer: don’t run as administrator (full access) in a Windows environment, and so you don’t really need an anti-virus installed in the first place. If you login to your PC, and you only have limited access to some process of files then it would prevent the virus from spreading. It will also prevent it from changing the system registry or changing restricted system files.
Remember, prevention is still better than cure.
Category: Think Talk by Ryman
2 Comments »
