Norton, Kaspersky, or?

[RV_]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

 

http://experts.windows.com/w/experts_wiki/89.aspx

[Glenn499]

RV,

[Glenn499]

RV,

 

You linked Wikipedia as a sourse. A web site with this banner:

Welcometo

Wikipedia,

the

free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

 

I am only saying

 

Trusting Microsoft for your security seems completely naïve. Ifthey can’t build a secure operating system (Not effected by a ton of viruses),why would it make sense to run their product to stop their product from gettingviruses?

 

MSE does not like ZoneAlarm as it restrict windows update.

 

Later, Glenn

 

[RV_]

Glenn,

There are plenty of alternatives to MSE as well as to Windows. What operating system and anti malware programs are you running or suggesting again?

[Glenn499]

RV

 

I don't give a general recommendation for AV because everyone's computer usage is different. Some do banking and some do only email.

 

One can check out AV programs at this link http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/summary-reports

Check it out and you will see MSE is way down the list of locating and removing virus.

 

My fear is that MS will bundle MSE with all OEM,s and will put all the paid AV software out of buisness. Remember Netscape. Hackers say they will love it when they have only one piece of software to by-pass. As you know, all AV systems contribute and use the same database for virus detection. When everyone else is out of the market, will MS keep up to date? They are still putting out updates for XP.

 

Operating systems: Well, I am screwed there as I have become use to GUI systems and too lazy to go back to command line usage. So I use windows operating systems and launch desktop.

 

 

I use Kaspersky Anti-Virus on my desktop and it does a great job for me.

 

Have a good labor day and see you around the forum.

 

Glenn

 

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

RV

 

I don't give a general recommendation for AV because everyone's computer usage is different. Some do banking and some do only email.

 

One can check out AV programs at this link http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews/summary-reports

Check it out and you will see MSE is way down the list of locating and removing virus.

 

My fear is that MS will bundle MSE with all OEM,s and will put all the paid AV software out of buisness. Remember Netscape. Hackers say they will love it when they have only one piece of software to by-pass. As you know, all AV systems contribute and use the same database for virus detection. When everyone else is out of the market, will MS keep up to date? They are still putting out updates for XP.

 

Operating systems: Well, I am screwed there as I have become use to GUI systems and too lazy to go back to command line usage. So I use windows operating systems and launch desktop.

 

 

I use Kaspersky Anti-Virus on my desktop and it does a great job for me.

 

Have a good labor day and see you around the forum.

 

Glenn

 

 

 

I couldn't make sense of the charts. What do the initials, colors, etc. mean? Also, if you are going by MSE's position on the chart, it's because the AVs are listed alphabetically.

 

All the reviews I've read put MSE up pretty high.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

At my previous IT job we tried out several different AV programs over the years. None of them impressed me, or our deparement head, or the commissioners, and all required us desktop support people to run around and use *other* software to remove malware on a regular basis. This includes MSE and Symantec and Vipre. I've forgotten the others we tried. Malware constantly skipped around them as if they weren't there. The one thing we found that consistently defeated malware was MalWare Bytes. It is the only software I recommend to PC users, and it is what I would buy if I ever had to run a Windows PC in the future.

 

http://malwarebytes.org/

 

You can use it to remove existing malware for free. You have to pay to have it actively monitor.

 

Malwarebytes is an excellent program to use along with a good AV (Super Anti-spyware, aka SAS, is an another) but should not be used without an AV. AVs and and antimalware programs like Malwarebytes (aka MBAM) target different kinds of nasties.

[RV_]

Glenn,

If you drove a Ford and said that Ford was unscrupulous, but you drive one anyway, and then tell others not to use their parts because they can't be any good because Ford can't make a good car made of their parts, why would you still be driving the Ford itself, when there are perfectly good Chevy's and Dodge's and others to choose from? Perhaps you suspect that the others would not be any better either?

 

Running Windows and then saying that they can't write an OS that will not need updates, and can't be trusted so their A/V is not reliable, well, that is begging the question in reverse. You thought it was naive to use MSE because Windows won a browser war back in the late 90's? If you check, all OS' have vulnerabilities and always will. My goodness if security was easy then the Linux server vaults that contain their kernal info, which would be a treasure for criminals, would not have been hacked and cracked last week. Apparently the criminals that got in just stumbled in accidentally and the intrusion was detected. They don't think the intruders got the kernal codes or knew they were there. The annual pwn2own contest would not take place where every OS goes down everytime, even when the companies, most notably Apple, Patches their OS within days of the contest for the vulnerabilities they "think" the hackers will exploit. That hasn't worked either. In other words, as long as there are responsible OS OEMs there will be patches and updates and that is a very good thing. Because there always will be the criminals, of that I am sure.

 

I do use AV comparatives and have read them for years, and they are the reason I selected MSE to try in the first place. Good link! The 2010 summary that you pointed to does NOT have MSE at the bottom. The summary has seven tests they conduct annually in addition to their other scheduled tests. In that summary of the seven tests performed Kaspersky is listed as a winner in only one where they give a gold silver or bronze award. MSE is listed as a winner in three of the tests. It is also one of only two that are free programs that were tested. Here is a summary of the summary that you can find on pages 5 on in the link you provided, I bolded Microsoft's wins and bolded and italicized Kaspersky's win:

Summary of the Annual Awards

 

On-Demand Malware Detection

GOLD: G DATA

SILVER: AVIRA

BRONZE: Symantec

 

On-Demand PUA Detection

GOLD: Panda

SILVER: Symantec

BRONZE: TrustPort

 

Proactive On-Demand Malware Detection

GOLD: G DATA

SILVER: AVIRA

BRONZE: Microsoft

 

Low False Positive Rate

GOLD: F-Secure

SILVER: Microsoft, eScan

BRONZE: BitDefender

 

Overall Performance (Low System Impact)

GOLD: K7

SILVER: Kingsoft, Sophos

BRONZE: Avast, Microsoft

 

On-Demand Scanning Speed

GOLD: Avast, AVIRA

SILVER: Symantec

BRONZE: Panda

 

Whole Product Dynamic Protection

GOLD: F-Secure, Symantec

SILVER: AVIRA

BRONZE: Kaspersky

Product of the Year 2010: F-Secure

 

If all of that seems obscure, on pages 5 etc. there is a short blurb under each test telling you what it means in layman's terms. The color chart is hard to read until you read the text of what each test is testing. Microsoft was listed as a good basic protection suite. I find it falling in the upper 1/4 of the pack, and in good company. As well it is listed at the top of the pack for using the least resources with only one other above it.

 

Lady Fitz, you are indeed right in that even the "paid for always on Malwarebytes Pro" is designed for use with an active A/V product, not as a standalone. MSE is also at the top of the heap for A/V programs with anti spy etc. as well, for being one of the top two tested for removing malware completely. I use Malwarebytes free as a back up, however it is 25 bucks per computer for a lifetime subscription. It is not designed nor recommended by the company to be used as a standalone product and the only protection.

 

Lastly all of the paid for and free products do some job of protection and my choice need not be another's. I chose and paid for Kaspersky for about five years ever since they became the AV comparatives product of the year in 2004 and 2005. They haven't been back on top since, but that does not make them a bad product at all. They are in the middle of the pack for resource usage as well which isn't as good as MSE but very good nevertheless.

 

It is my opinion that there is no better interface and combination of reliability and low false positives, one of the top three in detecting unknown malware, which is what the Proactive On-Demand Malware Detection test was about, than MSE. And it's free.

 

But the number one reason I like it is because no one knows the guts of Microsoft better than Microsoft. Giving away MSE may well put the others out of business but like the free browser, no doubt there will be competition. If just by offering it free would assure dominance of a market let's not forget that free or paid MS doesn't always win, for example Money lost out to Quicken, Bing to Google, Windows Mobile to Apple and adroid, etc.

 

What determines a product's success is what does the job best for the least cost and inconvenience to the end user. I like MS and its products. That is why I use them. One other item to note is that MSE is now in version 2 since December of 2010 which is after the last AV comparatives summary. We should see it in the December 2011 summary in a few months.

 

Last word. Like OS' there is no security product that is 100% perfect 100% of the time against all threats. None can protect any computer from unknown threats reliably. Most have heurisitics but still depend on signatures that are downloaded daily or more often. None can protect us from ourselves. If one clicks to allow a scan from a scareware intrusion no A/V can protect you. We have to be able to over-ride the scanners when we want to download a program. Especially new ones that aren't accounted for by the security programs out there but can trigger a false positive.

 

I think Fsecure this year's winner would be a good one to try, but some of their computers also will get infected. Here's a customer support issue with fsecure allowing an infection in:

http://forum.f-secure.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11708

 

I always recommend malwarebytes as the back up tool, and in that link just above the user found it with Malwarebytes when fsecure didn't find the infection. So no matter the program flaws can be found. Thus I look for light resource usage, best for heuristics and new malware, and as long as it is in the top three or four, free is a huge bonus!

 

My point is that the best cannot protect us 100%. There will be new malware infections with all of them,and user inflicted ones too.

 

Safe computing.

Edited September 4, 2011 by RV

[ed6713]

Many of us are using Microsoft Security Essentials. It is free, works well and is not a system hog as Norton can be.

 

Newt

 

ditto. A great system.

[RV_]

BTW,

Lest I be thought of as just using MS, we use and used Quicken. I switched to Windows live mail and tried gmail and hate both so may be giving Thunderbird another try. Haven't tried it in at least 5 or ten years I forget. I love MS office and have four or five legal licenses and hologrammed CDs. I absolutely hate MS Outlook and never install it since MS Office 95 and 97 when I tried and uninstalled. I went so far as to get the corporate Sage ACT software for CRM at the last company where I also ordered Kapspersky enterprise edition as well. That even though we had Office Pro on every computer and only on one where that individual loved outlook and used it for email and schedule and contacts did I let it be on one of my workstations. If Thunderbird doesn't work out for me then I will try Outlook 2010 one more time on one computer, and load it on all of them if I can tolerate it as Outlook express is not as secure anymore. One more comment about Netscape. I started an Internet provider service in 1995 that grew quite large in Germany when stationed there (Of course the real profits happened after I had to return to the US at the end of my tour in Jan 97, and sold out to my systems engineer.) I had used Mosaic but settled on Netscape as my browser and paid for it. I was there when the brouhaha first came about and it was not MS that made Netscape fail. Netscape had the worst customer service and sold it for several different prices and did not refund me the difference when I found the day I renewed they sold it for less to new customers the same day and never said a word! Netscape was the most arrogant company I ever dealt with in or out of technology bar none. And then thought they were big enough to take on MS and lost again after losing their customewr base to just plain arrogance. MS came out with IE and I uninstalled Netscape just a week after I tried out IE. I did not then care if I wasted a subscription fee, they pixed me and many others off. At the time I was still using DR Dos from Digital research not MSDOS, and dual booted it as well as using QEMM mem management non MS software. I also used Quicken from the git go not MS Money and never used their photo processing or media player until now. I still prefer the third party audio and video programs. Back then Central point software anti virus and Norton utilities were king.

 

My point is I use what works most elegantly for me in engineering terms. But it is still a subjective call regardless of experience or monies spent. Your Kaspersky will work as well as my MSE will for each of us, becuase no security program is even close to 100% as you know since you read the AV Comparatives right? The first lines of defense as I have posted here many times before is Windows updates first to shut the door of vulnerabilities possible, at that time, and user awareness second as that is the main avenue of infections, fooling people into clicking on a fake email or scareware and over-riding the security program. As well online pirating software and music/video content is way up there in infection potential and no brand can protect you then. None of that is personal, but my experience for what it is worth. Many folks are afraid to change and don't want to try using an uninstaller and others don't care. As long as you take care of the first lines of defense it really makes no difference what program you choose, as long as you do have something that is free or paid for and up to date to clean out any infections that do get allowed in, which increasingly is the case. But I have tried the MS and the third party alternatives in every instance including the OS' and used the one that I preferred and seemed to work best for me. I don't get infections but have seen a few drive by and scareware attempts thwarted by me and/or my security programs on my systems. Others haven't had the same experience.

Edited September 4, 2011 by RV

[Carl]

Derek, I am guessing that you are referring to netscape web browser and not their Email. I have been using their Email service with spam shield for well over 15 years and have had no problem with their service or ever get any spam. I rate it #1 for Email by far.

Carl

[RV_]

Yep I was referring to the browser, and the mangement they had in the mid to late 90's. I didn't know they had anything still out there. I just looked it up. Is this what you mean?

http://email.about.com/cs/winclientreviews/gr/netscape.htm

[Carl]

Yep I was referring to the browser, and the mangement they had in the mid to late 90's. I didn't know they had anything still out there. I just looked it up. Is this what you mean?

http://email.about.com/cs/winclientreviews/gr/netscape.htm

 

Well, I am not real sure just what I have now. I can tell you it has cost me $11.95 a month all these years. I might be bent out of shape if I am the only one paying for a free program. That is $2151 I have paid them.

Carl

[RV_]

Beats me Carl, I thought they ceased to be in 2008, and were going that way for most of this past decade. You surprised me with thet one.

[TheDuke]

Carl: This is the page that explains what you are getting for the money. Netscape

[VtChris]

I have been using Webroot for several years now with good success. How come I never here about it, and it isn't listed in the comparative charts?

[RV_]

Chris,

Webroot used Sophos Antivirus which failed Virus Bulletin VB100 testing for Vista SP1(April 2008) with 2 wildlist misses, and performed so poorly in AV-Comparatives testing (November 2008) that it failed to acheive even standard certification (No Certification-117 false positives)I don't know what A/V engine Webroot uses now but it is different than Sophos and in the 2011 PC World review webroot took some hard hits for slowing the computers way down and not protecting or finding infections once they get in.

 

2008

Go here and scroll all the way down to webroot at the bottom and you will see the big X and the same for Sophos:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/test?y=2008&m=04

 

Here is the last time it was tested by AV comparatives as Sophos. Since it used Sophos for the A/V part in 2008, any Sophos failure will be one for Webroot as well. Go here and scroll down all the way to the results and Sophos was not certified at all.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/report20.pdf

 

2011:

Here is the PC World review for 2011. The Magazine review is 180 degrees from what the users say below but again, many folks stick with the familiar. I am also seeing that some users are using it and a second real time Anti malware product and that is a good way to mess up both, and possibly the data on the computer. If it is indeed as much of a resource hog as the reviews say it is you might want to contact them online and get their removal tool, then install MSE and use it for a week and see if it makes as big a difference as I suspect it may. Since you have a paid for your copy, and have the code to activate it, if you don't see any difference you can uninstall MSE and reinstall it easily.

 

Here is the link for the 2011 review:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/214667/webroot_internet_security_essentials_2011.html

Edited September 14, 2011 by RV

[bthomforde]

MSE here too, 2 computers for about a year, no virus, malware or any problems at all, great product.

[JackPoodle]

My new computer came loaded with Norton Internet Security (free 30-day trial). I don't know how much Norton will cost after the 30-day trial, but I already have a CD for Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010 which I got for my previous computer (and which my husband is now using). I'm wondering whether I should keep Norton, or delete it and install Kaspersky? Or would the free version of AVG be a better choice? Or is there something better than any of these three?

 

Just my own personal preference, but after using Norton and Kaspersky, I found Eset is just as secure and their tech support is super, accessible, and very knowledgeable. They have a 2-year deal on their product which is a very good deal. Go to their Website and check it out. They help install it too. Good luck with whichever you buy.

Roll Me Away

[leonidus2012]

Remember that only one antivirus should be installed. For paid I'd recommend Kaspersky, Eset or Dr.Web. For free Microsoft Security Essentials, Avast Free, Comodo Internet Security or OutPost Security Suite Free.

[rapide]

Yes, i agree MSE is the best freeware and i recommend AVG, Kaspersky for paid antivirus.

 

-http://www.saisiededonnees-idf.fr : -http://www.saisiededocuments-idf.fr

 

-http://www.saisiedetexte.fr : -http://www.saisiedequestionnaires.fr

[Keelandb]

We've have McAfee on several computers for a couple of years. Any opinion on McAfee quality? We did have to un-install and then re-install McAfee recently due to a conflict of a McAfee update with Windows 7 internet access.

On our desktop that is running VISTA (and supposidly protected by McAfee) we've had a few blue screens with the message bad_pool_header. The blue screen happens ever now and then, often on several reboots in a row, and then will not happen again for days. I've tried msconfig and memory test to no improvement. Any suggestions?

BobK

[TheDuke]

Go to this site and follow the suggestions. Also, do a google search for bad pool header as there are other suggestions available.

[desertranger]

I've used Kaspersky for years. Never had a problem with it. The advantage I find in Kas is it uses far fewer system resources than the others. I also have Kas in the server.

[Mike and Claudia]

Another FREE A/V is "Avast!"

 

It is FREE, not very annoying, and will grab and tackle and virus that comes around.

 

A GEEK fried of mine recommended it to me.