What AV DO you run?

Thanks for all the posts guys. Sorry for the confusion, but I wanted to know what AV people are using along with which free ones are good, so it's all good in the end.

Another interesting question I have - is it necessary to run a dedicated malware detection package (like Spybot S&D) together with an AV. I switched my AV from AVG to Avira last night, just to try something new. So far I'm pretty happy with Avira and will stick to it and see how it goes.

Problem is I also run Spybot S&D (It's very handy, especially the registry monitor which lets you know when registry changes are made), but it takes a REALLY long time to load when booting up. It's getting to be a pain in the ass.

So what do you say? A necessary evil (I'm paranoid and like playing it safe) or waste of time?
 
I don't run AV resident so don't care which uses the most resources as it is a non issue but I do use Avast free non-resident. I tried Avira free but it has a nag screen which annoys me and the free version has no way to shut it down. Used to use AVG free but like others have said, I dumped it after ver 8. My ISP gives their customers F-Secure security suite for free but again it is a resource issue. I did run it for a while and its web browser protection really slowed down web browsing so didn't care for it.
 
I've been using NOD32 for about 5 years or so. It's caught every infected file/website that I've encountered, it's small and lightweight, it just works great so I keep licensing it. Most of the free ones are good, I've evaluated all the free ones, but haven't found anything that I feel confident in replacing NOD32 with.
 
DeaconFrost said:
And you honestly, truly don't think this day has already come? Wow. In all seriousness, do some reading on how some banner ads on trusted sites have been hijacked. Once you see those examples, and how even graphics on websites can be injected with malicious code, there's no possible way to justify not having AV software. You simply can't do it. And no, this is not me over-reacting, this is me using my head logically. It's common sense, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Wow. Let's all simmer down. I don't run an AV software on my machine, and I'm very aware of how "easy" it is to get infected.

This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. My mean-time-between-critical-viruses (MTBCV) is sufficiently large, and the data I keep on my desktop is sufficiently unimportant, that it is actually beneficial for me not to spend the time installing AV software on my desktop regardless of the increased likelihood of getting a virus.

Browsing the internet with a text-only javascript-incapable browser would also significantly reduce the probability of getting a virus, but you've probably decided that the benefit of using a graphical browser outweighs the cost of this increased risk. I don't see you saying "there's no possible way to justify not using a text-only browser".

Again, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis that we each as individuals have to make based on our own experience and usage.
 
Klob said:
I don't run AV resident so don't care which uses the most resources as it is a non issue but I do use Avast free non-resident. I tried Avira free but it has a nag screen which annoys me and the free version has no way to shut it down. Used to use AVG free but like others have said, I dumped it after ver 8. My ISP gives their customers F-Secure security suite for free but again it is a resource issue. I did run it for a while and its web browser protection really slowed down web browsing so didn't care for it.
Click to expand...

FYI, you can disable the nag screen quite easily in avira as mentioned in several posts prior.
 
Well, I don't run Avira now but if I ever do again I will use that info, thanks.
 
Avast here. It has been absolutely trouble-free since I switched to it after I got tired of all the little problems that AVG gave me.

And honestly, there is not a single good argument for not running an anti-virus program that utilizes <1% of your system resources. Do you guys have any idea how many legitimate sites are compromised on a daily basis?

I should post a few logs from the security systems at my work so you can see some of the sites that have tried to pass malicious code onto my network.
 
My computer is a gaming machine and not at work so security is of minor importance. But I use pre-emptive blocking of known bad sites and block all scripts unless I trust a site. Kind of hard to infect my PC when they can't even run any code on my PC. The day when plain text can infect my PC let me know.
 
DeaconFrost said:
I haven't gotten a virus on any of my computers in the last 15 years. That hardly makes me feel like I can do without my AV software. The reason why I haven't gotten any infections? Because I use common sense and software combined. I've gone to legit websites and have had my AV software block things. I've downloaded trialware from legit sites and have had the warnings go off. Hell, I even got one of the original iPods for Windows that shipped with a virus!
Click to expand...


The more why you should have an AV... and yes I know you do have the AV... just saying for others...

If you can get free one from your university or so, get it as they are usually enterprise editions (much more slimmer than commercial versions)
 
Klob said:
My computer is a gaming machine and not at work so security is of minor importance. But I use pre-emptive blocking of known bad sites and block all scripts unless I trust a site. Kind of hard to infect my PC when they can't even run any code on my PC. The day when plain text can infect my PC let me know.
Click to expand...

... FACEPALM ....

On topic - I run McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.5i
 
DeaconFrost said:
That analogy is actually very common for these "discussions", as it fits perfectly.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't fit perfectly, people have accidents on the road all the time because of faults of other people on the road, that doesn't happen on the PC, or at least if you know what you're doing is easily avoidable.

There are some people who will go all their lives without ever having an accident in their car because they're careful drivers, there are some people who never get viruses in their life so far that remains true for me and thats 10 years using the PC and 7-8 of those without AV protection.

Not to mention again that the very best protection is having a full backup, all good IT professionals make backups of their important media, so if virus trashes their machine then they can simple format the drive, reinstall and restore.

I see that you've completely ignored my point that having AV makes people lazy, it makes people more prone to accept files onto their machine, scan them for viruses and then just assume its safe, to me that is MORE dangerous than not having AV and simply avoiding potentially unsafe files.

Again its user stupidity that allows code to be run on your machine 99.9% of the time (common exploits are fixed fast now a days) the best way to stay safe is eliminate user stupidity, not compensate for it. Those of you who dont know what they're doing because you dont have the time/inclination to learn, that's fair enough and you people SHOULD be running AV without a doubt.
 
jimmyb said:
Wow. Let's all simmer down. I don't run an AV software on my machine, and I'm very aware of how "easy" it is to get infected.

This is a simple cost-benefit analysis. My mean-time-between-critical-viruses (MTBCV) is sufficiently large, and the data I keep on my desktop is sufficiently unimportant, that it is actually beneficial for me not to spend the time installing AV software on my desktop regardless of the increased likelihood of getting a virus.

Browsing the internet with a text-only javascript-incapable browser would also significantly reduce the probability of getting a virus, but you've probably decided that the benefit of using a graphical browser outweighs the cost of this increased risk. I don't see you saying "there's no possible way to justify not using a text-only browser".

Again, it's a simple cost-benefit analysis that we each as individuals have to make based on our own experience and usage.
Click to expand...

THIS.
 
Frostex said:
No it doesn't fit perfectly, people have accidents on the road all the time because of faults of other people on the road, that doesn't happen on the PC, or at least if you know what you're doing is easily avoidable.

There are some people who will go all their lives without ever having an accident in their car because they're careful drivers, there are some people who never get viruses in their life so far that remains true for me and thats 10 years using the PC and 7-8 of those without AV protection.

Not to mention again that the very best protection is having a full backup, all good IT professionals make backups of their important media, so if virus trashes their machine then they can simple format the drive, reinstall and restore.

I see that you've completely ignored my point that having AV makes people lazy, it makes people more prone to accept files onto their machine, scan them for viruses and then just assume its safe, to me that is MORE dangerous than not having AV and simply avoiding potentially unsafe files.

Again its user stupidity that allows code to be run on your machine 99.9% of the time (common exploits are fixed fast now a days) the best way to stay safe is eliminate user stupidity, not compensate for it. Those of you who dont know what they're doing because you dont have the time/inclination to learn, that's fair enough and you people SHOULD be running AV without a doubt.
Click to expand...

While you do bring up some good point, however some AV software may prevent or at least patch an issue that the OS may not be patched for several days or even months for that matter. In this case, would it not make any sense to at least have some sort of protection in case just so that you may be protected before the "monster" gets to you due to an OS issue. And AV software, in today term doesn't just mean viruses but also includes, spywares, malwares, worm and whatnot...

I agree, with half of your position. With backups and AV software, I will say that's the best solution. However most of us run AV more than we do our backups with. Do both and rest in peace or at least nearly entirely.

Oh also before I forget - While IT Professionals may not feel the need, but if they are IT Professionals, doesn't it at least mean they're serving somewhat numbers of people usually? So in this case, I'll be very afraid of the company's workplace's security if they don't have AV software installed on at least their company's endpoints. [Correct me if I'm mistaken here]
 
AV should always be run in the workplace, when I talk about IT professionals I talk about their home PC's as mentioned in a previous post somewhere.
 
Can someone please answer whether or not it's worth it to buy the full versions of AV like Avira?
 
None, I use a combination of Speedtouch 585 Firewall, Windows Vista Firewall, UAC, Windows Updates, Defender, Spybot S&D, Crap Cleaner and Adaware. Occasionally I will use TrendMicro's online virus checker.

But overall virus checkers slow your machine down and are about as much use as a chocolate teapot!
 
NOD32.

No noticeable performance impact. Even when it updates the virus definitions when I am playing TF2.
 
Frostex said:
AV should always be run in the workplace, when I talk about IT professionals I talk about their home PC's as mentioned in a previous post somewhere.
Click to expand...
You just veer farther and farther away from logic, don't you? Why, pray tell, should I have my work computer protected with AV software, but not my home computer?
spicey said:
But overall virus checkers slow your machine down and are about as much use as a chocolate teapot!
Click to expand...
I'm going to start needing boots and a shovel to read this threads. If you truly believe this today, you should hand in your computer and hit up a thrift shop for a nice typewriter. :rolleyes:


Seriously...I am TRULY starting to see why so many virii spread so fast.
 
Avira AntiVir Free. Installed it, set it to update and do a full scan every day at 4:30AM and forgot about it. I never even know its running. Great app.

And it doesn't detract from gaming performance at all... Regardless of what Klob and his ancient FUD seems to think.
 
DeaconFrost said:
You just veer farther and farther away from logic, don't you? Why, pray tell, should I have my work computer protected with AV software, but not my home computer?
Click to expand...

I was refering to cases where work networks containing large amount of computers used by people who have no idea what they're doing, in comparison to a home computer which often sits on its own, or on a comparitively small network.

Basic attack surface area difference, ones more likely to see viruses, I'm sorry that wasnt more obvious.
 
Frostex said:
Sane IT professionals dont get viruses on their home PCs ;)
Click to expand...

True, before everyone in my house got a PC I didn't run an AV - and I never did have an issue. But in my current home environment, it would be asking for trouble not to.
 
Frostex said:
Basic attack surface area difference, ones more likely to see viruses, I'm sorry that wasnt more obvious.
Click to expand...
What's obvious is that you are ignoring some very key facts in this debate. The more you try to stand up for not needing AV software, the more it becomes apparent you just aren't considering the big picture. As a very simple example, let's consider the attack vector of imbedding malicious code into a graphic file on a trusted, legit website? As others, in other threads have pointed out, NCIX was one of these very sites, as well as a few banking sites, if I remember correctly. Both of those sites would be very likely to be visited from home or at work, negating your argument.

We go around and around on this, but you still just don't seem to be grasping how varied the attacks can be. After your seatbelt analogy, it is becoming very clear you are only willing to argue one small part of the debate, rather than consider the entire issue at hand. You are correct, in terms of virii that spread across local networks, that in the average home, that isn't as much of a threat as a corporate environment. However, you are ignoring the majority of the attack methods.

The main point is, why take chances? When there's no negative impact to running AV software, not cost, not performance loss, nothing....why not do it? Would you own a home without insurance? Would you drive without owning auto insurance? Would you get married or start a family without health and life insurance? No, you wouldn't. In fact, for some of those examples, it would be illegal to do so. The argument against running AV software falls apart like a rotting piece of wood. It very well may be the easiest argument in the tech field to shoot apart.
 
DeaconFrost said:
What's obvious is that you are ignoring some very key facts in this debate. The more you try to stand up for not needing AV software, the more it becomes apparent you just aren't considering the big picture. As a very simple example, let's consider the attack vector of imbedding malicious code into a graphic file on a trusted, legit website? As others, in other threads have pointed out, NCIX was one of these very sites, as well as a few banking sites, if I remember correctly. Both of those sites would be very likely to be visited from home or at work, negating your argument.
Click to expand...

Most malicious code in websites uses exploits in browsers to hop on to your PC, if you keep your browser patched, and more importantly you use something other than I.E the chances of something occuring automatically when you visit a website is incredibly low, coupled with the fact that a reliable website may only serve up that kind of code once in a lifetime you're essentially safe, I have never heard of any of the sites that I visit ever hosting up viruses. The fact that you might visit the site from home or work does not negate the point, the point is that there is a larger surface area for attack at a work and the users on that network are unlikely to have any kind of advanced PC knowledge at all.

We go around and around on this, but you still just don't seem to be grasping how varied the attacks can be. After your seatbelt analogy, it is becoming very clear you are only willing to argue one small part of the debate, rather than consider the entire issue at hand. You are correct, in terms of virii that spread across local networks, that in the average home, that isn't as much of a threat as a corporate environment. However, you are ignoring the majority of the attack methods.
Click to expand...

I know exactly how varied the attacks can be, I review our security at work on a regular basis as well as try and break into our own network from time to time, it gives me a good idea of where we're vulnerable, I may not be an IT security expert but I know enough to keep my own PC free of viruses for as long as i've used it ~11 years, and a significant portion of that time was without virus software.

More over the seatbelt analogy wasn't mine, I was correcting somoene elses analogy because i thought it was broken, all that really proves is that you're not paying attention to the argument at hand.

The main point is, why take chances? When there's no negative impact to running AV software, not cost, not performance loss, nothing....why not do it? Would you own a home without insurance? Would you drive without owning auto insurance? Would you get married or start a family without health and life insurance? No, you wouldn't. In fact, for some of those examples, it would be illegal to do so. The argument against running AV software falls apart like a rotting piece of wood. It very well may be the easiest argument in the tech field to shoot apart.
Click to expand...

The FACT is, it's a sliding scale of safety vs usability, and we take practical steps to increase our safety to a limit that is reasonably does not restrict our experience when using our PC. Using your black and white logic I could argue that its more safe not to connect to the internet but obviously you're missing out on a lot if you dont, so we connect to the internet and we take that risk.

You're wrong, there are negative side effects to running AV, they include:

  • Increased system reosurce usage.
  • Software compatability with other applications
  • Interuptions with popups and notices and system halts
  • Decreased HDD lifespan
  • Cost (if you buy some AV)
  • False positives.
  • A decrease in common sense with your computer habbits **
  • A decrease in taking preventative steps.
  • A increase in reliability on the software to protect you.

Now for most people these are only small side effects, and for most people the chance of them getting a virus is quite high, so for most people it makes sense to install AV, and once again for the record I encourage everyone to use AV.

The time I've been virus free over the years really just proves my point, there may be a small chance that if the cirumstances are right a virus could get onto my machine but I liken the odds of that happening to being struck by lightning, that doesnt stop me from going outside!

** I personally think this is the worst of the lot, this is obvious at work, i get people trying to go to websites all the time which have been blocked by flishing/scamming filters and they ask if it can be unblocked claiming we're safe because we have antivirus installed. This is a massive problem, the first line of defense is common sense, yet when people run AV software they think they're safe, which isnt true, AV is far from perfect.
 
Frostex said:
The time I've been virus free over the years really just proves my point, there may be a small chance that if the cirumstances are right a virus could get onto my machine but I liken the odds of that happening to being struck by lightning, that doesnt stop me from going outside!
Click to expand...
Your thinking is as ridiculous as the people who laugh at identity thefts and say, "Well, that will never happen to me!" :rolleyes: It's a huge problem, but since it's never happened to me before, I'm 100% immune! Awesome!

Once again, I'll lay this out for you plain and simple. You keep trying to make my comments out to be that AV software makes you 100% safe. That isn't true, nor have I ever said that. I've actually called that line of thinking foolishness. You need a combination of common sense, good habits, and AV software. That's been my point from the very get go. That's what led me to to seatbelt comments in the first place, but yet you keep trying to make it seem as though I'm the one not grasping the facts. No one solution is the answer...which is why you use a layered defense. That's what I've said from the very beginning.
 
Frostex said:
there may be a small chance that if the cirumstances are right a virus could get onto my machine
Click to expand...

DeaconFrost said:
Your thinking is as ridiculous as the people who laugh at identity thefts and say, "Well, that will never happen to me!" :rolleyes: It's a huge problem, but since it's never happened to me before, I'm 100% immune! Awesome!
Click to expand...

Just......what?

Once again, I'll lay this out for you plain and simple. You keep trying to make my comments out to be that AV software makes you 100% safe. That isn't true, nor have I ever said that. I've actually called that line of thinking foolishness. You need a combination of common sense, good habits, and AV software. That's been my point from the very get go. That's what led me to to seatbelt comments in the first place, but yet you keep trying to make it seem as though I'm the one not grasping the facts. No one solution is the answer...which is why you use a layered defense. That's what I've said from the very beginning.
Click to expand...

I get that, but what Im saying that different people need different levels of protection, I could use the same argument to you that you could increase your security by using a text only browser, by never installing add ons or plug ins like flash and java, they're not 100% needed for most sites so the impact would be quite small but most of us accept that trade off as acceptable because we know that realisitcally its not going to make a difference to worry about.
 
Frostex said:
The time I've been virus free over the years really just proves my point
Click to expand...

Gonna drive by post here, as I haven't really been paying that much attention to the thread, but I'm wondering how you can make a statement like that given there are people like Mark Russinovich (in regards to the Sony BMG rootkit) who have gotten root-kits or other virii without them knowing about it for weeks. Point is no one can predict every exploit vector ever, and unless you are a kernel level hacker on the OS your running I doubt that you could credibly say that your system is secure at this very moment much less at some arbitrary point in the future.

This is also why I have a policy of once the system is compromised you can't trust it till you format and reload because you'll never know if you got it "all".
 
Which is why I take regular backups, while I accept that its extremely unlikely I'll get a virus I have never claimed it will never happen. All good IT professionals take regular backups to minimise data loss due to many reasons, viruses being just 1.
 
Frostex said:
Which is why I take regular backups, while I accept that its extremely unlikely I'll get a virus I have never claimed it will never happen. All good IT professionals take regular backups to minimise data loss due to many reasons, viruses being just 1.
Click to expand...

How far back to you have to go before your backups are not compromised?

The problem with the lightning anology is that you usually know when your struck by lighting, computer virii can be a lot like real virii you might not know if your a carrier or not or when it happened.
 
Btw I'm not dogging on you here, I generally don't disagree or agree with you. A lot of it is situational. The general logic in my mind is most people should be running AV, those that wont', won't regardless of what you tell them, and those that are actually OS savvy enough (which you very well might be Frostex) to probably get by with out it don't need to be told that either. Kind of like "If you have to ask you probably should be running AV".
 
devman said:
How far back to you have to go before your backups are not compromised?

The problem with the lightning anology is that you usually know when your struck by lighting, computer virii can be a lot like real virii you might not know if your a carrier or not or when it happened.
Click to expand...

Frequent backups to tape, anything of significant importance is burnt to disc and theres my old computer on my network which I copy certain types of data to, which is running a mirrored array. I also keep a lot of my important code on my work PC as well, which of course has a totally seperate set of backups a lot better and more frequent than my own.
 
Eset NOD32 for me...as well as the majority of my clients.

It's one of the better products as far as detection goes...
It's one of the lightest antivirus products out there...VERY low on system impact. Matter of fact...since I'm a hardcore online gamer..it's the first antivirus product that I've used that I do NOT disable it before I fire up my favorite online FPS game.

For the jobs I do for other people where I use a free antivirus...I install AntiVir for them. I got tired of the complaints of Avast slowing down peoples PCs....and I got tired of the PCs that I installed AVG on coming back to me infected.
 
Nod32. Mine is currently using about 49mb's currently across the three services it has active. Never let me down yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top