Off-topic computer nerd time. Long and boring~!
The best resource for seeing which antivirus products are effective... is this website:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
They are a well-known nonprofit organization (funded by the austrian government... not by the software companies) that does very thorough independent tests of all the major antivirus programs. Then then publish the results so the public can make an informed decision about antivirus products.
Virus protection is not well understood by average PC users, and even some of the "power users" hold misconceptions. Sites like av-comparatives help dispel those myths.
In a nutshell:
-
At least a half dozen products will catch 98-99% of known older viruses. The testers hit them with about 300,000 old viruses. See the
on-demand test for the breakdown. All the programs work pretty much the same way, when it comes to this part of the job.
- For unknown, newer viruses, it's a little different. This
heuristic test is where the good programs stand out and the lousy ones fall flat. Each scanner constantly monitors the system for suspicious virus-like code in files you try to open/run/move, and raises a flag if something looks fishy.
There was a recent change in the way they test this -
Sometimes one exploit (aka a security hole) can lead to dozens of new viruses. Different guys try to capitalize on it in different ways, with different viruses.
In the past, if ten different viruses used the same exploit, the testers would ding the antivirus program ten times for failing to catch it. Now they only ding them once. They also limited the window as far as what viruses could be called "new" ... they only test stuff released ~24 hours after the last update at the end of march. You'd think that'd be a very limited number of viruses to test with, but it's still over 4000 samples. Yeah, that many get released daily.
This has somewhat inflated the numbers showing in their test results...
it used to be that ALL the av products would only catch about 55-60% of these (a month's worth of brand new viruses). All the products were within a few percentage points of each other under the strict test. After the recent change, it looks more like 85-95%. But the reality hasn't changed...
if you don't update for a month, you can get nailed by about 40% of the viruses released that month, no matter what program you use. In other words, even with good antivirus programs it's still basically a coin flip if you happen to stumble across a brand new virus. So you better let it update automatically as often as possible, daily or even several times a day.
- These programs update constantly and the "Best" is a moving target. What worked great a year ago or even a month ago may have changed drastically.
- Cutting to the chase:
These guys appear at the top of the test results frequently:
• GData - best paid AV IMO.
• Avira - offers free and paid, but you put up with a once-a-day ad if you go with the free version.
• Kaspersky - always hovering in the top 3 somewhere
In my opinion, based on the tests, there's not much reason to go with anything else besides one of these three. They have performed well month after month, they catch everything, they don't have too many false alarms, and they're all very usable (they aren't bloated and intrusive like some antivirus programs).
- Speaking of bloated, Norton and McAfee are probably the #1 and #2 most popular paid ones, and they're lousy. They have just managed to market themselves well and make deals with the equipment manufacturers to get themselves pre-installed on most of the new computers sold today. Symantec/Norton actually refuses to participate in the tests even though all the other major guys (MS, McAfee, AVG, etc.) submit to them. Officially it's because they claim the tests aren't 'well-rounded' enough or some such. Unofficially it's probably because they know they'd embarrass themselves. Norton lets a LOT of viruses slip by and is a tremendous pain in the ass, making itself as difficult as possible to turn off or uninstall.
- Microsoft's program is overrated. People use it because it's quiet and doesn't nag you very often. But over time MSE has gotten worse and worse and now frequently scores at the very bottom of these tests. For example, in the test for older, known viruses... 13 products caught over 98%. MSE only caught ~93%. Dead last. In the heuristic test, it's 13th out of 17. AVG also gets frequently recommended as a free one, and it's arguably worse... it's scores a little below average in both kinds of tests, and hassles you constantly with false alarms.
-
By the way, this norton warning is probably another false alarm. If there is a drive-by virus being shown, it often happens through one of the ads displayed on the site (which come from external sources), not from the forum itself. Those with ad-blockers are much less likely to get hit by these. But I'm guessing both the site and its ads are fine and norton's just being stupid.
are well!