20 replies to this topic

[Buntox]

I am have become aware of this free anti-virus software called AVG Anti-Virus and was wondering whether people here recomend it or not?

link to AVG:
http://free.grisoft....1/lng/us/tpl/v5

[wreck]

Many, many people here (me included), think it is top-notch. It is updated very regularly and is light on resources. I prefer it over Norton and McAfee regardless of their price!

[crazyazn]

I second that. Much better than Norton or Pccillin. Been using it for 6 years. It is really good.

[H@ns]

Since I saw this log:

http://www.helpmij.n...&pagenumber=103 (below, the log from "Waney")

and I saw he was running AVG, and the amount of virusses, trojans and worms in his computer, I don't think that AVG is good or probably the best. OK, it's possible that he didn't update the program, but this is hard to believe:

cihost.exe
slchost.exe
svahost.exe
svshostdriver

etc etc....

If you cannot agree with my answer, please say it and why. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Paranoid]

It's probably not the best if money is no object.

But I personally feel whether someone is often or at all infected with viruses as less to do with the quality of the antivirus they are using and more to do with the way they handle their computer.

As such it's very difficult to reason from just some antidotal story about one AVG user. AFAIK no one has done a scientific study, trying to co-releate factors that tend to influence the rate which you are hit by viruses.

I suspect, careless habits or lack of knowledge is a much bigger factor than quality of anti virus.

[Budfred]

There is no such thing as a perfect antivirus... The weakest link for the AV is the user... An AV that is not updated is vulnerable... All of that said, it is important to keep in mind that AVs do one thing well... They scan, block and clean viruses... They are increasingly paying attention to trojans, but they continue to do a mediocre job at that... AVG is a highly rated AV program even though it is free... Of the free options, it is probably the best and comparable with Norton or McAfee... Of the paid versions, I would go with NOD32... It consistently comes in at the top of the ratings...

Even with NOD32 if the user doesn't keep it updated or if the user encounters an aggressive adware like Look2Me, it isn't going to protect.... You need a good firewall; programs like SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard and IE-Spyads; and good surfing habits to stay clean... If you want to be absolutely certain that you won't get hit, disconnect your modem, wipe your hard drive several times and do a fresh install... then never go online again....

[quack]

great!

stay away from Norton . . . it takes a jackhammer to get it out of your 'puter!

[lonewolf]

I wouldn't recommend AVG free. The pay version yes, but not the free one. I would recommend Avast! as a good free anti-virus though. You can check it out here. http://www.avast.com...irus_softw.html

[Trilobite]

There is a small antivirus comparison test here.

AVG is one of the AVs tested.

[Buntox]

I get the sense that maybe it does not reallly matter what antivirus software you use, but how smart you are in updating and staying away from trouble

Trilobite, I see from your results that Kaspersky and McAfee appear to preform the best in your test. Would using one of those two really make a significant difference in protecting your computer compared to some of the others?

I wouldn't recommend AVG free. The pay version yes, but not the free one. I would recommend Avast! as a good free anti-virus though. You can check it out here. http://www.avast.com...irus_softw.html

thanks for the link to another free AV program, lonewolf

[tooseyboy]

Buntox:

Have installed AVG Free on many (100+) home systems, not one has had a virus.
As stated above, educating users to keep there virus definitions udated is the key.

Guess one in ten computers I work on has no effective anti virus or anti spyware software and people seem totaly unaware that they have a minimal firewall in XP.

Most have no firewall!

Back to virus software again, people do not seem to understand that when the virus package purchased with their system has no live update facility after three months they need to purchase a yearly subsciption.
Not many vendors explain this (problem) to their customers when they purchase the system. :eek:

[Bobbi Flekman]

Of the paid versions, I would go with NOD32... It consistently comes in at the top of the ratings...

What's NOD32?

B.t.w. I've always been partial to ThunderByte AntiVirus, so... Since Norman took over/merged with/whatever them I've been using that.

[lonewolf]

NOD32 is one of the best anti-viruses i know of. Check it out here. http://www.nod32.com.au

[Trilobite]

I get the sense that maybe it does not reallly matter what antivirus software you use, but how smart you are in updating and staying away from trouble

BINGO! Exactly right.

Trilobite, I see from your results that Kaspersky and McAfee appear to preform the best in your test. Would using one of those two really make a significant difference in protecting your computer compared to some of the others?

Not necessarily. Both McAfee and Kaspersky have relatively large virus databases. However these databases (like all other AV program databases) do not cover all potential virus, worm and Trojan threats. For example, there are several infections in my test files that McAfee and Kaspersky miss, but Avast, AVG or one of the other scanners find.
It could also be that McAfee and Kaspersky are better at detecting the particular infections that are in the test files that I used.
A comparison test from scans of 374 infected test files is also not necessarily an accurate test when there is something like 100,000 distinct viruses, worm and Trojans known to exist. I plan on updating the results of my tests when I have more infected test files. I currently have ~750 ready to test and I should have a few thousand more ready to test soon (long story).

[Buntox]

thanks for the info Trilobite. Good luck with your tests!

[Paranoid]

I wouldn't recommend AVG free. The pay version yes, but not the free one. I would recommend Avast! as a good free anti-virus though. You can check it out here. http://www.avast.com...irus_softw.html

Interesting comment, since I was of the impression the free and pro versions had the same scanning engine and signatures, less the script protection of course.

[Paranoid]

A comparison test from scans of 374 infected test files is also not necessarily an accurate test when there is something like 100,000 distinct viruses, worm and Trojans known to exist. I plan on updating the results of my tests when I have more infected test files. I currently have ~750 ready to test and I should have a few thousand more ready to test soon (long story).

I get the sense that maybe it does not reallly matter what antivirus software you use, but how smart you are in updating and staying away from trouble

BINGO! Exactly right.

If you really believed that, what is the point of your test?

Trilobite, I see from your results that Kaspersky and McAfee appear to preform the best in your test. Would using one of those two really make a significant difference in protecting your computer compared to some of the others?

Not necessarily. Both McAfee and Kaspersky have relatively large virus databases. However these databases (like all other AV program databases) do not cover all potential virus, worm and Trojan threats. For example, there are several infections in my test files that McAfee and Kaspersky miss, but Avast, AVG or one of the other scanners find.
It could also be that McAfee and Kaspersky are better at detecting the particular infections that are in the test files that I used.

My impressions is that if you want to be protected from big name worms that make media headlines, AVG is more than sufficient, and might even be more effective. I remember reading an article that monitored the speed in which antiviruses updated against huge outbreaks and AVG was one of the fastest, while big names like McAffee lacked behind by quite a bit.

Also there is a cost to pay for maintaining a large signature database, the more you add, the more likely you are going to make a mistake on something, AVG by focusing only on the critical viruses, tends to be more effective against the,

This explains why there are so many satisifed users. Or stories of people claiming some big name virus scanner failed to detect something ,but AVG did not.

On the other hand, if you surf porn, warez etc, your likehood of being hit by a relatively obscure malware is much higher and in this case, AVG is far less effective, while KAV ,McAffee with it's larger database will probably help protect you more

All test of large enough samples will show KAV,Mcaffee doing much better than AVG, because they will necessarily include zoo viruses and trojans (where the term "in the wild" does not apply generaly).

So in that sense you can say KAV is generally "better" than AVG, but whether
this translates to that much more protection depends on you.

[lonewolf]

Paranoid

Your right the sigs in AVG 6.0 (free) and 7.0 are the same, but the scanning engine and other components in 6.0 are inferior to 7.0. As you can see here in the AVG history update page [program update 7.0.240 (4-29-04)] http://www.grisoft.c.../us_history.php Only in the 7.0 version was the scanning engine updated, and some other components. The 6.0 version is clearly inferior to the 7.0 (pro) version in many ways. Here's some more info http://www.grisoft.c...us_avg_news.php

I just don't feel 6.0 is good enough to be my main AV, it's good as a backup, but i wouldn't rely on it as my only AV. As far as the free anti-viruses go it's not too bad, but i would rather have KAV, NAV, NOD32, or one of the other top anti-viruses any day over AVG (free). Anyone who seriously thinks AVG (free) is as good or better than the top AV's is just fooling themselves IMO.

I use lots of free software, but a quality anti-virus is one thing i'll always be willing to pay for. You could get by using free firewalls, spyware scanners, browsers ect.. but i feel everyone should have the best AV possible, and AVG (free) just doesn't cut it IMO.

[Paranoid]

Lonewolf

I read the page you linked to. It talks about a better scanning engine yes, but when you read the details it doesn't seem to be that exactly.

In any case, I'm not aware of any tests that show one being superior to another, or a case where one is able to detect something the other isn't. Looks like marketing to me.

I just don't feel 6.0 is good enough to be my main AV, it's good as a backup, but i wouldn't rely on it as my only AV.

That's because you are paranoid. And in your state of mind, I don't think there is enough evidence to believe that AVG 7 is superior to AVG 6.

As far as the free anti-viruses go it's not too bad, but i would rather have KAV, NAV, NOD32, or one of the other top anti-viruses any day over AVG (free).

Given your dangerous activities, you need heavy duty protection far more than the typical user. That is not suprising.

Anyone who seriously thinks AVG (free) is as good or better than the top AV's is just fooling themselves IMO.

It depends on what you define by "as good as". It is so in certain cases, and it isn't in certain cases.

[lonewolf]

I think i'll just let everyone decide themselves which AV they like best, and leave it at that. If people want to use AVG (free) exclusively as their only AV, go ahead and i wish you luck with it. As for me i'll just remain so-called "paranoid", so far it has worked very well for me (never had to post one HJT log and not one virus/worm/trojan to date). ;D

[Paranoid]

Don't mistake me, being paranoid is not a bad thing.

Still never being infected is not as rare as you seem to think.