What antivirus?

[aoqd22]

Now have Outpost installed instead of Norton Firewall and working fine. Want to also change from NAV but which antivirus software works best with Outpost?

Any ideas for my XP set up - how about for example NOD32?

[Manny Carvalho]

I can't say which don't work as I never heard of any, but I have AVG and EZTrust(no real time monitoring, just as a on demand scanner) working fine with OP.

[GoonMan]

Originally posted by aoqd22
Now have Outpost installed instead of Norton Firewall and working fine. Want to also change from NAV but which antivirus software works best with Outpost?

Any ideas for my XP set up - how about for example NOD32?


Hello aoqd22 Welcome to the Forum.

I use Nod 32 on my computer and WinMe I had also used NAV and found it to be very intrusive and left alot of stuff after uninstalling it, if you are swapping to a new Antivirus just make sure you have removed all remnants of Nav just to keep there from being any conflicts. There are several users here that use Nod 32 & XP with no Problems.

The Final choice will have to be yours.
I like the way Nod works with my cranky and quirky system. But this is just my opinion.


Randy

PS before you purchase a new Antivirus give each one a try most have a 15 to 30 day trial.

[hayc59]

http://www.nod32.com/home/home.htm
NOD32 Antivirus System provides well balanced, state-of-the-art protection against threats endangering your PC and enterprise systems running various platforms from Microsoft Windows 95 / 98 / ME / NT / 2000 / 2003 / XP, through a number of UNIX/Linux, Novell, MS DOS operating systems to Microsoft Exchange Server, Lotus Domino and other mail servers.
Viruses, worms, trojans and other malware are kept out of striking distance of your valuable data. Advanced detection methods implemented in the software even provide protection against the future threats from most of the new worms and viruses.
The fourth generation of the NOD32 Antivirus System features a fully integrated software suite characterized by an unprecedented detection track record, the fastest scanning rates and extremely low utilization of system resources.
Its what I use and its never been a problem..:D
**Moving To Chit/Chat***

[Jonvidia]

i use avp 3.5, its best and takes little ressources :D

[dom424]

NOD32 works well for me to. Have not had a major problem yet and I run it on XP Pro and 2k Pro.

[Schockwave]

I use Panda-antivirus and find that works extremely well, as it will update at least once a day, sometimes two or three times as needed and they do several different versions, depending on your needs!:) ;)

[Ferri]

I now use NOD32 and have AVG as secondary antivirus.
I've also used Panda for three years without problems, but, in my opinion, it uses too much resources. Panda Platinum has a built-in firewall that should be disabled to prevent conflicts with Outpost,

I never had problems with any of the three tools.

[Schockwave]

Neither my neighbour nor I have noticed that Panda uses too much resource, and I have disabled the firewall on it. I have tried AVG before and Nortons and one or two others, but my preference is still Panda with its automatic updates at least once a day.

[bowhuntr]

My vote goes to Nod32 here. I have been running it for almost a year along side Outpost with nary a glitch that I have seen. I am running it with XP Pro.

[Schockwave]

Well, all I can say is, it probably is just as well, that different people prefer different software, otherwise software producers would not have a job for long, as they would not be able to sell them!!!!:D :p ;)

[Aerowinder]

I can statistically prove that F-Secure is the best, very closely followed by Kaspersky. However, I am inclined to say F-Secure is a very large PITA to use. Go Kaspersky AV. If you want un-biased proof, I'll provide it. If you don't want KAV, go McAfee.

Many people would be surprised how poorly Norton does. There is no good free virus scanner, either. There just isn't.

[CyGho]

Using Symantec Anti Virus Corporate Edition (SAV) here. Well the interface is much slimmer then the brother Norton Anti Virus (NAV). I worked with both, SAV isn't such a load for the system as NAV is.
Because i have a freeware site, i download many, many things to tryout, i also visit lots of sites, but i've been infected with a virus just once, a long time ago, and i was using McAfee at that time.
SAV did catch a lot of virusses and also scripts on sites so i stick with this one.....................

[Manny Carvalho]

Originally posted by Aerowinder
I can statistically prove that F-Secure is the best, very closely followed by Kaspersky. However, I am inclined to say F-Secure is a very large PITA to use. Go Kaspersky AV. If you want un-biased proof, I'll provide it. If you don't want KAV, go McAfee.

Yes, I'd like to see your unbiased proof unless you are talking about the 100% test.

[Aerowinder]

10-12 May 2002
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=16&mnu=16

5-10 November 2002
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=31&mnu=31

4-12 May 2003
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59

2-12 October 2003
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=62&mnu=62

The test (Oct. 2003) was carried out by Antony Petrakis aka Virus-P of www.virus.gr on 48 AV and AT applications that had the latest versions, upgrades and updates and were tested using their full scanning capabilities, such as heuristics, full scan etc.

58306 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV, Nod32, Dr Web and McAfee. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that at least 2 antivirus programs detected it as a new virus. All virus samples were unpacked and the only samples that were kept packed were the ones packed using external-dos packers (WinZip and WinRar). The virus samples had the correct file extension using a special program and were unique according to the checksum32 filesize.

1. F-Secure 5.41 Total Performance: 99.63%
2. Kaspersky Personal Pro Total Performance: 99.35%
3. AntiVirenKit (AVK) 12.0.4 Total Performance: 98.67%
4. McAfee 7.03.6000 Total Performance: 97.24%
5. RAV AntiVirus Desktop Tota Performance: 94.26%
6. F-Prot 3.14b Total Performance: 93.40%
7. Norton 2004 Professional Total Performance: 92.35%
8. Titan 2003 Total Performance: 90.41%
9. BullGuard 3.5 Total Performance: 88.34%
10. BitDefender 7.1.110 Total Performance: 88.28%
11. Norton Corporate 8.00.9374 Total Performance: 88.27%
12. Dr. Web
13. Pc-Cilin 2003 Total Performance: 86.94%
14. Sophos
15. Avast
16. Panda Titanium 2.05.05 Total Performance: 84.95%
17. Panda Platinum 7.05.04 Total Performance: 84.39%
18. eScan 2003
19. MKS-Vir 2004 beta
20. AntiVir
-----------------------
NOD32 Total Performance: 75.76%

The best applications for detecting Trojans:

1. F-Secure which detected 11902 trojans
2. Kaspersky which detected 11851 trojans
3. AntiVirenKit (AVK) which detected 11537
4. F-Prot which detected 11127 trojans
5. McAfee which detected 10965 trojans
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I included NOD32 even though it didn't make it to the first 20 slots because I think that it is a highly overrated package, as this testing by this industry standard and independent testing facility would indicate.

[Manny Carvalho]

Thank you Aerowinder, these test are similar to the VB100% tests I mentioned: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml

I couldn't tell why this procedure was impartial or better, other than he was Greek and had the largest collection of viruses in the world. Still, these comparative tests are interesting. For example, the VB100% test results for F-Secure are 50% (12 passes, 12 fails) throughout the testing history. Since the virus landscape is ever changing, I suspect so will such comparative test results over time.

Actually the VB folks say it well and likely applies to the tests you report as well:

"A VB 100% award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and no less. The failure to attain a VB 100% award is not a declaration that a product cannot provide adequate protection in the real world if administered by a professional. We would urge any potential customer, when looking at the VB 100% record of any software, not simply to consider passes and fails, but to read the small print in the reviews."

Thanks for posting those results. I found them an interesting read.

[Schockwave]

I will still stick with Panda antivirus, as I believe it to be very good and have had no virus or trojan, but when there was one in the e-mail it detected it, and now I use Mailwasher before downloading my e-mails, I know that they are safe and I can delete all the rubbish first without clogging up my PC.

As I said, it is a matter of opinion, and I do not take much notice of all these tests, but believe that you have to try them out yourself to know your preference. I do not like Nortons or AVG or McAfee, neither Avast or PC-Illin, and the fact that Titanium is supposed to be slightly better than the Platinum, is to me uterly rubbish, as they both update from the same place etc.