What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Know a Book Lover? Give Them the Sony Reader Touch view!
bestbuy.com - It's sleek and light, stores hundreds of books and has a long lasting battery.
107 Comments
- Whatiffafarr, on 11/09/2009, -5/+75Microsoft Security Essentials, you can't beat free. Microsoft kinda owes the internet community for IE anyway, free AV is the least they could do.
- TwilightThorn, on 11/09/2009, -7/+50MSE ftw!
- bewareofthecow, on 11/09/2009, -5/+46I have been removing malware for a living for the last 5 years. These days, if malware has executed on your system you have already lost the game. With rootkit integration becoming VERY common with most malware, after it is on your system ANY AV will be powerless against it. Doesn't matter that your AV runs has over 9000 kernel mode drivers because so does the malware and they are more clever to load before the AV and hide from windows entirely.
Your best bet is to have an AV with a strong realtime scanner and proactive heuristics. AV companies investing large resources into removal are wasting their time. I prefer AVs with small resource footprints and good efficient realtime scanners. I refuse to spend over 50% of my computer's resources to run a crappy AV product.
This article is almost completely irrelevant and arbitrary and has no value at all. - inactive, on 11/09/2009, -0/+27dude WHAT. you download it. it checks authenticity. then it asks how much info you want collected from new viruses so they know how to prevent them. It then states some personal information MAY be sent but they have no way of knowing who you are or intend to use it. Using Google is worse off for you.
^Moron - relvlixd, on 11/09/2009, -1/+28http://rorr.im/digg.com/security/top_anti_virus_so ...
- kb29, on 11/09/2009, -2/+24Where's Antivirus2009?
- KMartSheriff, on 11/09/2009, -0/+20Um, you're doing it VERY wrong. Seriously, you might have just been scammed.
- KMartSheriff, on 11/09/2009, -1/+13Now hopefully people will finally realize AVG is not what it used to be, and has turned into a bloated ***** mess that can't even detect most things.
MSE or Avira = win - krystalo, on 11/09/2009, -0/+12Ars notes that MSE was still in beta when these tests were conducted:
http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2009/10/av-co ... - aqrilik, on 11/09/2009, -2/+11HurrDurrrrrr
Yes, old ass Norton was terrible, but 2010 is great. Enough with this anti-Symantec bandwagon, use the product and have your own opinion. - peterjmag, on 11/09/2009, -0/+9Site's running extremely slow. Mirror: http://rorr.im/
- jwalk81980, on 11/09/2009, -0/+9I wanted to share my experience with WSE. I heard good things about it, so I installed it a few weeks ago. I was surprised to see that it has such a small footprint: Only 0-1% CPU and 6MB memory usage when idle. What's even more amazing is that this does not jump up in the slightest when you start scanning. (I'm using a Core i7 920. ymmv). WSE has real-time protection, but does not appear to use heuristics. It performs a quick scan of the important, most likely to be infected areas of the computer in a couple of minutes. WSE appears to scan an index of your files rather than the files themselves which is why the scans complete so quickly. You would think this would result in a poor ability to detect infected files, but it does not. I tested it in a virtual machine by going to some websites that attempt to install rogue malware on your computer. WSE = 1, Kaspersky = 0. WSE just works - the way an antivirus program should. And it does this without being the least bit intrusive. Other, bigger antivirus programs should be taking notes. Especially since WSE can do all of this while showing no indication that they will ever charge for the software.
A few months back, the first anti-spyware program I found that actually attempted to remove 'Personal Antivirus' rogue malware was Windows Defender. I imagine that WSE uses similar definitions as Defender (I don't see why they wouldn't). It was weeks later that other paid-security programs like McAfee finally attempted to remove it. Seeing as how the bulky, paid-security programs like Kaspersky, Norton and McAfee have dropped the ball on EVERY SINGLE rogue malware outbreak in the last six months, you really have nothing to lose by spending nothing on WSE.
Until more reports on WSE come out, I think people should install it as a companion to their existing security software. It's not known to conflict with any of the big name security programs. The report in this digg article ranks WSE highly, but seems to mainly test it on the recent outbreaks of rogue malware. It's possible that WSE will fall flat on it's face if attempting to remove a nasty rootkit. - IglooFu, on 11/09/2009, -1/+10"Your best bet is to have an AV with a strong realtime scanner and proactive heuristics"
Out of curiosity which do you use on a daily basis?
FWIW I've been using MSE for a couple of weeks. I'm a pretty safe surfer so haven't really tested it, but it sure is light weight. - 1uk34dd0, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8Lol - yeah, I've seen quite a few people running that one!
- velazkid, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8Anyone care to dispute this? Sounds interesting.
- velazkid, on 11/09/2009, -0/+8Well this was kinda helpful. Before now I didn't even know MSE existed, got it, and it seems to be a pretty solid piece of software :)
- sirbeta, on 11/09/2009, -0/+7It has been my experience that Norton does its job, but it makes it painfully evident the second it's doing even the smallest task by choking the systems down.
- captininsanity, on 11/09/2009, -1/+8I'm sorry we accidentally put arsenic in some of the food you bought from us, but it's ok! We make the best antidote around! -Microsoft
But really MSE looks like a good product, I'm really happy they've been doing a lot better for PC users in general recently. - jman583, on 11/09/2009, -0/+7I remember an old anti-virus floppy that you booted from before your OS booted to ensure that the virus can't ***** with the anti-virus software while it's running. Is there and modern equivalent to this?
- daliminator, on 11/09/2009, -0/+7Avira was average for both measurements... seems like MSE is the way to go for a free solution.
- Akraz, on 11/09/2009, -2/+8nod32
- captininsanity, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Real-time scanning and heuristics are an insane resource hog. You're better off treating your scanner like a condom. It reduces your odds of bad stuff happening, but it doesn't make it safe just to stick anything in your computer. Being intelligent is your best defense...
- MonkeyFit, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6Pretty sure Norton fights viruses by starving them of resources.
- breadfred, on 11/09/2009, -0/+6I dugg you down as it is a terrible resource hog.
- DaviDTC, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5So what would you recommend?
I just had this problem, not my thread, but it was posted the same time I had it and everything this person said was happening to me. I just reformatted like the expert person said. I tried for about a week to find a solution and couldn't.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic269117 ... - disgruntled, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5nah it barely touches the cpu and the memory usage is much lower than Mcafee Enterprise
- Thumper13, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5I've used Avira for about 5 years and it's worked great. Never a problem. No need to change, but if and when I do everything I've heard of the Microsoft stuff would lead me there.
You can't beat "Luke Filewalker" though! - 4rp4n3t, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5Uh, it was testing AV software. You think they should only test what you consider to be good AV software? What would be the point of that?
- Gareth321, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5That's ESET. Apparently, MSE pwns it. That's unfortunate, I have a licence for ESET and I had heard it was the best around. Apparently not.
- djchester, on 11/09/2009, -0/+5Don't use these test results only when choosing AntiVirus software. "The test focused only on the malware removal/cleaning capabilities".
- chunkybeefstu, on 11/09/2009, -5/+9"| Symantec Norton Anti-Virus 2010 | good | good |"
So this list seems pretty trustworthy... - pimpofpixels, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4You can presume it's similar to Symantec 2010
- TonyTheTerrible, on 11/09/2009, -6/+10I'll stick to my Common Sense.
- dvsbastard, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4If you want the full results of the testing, check out the PDF linked on this page (including what the ratings actually mean):
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews ... - sebconn, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5The home editions of the Norton stuff is pretty messy but it does work. But the enterprise SAV can't be beat for management and deployment. It works. But the only messy thing about SAV is the removal process, but as long as you've got yourself a copy of NoNav you're golden.
- HexiumVII, on 11/09/2009, -1/+5I used to put ESET NOD32 3.5 one everything, but even 4 lets a lot of malware and rootkits through to mess up the system completely. Now i put Avira 9 on everything. It's been bulletproof up until last week. So now i'm switching to MSE, since it's free, uses no resources, and has decent ratings. We will see how long that will last. I've also test Symantec 2010. Though it is improved from the older ones in terms or resources, it is still not nearly as lean as NOD, Avira, nor MSE. I can feel it bogging down especially on older systems and VMs. Sadly it's really tough to get good info on antivirus due to it's nature, and takes a lot of time to test by yourself.
- mileswj, on 11/09/2009, -5/+9I use Malwarebytes, it seems to be the best thing ive used in a while.
- Enlyth, on 11/09/2009, -0/+4I just lost the game :(
- afficionado81, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Does anyone know how MSE is in terms of resource usage? Is it pretty trim or does it hog the cpu like the bigger, messier ones?
Thanks - bewareofthecow, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Some people have asked me what I recommend for an AV... I'm currently using NOD32 v4 from ESET. I have been increasingly impressed at their extremely efficient yet effective realtime scanner. However due to their abandonment of OEM channels I'm taking a serious look at GDATA as being an AV to sell to my customers.
Products such as BitDefender which have attempted very thorough realtime protection fail in my opinion on I/O efficiencies and definitely impact the computer significantly in terms of performance. So as another person commented, not all realtime scanners are created equal and some are very system intensive.
I/O is the primary factor of system performance in realtime scanners with a secondary factor being CPU usage. If you are curious about how much I/O your current AV is consuming, fire up taskmanger > processes tab > view menu > select columns > check the boxes of: I/O Read Bytes, I/O Write Bytes, and I/O Other Bytes.
Monitor those values for a while in comparison to other processes on your computer and you will soon see the affect of your AV! If you want to see more realtime data (I/O delta) download Process Explorer from sysinternals.com (although I think the taskmanager in Vista/Win7 has a delta I/O option) - bewareofthecow, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Sadly not really. There are a few offline scanners available but they are usually out of date and therefore useless.
I wish someone out there would create a LIVE CD (bootable OS) capable of internet updating itself and and then scanning the computer.
The reason we won't see this anytime soon is because of NTFS licensing from Microsoft makes it completely unfeasible from a business perspective. - jtechs, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4"I haven't tried Microsoft Security Essentials"
so shut the ***** up - KingofGnG, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3That's a not so interesting piece of news, imho. As already stated by other diggers, nowadays malware tends to take control of the system in a way that's pretty difficult to undo, even with low level/anti-rootkit specific tools.
A more interesting info is how much an AV can take your system out of reach for viruses, worm et all....
http://kingofgng.com/eng/2009/10/21/av-comparative ... - iDiggYa, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3Where may I obtain said Common Sense?
- Atario, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3They did, years ago, back in the WFW 3.11 days. It sucked.
- HexiumVII, on 11/09/2009, -1/+4That is what I usually tell people who get virus/malware, once u get it, damage is done. You can run 50 anti/malware and your system will never be the same again. Best bet is to reimage or reinstall win.
- bewareofthecow, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3I have heard good things about this Security Essentials product from Microsoft. I haven't tested it much myself but the performance/system footprint looks reasonable.
- shogeist, on 11/09/2009, -0/+3I'm also interested in hearing what your recommendation is.
- chunkybeefstu, on 11/09/2009, -0/+2No need to rage mode on me, I was purposely trying to be concise, I'm merely pointing out that when a list has Norton tied for the top spot, they probably aren't using a broad enough criteria.
I, like a lot of people in my generation, grew up with Norton. I even used Norton 360 2.0 in college for a while.
That said, no, I won't try the product even if people claim it's improved. There are far too many comparable or better options on the market today, I just have no need or desire for it. They have to live with the bad reputation they have cultivated throughout the years. Maybe I'll try it out on my brand-new Packard Dell PC. - CircleFusion, on 11/09/2009, -1/+3I don't know why people are digging your comment up.
Malware = malicious software.
Viruses are a type of malware.
So software offering anti-malware protection would presumably include anti-virus protection, which is the case for Malwarebytes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam.php -
Show 51 - 100 of 107 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is