Comparision between Different Antivirus softwares

Best antivirus would be Mcafee, followed by Norton (most people will agree to it)

Norton also has a firewall you could buy. A combination of both the firewall and the antivirus should do the best to keep the system away from virus threats and also worms especially as you are connected to the internet and also the network (worms worm their way thru networks!).

Infact McAfee too has an inbuilt firewall. Added plus.

However, you may opt to buy zone alarm pro. This firewall is much better than norton or mcafee.

Hence the ideal combination is McAfee + Zone Alarm pro

I will not advice using the inbuilt firewall in xp pro, coz it is not that great.

Zone Alarm - www.zonelabs.com/
Norton - www.symantec.com
McAfee: www.mcafee.com

If it fits your budget, go for zone alarm with web filtering, could be handy, especially with kids around.

for some comparison you may read:
http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm
or
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6600_7-5021186-1.html?legacy=cnet&tag=redirect
or
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200308
or
http://www.check-mark.com/checkmark/cm_av1.html or http://www.check-mark.com/checkmark/cm_av2.html

finally you could also do with a free antivirus:
www.grisoft.com  - AVG free edition.

Zone alarm too has a free edition.

Hope you could make some decision. By the way, if you buy norton or mcafee, no probs. Either of them are as good as the other.

sandeep226, I do not agree with McAfee being better than norton, Also in the link you posted => http://antivirus.about.com/cs/beforeyoubuy/tp/aatpavwin.htm

It sais Panda first
Norton second
McAfee thirth

I also think Norton is more userfriendly than McAfee and has a great support.

Sorry, F-prot thirth and McAfee fourth.

I hate anti-virus software. Anti-virus software is a major cause of disfunctioning computer systems. Just search this site and see all problems related to anti-viruses. I think EE is kicking back to Norton and McAfee.

I'd rather just stay behind my firewall and do an on-line virus check every few weeks. And let Zonealarm Pro help in reducing any email virus threats.

CharlesBukowski, I do not agree on that one. Even if sometimes anti-virus programs can cause problems, I think they prevent you from greater problems. Nearly every antiviruscompany gives demo versions, you can always try them to see if they cause problems, before buying the full version.

LucF

and btw => And let Zonealarm Pro help in reducing any email virus threats.
Just do a search here on EE and find out how many problems firewalls are causing. But also the same thing applies here, they prevent you from even bigger problems.

Anti-Virus Comparisons:

Certified Products

http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certifiedproducts.shtml



Introduction to the VB 100% award
The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:
o      Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
o      Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files.
Virus Bulletin's aim is to offer subscribers the best impartial advice about anti-virus security and the products on offer. The VB website lists the outcome of comparative tests as follows
o      by vendor
o      by platform
o      a summary of the most recent comparative test
The full test results are available in Virus Bulletin magazine.
As the virus threat is continually changing, you should look for products that have achieved a succession of VB 100% awards, rather than just one or two. Developers that can best keep their products up to date are more likely to receive VB 100% awards.
Virus Bulletin's tests are widely recognized within the industry. The comparative tests tend to focus on virus detection rates, scanning speed and, more recently, performance overhead of on-access or resident scanning components. Most people want a scanner with very good detection that is kept up to date, but few want one that turns their machine into a snail!
Complete details of the most recent test results are available to Virus Bulletin subscribers.
The relevance of In the Wild detection tests is that the viruses on the WildList are known to be causing real-world virus incidents, and of doing so in more than just one or two isolated places. Products that do not have full detection of these viruses are unlikely to be of widespread appeal.
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.



http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml\



Plus! Edition Extra: Head-To-Head AntiVirus Comparison

LangaList Plus 9-15-2003

Plus! Edition Extra: Head-To-Head AntiVirus Comparison
One of the nagging questions I've had about viruses, is how well does my (free) anti-virus software work. Well, here is a list of comparative tests for a couple of dozen programs:

It was also interesting to look at the actual test histories of each vendor over the last 2-3 years under different operating systems, and how many passes and fails they got. ---Richard Atlas

Thanks, Richard. I was glad to see the three AV tools I recommend most-- Norton, Eset(Nod32), and Grisoft AVG do well, at least on XP. It's also nice to see that there are few really *bad* tools out there. With few exceptions, any AV tool is better than none.

 
 http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?table


Antivirus software and virus detection companies

 http://antivirus.about.com/cs/antivirusvendors/

for what it's worth, I read the review listing Panda as #1 & have been very happy with it.

For what it's worth, I used to have McAfee and had that installed on all of my computers.  We went through a time of people deliberately sending us viruses, and guess what??  McAfee didn't even TOUCH them!  So I now use Norton antivirus and definately think it is the best.  Easy to update, in fact it basically updates itself whenever it is needed.  A click on the update button every once in a while will also assure you of the most up to date scanning engines and programs.  I'm sure McAfee has these features built in now, but they didn't work very well when I had it a few years ago.

For firewall, I don't really have an opinion.  I guess it all depends on how familiar you are with your computer.  Norton has a nice little feature that will pop out and tell you what is flowing across your computer.  Zone alarm lite will do the job if you're just looking to make sure no one can get into your computer, zone alarm pro has more customization and probably is just as good as Norton (although, again I happen to favor Norton's interface and usability!)

Hope this helps!

Follow-up on Firewalls: A software firewall will make you nuts if you arent familiar with what to allow/disallow.  A hardware firewall will be faster, less work, and less headache for about the same money.  I speak from experience with many home users on that.

And to add to the last comment - some routers have built in firewalls, and they seem to do a pretty good job.  Kokoglen, what's your take on this?

Anything that is a SPI (stateful-packet-inspection) firewall even if its built into a router will do what is required.  It will block out all port requests unless otherwise instructed to route them to an internal IP.  It is basic network security to create a private address range (192.168.x.0) and only allow in what you want. (or nothing for most home users)

Keep in mind, for home networks, you often need something flexible.  For example: I use MSN Messenger to video conference with my family.  It uses something called UPnP (Universal Plug and Play) which basically open and close ports on the hardware firewall and point them to your computer on the fly.  Its a security no-no in a corporate setting, but at home, I find it convenient and required for users who just want it to work without touching it.

I think we may have gotten off-topic though. :)

I think we did   ;o)

Thanks for the response

I've usedf both Norton and Mcafee but I've found something better than both - Kaspersky

See the virus scanner linkbelow. The Kaspersky program tested was not the top of the line PRO version

http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=632

thanks friends for all the input.

thanks friends for all the input.

These conversations frustrate me.  Probably all of us has lost time and I know from this conversaion spent money fighting this. In the US alone there is over $4 billion dollors annually tied up in fighting this battle.  This does not take in account the, I'm sure, additional billions in recovering from these attacks.     We continue to build our little walls and motes, only to encounter a new breed of terrorist.  Why can't we as the Internet community come together and fight the battle head on.

dablake,

Please consider that this discussion is from October, 2003.  Things are a lot different 4 1/2 years later.  As far as AV goes, I still use Norton/Symantec on my main computers, but it has a big memory footprint.  For my customers, I tell them to scrap whatever they've paid for, and simply use AVG free.  The complaints that people had of this program back in 2003 have largely been fixed, and it's completely free.

The internet community has come together to fight this battle.  No longer should there be frustration and money spent to protect yourself on the internet.  You can do it all for free and with little knowledge.

I agree, things are different.  Retail Antivirus software costs more, the system requirements to support using them is greater and the creators of the rouge code have more advanced methods of delivery.  The issue is not that the tools are not available to help mitigate the issue, It's the fact that we are "required" to run them in the first place.  Why is it that we can not find a method to screen these and have a "safe surfer" environment.  The laws obviously have improved and have had limited success in taking these people out of the "community", but why can't the spread be controled at the entrance rather than at the exit?

"...but why can't the spread be controled at the entrance rather than at the exit?"

Since you asked... just get a Mac and give Windows the boot.  :)

I hope youre not trying to say the Mac is immune?  Possibly the real issue is there just aren't enough of them out there for these freaks to get their jolly's.  Keep in mind, terrorism only works if enough people are afraid.  Besides, cross platform has always been tricky, they would rather work on the next release than hack a new OS.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/03/23.4.shtml

http://www.securemac.com/

Did anyone ever consider the fact that is antivirus products were totally successfull then the revenue for all thoses companies plying anti virus solutions would dry up. It's always bothered me that the very ppl minding the store have a vested intrest in the store being robbed now and again.