Is free AVG anti-virus good or what?

[ishmael]

This baby seems like it's on watch. Every morning it upgrades and runs a scan. How good is it? Some mornings it's downloading hundreds of kilobytes of new stuff, but most its just a handful. And speaking of free, my Spybot has developed a problem. I can't download all the new searches it recommends.

[Billy Bones]

You're not alone with spybot. It hasn't worked right for me for months.

Ad-Aware still purrs like a kitten, though, and catches the nasties like a champ.

[Norman Bernstein]

Unfortunately, when it comes to the world of software, 'free' translates into 'inferior' (not always, though... I regularly use some terrific free stuff).

I've been in business for myself for 13 years, and for the first 6 or 7 of those years, I was occasionally plagued by various virus problems (my work requires constant net connection).

I eventually saw the light, and started using the Norton group of virus/firewall/anti-spam protection... which I pay for, and regularly update and re-subscribe.

Since I started doing that, I have NEVER had a virus problem of any kind... and tests using www.grc.com (http://www.grc.com) show that I'm completely protected. What's more, the anti-spam capabilities of the latest Norton stuff are quite good.

Furthermore, the Norton Utilities are pretty good... especially the 'cleanup' stuff, which resolves broken links and invalid registry keys.

In short, if you want to be totally protected, it's something worth paying for!

[ 12-08-2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Gary E]

I have used AVG for over 3 yrs... NEVER got a virus, and it isolated and removed a few that tried to get in.

[High C]

Jack, I work on lots of virus plaugued machines, and have seen, many times, viruses that Norton failed to catch that AVG found. MANY times.

Furthermore, the Norton products consume tremendous levels of system resources, noticably slowing down even a new, state of the art machine. Any machine will run faster with AVG instead of Norton.

AVG, BTW, is not a "freebie". It's from a company (Grisoft) which sells primarily to network and enterprise users, and offers a very slightly stripped down free version for home users as a way to spread awareness of their product.

Spybot usually works great, but lately has had problems with their update servers, as you've noticed. Excessive demand, perhaps? I've seen Norton, and even Microsoft, go through similar periods where the demand for downloads exceeded their capacity. It usually works itself out pretty soon.

[Tar Devil]

Originally I used a shareware AV (can't remember which one) which kept my machine clean. Bowing to the barrage of suggestions from newspapers, magazines, etc., I bought and installed the Norton suite.

What a lousy job.

I now use a package supplied by my ISP and it works much, much better than Norton.

Later,

Phil

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by ishmael:
This baby seems like it's on watch. Every morning it upgrades and runs a scan. How good is it? Some mornings it's downloading hundreds of kilobytes of new stuff, but most its just a handful. And speaking of free, my Spybot has developed a problem. I can't download all the new searches it recommends.Here we go again
"This week's Wintel Problem" :rolleyes:

Ish If your not going to get a Mac at least go Linux.
Look all the cool kids are doing it (http://www.woodenboat-ubb.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=027943)

Oh by the way HiC What's a virus? I never heard of one ;) :D :D

[ 12-08-2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ):
...Oh by the way HiC What's a virus? I never heard of one ;) :D :D That's something we popular boys get from bad girls if we're not careful. tongue.gif

[clancy]

The thing I hate about Norton is the way it integrates itself into every application you have. If I try to open MS Word I have to wait for a virus scan. The same thing happens with Excel.

[Norman Bernstein]

Jack, I work on lots of virus plaugued machines, and have seen, many times, viruses that Norton failed to catch that AVG found. MANY times.
This is interesting, because I know of a number of people, including my own wife!, who hates Norton.

I honestly don't understand it, because in the past 6-7 years I've been using it, I've observed the following:

1) I have NEVER had ANY sort of virus, trojan, worm, etc, in all this time. Not once.

2) When I update Norton (which I do manually, rather than via a schedule), I have NEVER had a problem getting immediate updates without delay... their server has NEVER had a noticeable slowdown.

3) Based on looking at resources, I don't see any degredation of performance at all. Maybe it has to do with selected options?

I am NOT trying to say that Norton is in any way superior, btw.... I'm sure there are plenty of other fine AV products in the marketplace... all I'm saying here is that Norton has, in at least MY experience, worked perfectly, and I define 'perfectly' as NEVER missing a virus whatsoever.

[Norman Bernstein]

The thing I hate about Norton is the way it integrates itself into every application you have. If I try to open MS Word I have to wait for a virus scan. The same thing happens with Excel. Computer speed dependence, perhaps?

I'm currently runnning a Pentium D (dual core), 2.8GHz, 1Gb RAM... and the brief delay while Norton does a quick scan for viruses when opening an MS application is just that... VERY brief.

Since I'm constantly downloading MS documents from my clients, I frankly appreciate it!

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

FWIW ;)


Every time a new Windows virus hits the news (and the PCs), Mac users smugly go about their business and crow about how there's "hardly any" viruses for the Mac as opposed to the "thousands" of Windows-based viruses...but are often at a loss to pinpoint the exact evidence to support their claims. Supposedly, "everyone knows" that Macs have fewer viruses, but just how few has always been a bit of a mystery. In light of this, I decided to run a quick check on the exact numbers involved.

My source? Network Associates (NA), sellers of the McAfee and Virex antivirus products, and one of the leading names in computer virus/anti-virus/security software alongside Symantec and the oft-quoted Sophos PLC.

I kept my search fairly simple--this is just idle curiosity, not a paid research project, after all--but as logical as I could:

1. I went to NA's Virus Information Library

2. According to this site, "More than 71,000 virus threats exist today. The McAfee AVERT Virus Information Library has detailed information on where viruses come from, how they infect your system, and how to remove them."

OK, fair enough. I'm not going to look up all 71,000, but that's pretty specific...I'll take their word for it.

3. Next, I ran an advanced search using simply "Macintosh" as my criteria.

This kicked back a total of 612 virus listings.

4. Next, I subtracted out a couple dozen "Hoaxes"...hoaxes are not viruses, these are exactly what the name implies--phantom "chain-mail" style myths which perpetually circle the globe like the Flying Dutchman or the Wandering Jew, never settling down due to shmoes who keep forwarding them to their family & friends (with the best of intentions and the most annoying of results). Hoaxes are basically unintentional spam mail--annoying but not really dangerous, and there's so much actual spam out there nowadays that they've pretty much been buried by it. This brings the total down to 580.

5. I also deleted one which got listed only because the description stated that the virus does NOT affect Macintosh systems...the Boolean search threw it into the mix. Total: 579.

Before we go any further, note that we're already down to less than 1% of the total...even though Macs make up about 5% of the total INSTALLED BASE of computers worldwide (this is how many are IN USE, NOT how many are being sold each quarter/year, which is what "market share" means), depending on your source.

6. This is where things start to get very interesting. You see, out of those 579 total viruses which affect some versions of the Mac operating system, you'll notice that the vast majority of their names start with a WM/ or XM/. I checked these out, and sure enough, this means that they're a Macro virus which runs exclusively on some versions of--you guessed it--Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel (there are a few Word/Excel Macro viruses which don't have WM/ or XM/ in their names as well). In fact, over 95% of these so-called "Mac" viruses are actually directly made possible by Microsoft software. If you take these out of the equation, which seems reasonable to me since there are solid alternatives on the Mac to Word and Excel, just as there are alternatives to Windows itself, you're left with the following number of viruses that affect the Mac and can't be blamed on Microsoft in any way, shape or form: 26.

Yes, that’s right: 26 out of a total of over 71,000.

However, I've left out one of the most important factors here: All 26 of these, along with the other 553 Word/Excel Macro viruses, were designed for the OLDER versions of the Mac OS (and the older versions of Word/Excel, to be fair). None of this has anything to do with Mac OS X, which is the relevant system to look at.

If you remove the viruses which don't affect OS X, you know what you're left with--at least, as of this writing, and to the best of my knowledge?

Zero. None. Zip. Zilch. http://www.macobserver.com/editorial/2003/08/29.1.shtml

[Norman Bernstein]

Here we go again
"This week's Wintel Problem" Before you MAC and Linux fans get too fat-headed, you should realize that the reason you enjoy far better immunity to viruses, trojans, etc, is at least partially due to the 'market share' phenomenon: with 95% of the desktops, Windows is a vastly bigger target of opportunity, and a hacker intent on mischeif is a lot more likely to go after the biggest target of opportunity.

While it may be true that OS-X and Linux have better intrinsic protection against intruders, it would be foolhardy to think that they are entirely immune.

That same sort of thinking is what got Microshaft in so much trouble, with Windows!

[Norman Bernstein]

Looks like we simultaneously posted, joe...

your review was interesting... and impressive.

However, you don't REALLY think that the MAC OS-X is absolutely, unequivocally, and forever immune to hacker attack, do ya? :D

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
Looks like we simultaneously posted, joe...

your review was interesting... and impressive.

However, you don't REALLY think that the MAC OS-X is absolutely, unequivocally, and forever immune to hacker attack, do ya? :D A few final notes:

--Yes, Apple has had the occasional security issue update for OS X, but a security issue isn't the same thing as a virus--it's a potential, theoretical threat. Besides, any time Apple has released a security update, it's been a quick, quiet, simple install with no muss, no fuss, and no worsening of the original problem (again, to my knowledge).

--Yes, it can also be argued that just as the majority of Mac viruses can't be counted against OS X, so too the majority of Windows viruses may very well not affect Windows XP. To this I have two responses: 1) if you feel like digging into each and every one of those 70,974 virus descriptions to see which versions of Windows they do or don't affect, be my guest, because I don't have THAT much free time; and 2) even assuming that 90% of them don't affect XP, that would still leave a ratio of 7,100 to 0...and 7,100 is still infinitely more than none.

--Getting back to the original question of why there are so few viruses for the Mac, my response is simple: Does it really matter? Let's assume that the naysayers are correct, that the only reason is because "no one bothers" to crack into the Mac OS. Even if this is the case (which I doubt)...SO WHAT? If I live in a neighborhood with an extremely low crime rate, I really don't care WHY the burglars stay away. Maybe I have good locks on my doors. Maybe they don't like the stuff in my house. Bottom line, Ill still sleep better at night.

--Finally, yes, there's always the possibility of a nasty OS X virus someday--that's why Apple includes Virex with their .Mac accounts, and that's why the company issues the occasional security update. OS X is not 100% immune to nasty problems (as anyone who lost their hard drive during the iTunes 2 debacle can tell you). No operating system is.

Also, the argument keeps being made by some anti-Mac partizans that "if Macs had 90% of the market, they'd have just as many virus problems as Windows does," as if this justifies Microsoft's sloppy coding. Well, you know what? Maybe that's true; I doubt it, but perhaps it is. The day that Apple has a 90% market share and is plagued with viruses, I'll be more than happy to admit that I was wrong.

Somehow, I don't see either of those things happening anytime soon, but I can wait if you can.

[Norman Bernstein]

To this I have two responses: 1) if you feel like digging into each and every one of those 70,974 virus descriptions to see which versions of Windows they do or don't affect, be my guest, because I don't have THAT much free time; and 2) even assuming that 90% of them don't affect XP, that would still leave a ratio of 7,100 to 0...and 7,100 is still infinitely more than none. Sorry, Joe, but that's a ludicrous proposition. NOBODY (with the exception of the hackers themselves, or bilge rats trying to prove a point) looks at those lists. What they do is to invest in a good AV program. That's what the AV companies are there for. It doesn't matter HOW many thousands of Windows viruses there are out there... if the combination of decent AV program protection, and frequent Windows updates (which are even MORE important) keeps them at bay, then it's a non issue.

I'd agree that casual computer users shouldn't have to deal with worrying about hacker attacks... but the notion that Windows XP is 'plagued' with the problem is a distortion... the solutions DO exist, and they DO work... no fuss, no muss.


Also, the argument keeps being made by some anti-Mac partizans that "if Macs had 90% of the market, they'd have just as many virus problems as Windows does," as if this justifies Microsoft's sloppy coding. I'm not in the least bit an anti-Mac partisan (in fact, until 1992 or so, I was an equal MAC/Windows user)... and I don't make that argument at all. SOME of the apparent virus immunity in Macs is a consequence of good coding... and a lot of it is lower visibility to hackers.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Hey Norman whatever works for you. ;)

See ya at the next "Weekly Wintel Problem Thread" :D

[Meerkat]

I don't have viruses and never have. I don't pay for anti-virus software since I think it's a big scam.

I DO use a good, freeware, firewall though: Tiny Personal Firewall, version 1.5 (later versions are trialware/feeware). I also do not allow arbitrary scripts, Active-X controls and their ilk or other executables to run in browsers or email programs. I rarely download executables unless I'm confidant as to the author and source of the download.

I get some adware, mostly in the form of cookies. Cookies can't be the source of viruses since they're never run as programs. Adware and Spybot take care of those.

So far, so good...

[High C]

Meer, if you really don't run AV software, how do you know whether or not there are viruses on your machine?

While your operating practices may have protected you from executing any potential viruses, it doesn't mean you haven't downloaded some without knowing it.

Perhaps you run online scans from time to time?

If you really are going nekkid, the chances that there are indeed viruses on your 'puter are very high. Granted, you may not have executed them, but they're likely there.

[Sea Frog]

I have AVG, it updates every day, and my puter is in agony. ;)

[Norman Bernstein]

I have AVG, it updates every day, and my puter is in agony. Put it out of it's misery... they shoot horses, don't they? :D

[Gary E]

My AVG scan sez no virus...

But the Sygate Firewall keeps telling me these 2 things...

..1..
ntoskrnl.exe
has been BLOCKED from accessing the network

(that's N T O S K R N L.... the lowere case r and n together look to much like a "m" to me. Old eyes I guess. THis dam thing just pops up on my screen to often, if it werent a new monitor, I'd play whackamole wid it...

i did a google search on that and it seems that XP must have that or it wont run.

So what's the story here?

..2..
Generic Host Process For Win32 Services (svchost.exe) has been BLOCKED from accessing the network.

same question... and is there a fix for this crap?

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by High C:
Meer, if you really don't run AV software, how do you know whether or not there are viruses on your machine?

My firewall would tell me if any programs tried to get in or out - and it does! Everytime I upgrade a program, the firewall warns me and asks if this is an acceptable upgrade. I also get "foreign" machines trying to connect to random ports (oh, like the port for MsSQL, a known vulnerability). I just make a rule (click on "reject this access permanently") and that's the end of that! Of course, I don't run MsSQL! ;)

It's possible that there are viruses on my machine, but they aren't getting anywhere if there are! I'm pretty confident that there are not...

There is one irk that I'm not going to mention - no sense in giving the Gnome of the Hudson any more ammo! ;)

[Sea Frog]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have AVG, it updates every day, and my puter is in agony. Put it out of it's misery... they shoot horses, don't they? :D </font>[/QUOTE]Only once some biggot's puter kicks the bucket... :D

[George Jung]

I had Nortons, kept updated, still got fried. The past three years, I've used AVG and Antivir; of the two, Antivir seems the better. It catches viruses before AVG even recognizes there's a problem. Both freeware.