Why Antivirus Software sucks

[Mercutio]

Talk amongst yourselves.

 

[Handruin]

This isn’t surprising news. This is more or less the same argument that no matter what type of security device or measure you put on your car, someone will find a way to steal it. You can change “car” for many different things in this world and it still applies.

You could venture into the realm of computer users (or drivers for a car) and then think about who the devices protect against. The bottom line is that these tools have always been a band-aid for the real solution…increasing computer knowledge in the user. There are circumstances out of the user’s control, but you could reduce a ton of infected computers with better knowledge.

 

[P5-133XL]

They have a good point!

Though, I'm not sure of the value of running multiple different AV programs. Not for their reasons, but simply performance and incompatibility. AV programs have historicly been very incompatible with each other and even causing problems with other programs: There's good reason that many programs recomend that you disable AV's during installs. Then there is profromance issues, with each program examining file data during reads/writes/opens etc. At some point, the dragg on the I/O subsystem really starts dragging down the performance of the entire machine.

 

[Buck]

Although Eset does not recommend it, I have found NOD32 to be compatible with many existing anti-virus programs. On the other hand, Kaspersky has caused Windows to blue-screen on me when combined with McAfee (Kaspersky and NOD32 has worked).

 

[Tannin]

I can attest to the non-effectiveness of Norton. Yes, we see infected machines running other AV programs, including Mcafee and Trend, but Norton is by far the least useful.

 

[MaxBurn]

Goes along the same lines as the reason why there isn't a heck of a lot of bugs for apple or linux I guess, they target the biggest markets.

 

[Tannin]

That's only part of the answer, Max. The other part of the answer is that the virus-ridden products (NAV & Windows) are both designed by companies which are obsessed with appearance and flashy gimmicks to the exclusion of genuine technical achievement.

It saddens me to observe that this (obsession with looks to the detriment of real quality) seems to be a sure-fire way to achieve maximum market penetration. It makes a very disturbing commentary on the modern-day consumer's ability to think - or more to the point, not to think.

 

[Santilli]

Ok:
Kapersky, or NOD32?
Greg

 

[Will Rickards]

NOD32

 

[Mercutio]

Kapersky

 

[LOST6200]

Can any of those prgrams be set to scan only the websites and downloads? I hat e all those programs that try to scan files all the item and detroy the cpu and hard drive usage perfromesnce. My notebook for work is totally useles for this rason.

 

[Santilli]

What are the advantages, or disadvantages of Nod32 vs. Kapersky?
Greg

 

[Will Rickards]

Can any of those prgrams be set to scan only the websites and downloads?

I believe NOD32 can do this as they are independent modules that can be disabled/enabled. Download the trial and see.

 

[ddrueding]

For my clients I use NOD32. For me? Nothing at all.

 

[Buck]

For me and my clients: NOD32. Kaspersky tends to take an obvious hit on your resources, NOD32 does not.

 

[Bozo]

What's the consensus on AVG??

Bozo :joker:

 

[paugie]

I use AVG free edition myself and install it or recommend it to all my friends/clients. Easy to use and have had no complaints at all.
Glad to know it's not on the list of "test-against" software.

 

[Tannin]

I agree with Paugie: AVG is very good for a free product, and not half bad by paid-for standards.