I don't need any anti-virus - I use Linux! Any bugs in application code is quickly fixed due to the open-source model, and even if a virus does run, and infect my machine it can do only very little damage due to Linux permissions. In fact, I want to try setting up a virtual copy of Linux then download some Windows viruses and run them on Wine to see how much damage they can do. If any. Or maybe the virus will just crash!
Microsoft Security Essentials personally, but I prefer something a bit more fully featured and intrusive when installing for people who aren't very web savvy. I find MSE a bit leaky when it comes to rogue AV and other malware that often require user manipulation to install. Kaspersky is pretty fully featured and free to Barclays customers, and Avast is very nice for a free AV.
I used to use NOD32, but for the past 18 months or so, I've been using PCTools Internet Security. It's actually very good.
I agree, this is why I don't use it. You'd be amazed the kind of systems people buy to browse the web with though There's often quite a bit of head room to run Kaspersky without affecting performance, and it's reassuringly thorough.
Use bulldog in my gaming Pc as I got a free 3yr key from them. Laptop I use trend micro also for free as I got it also through work. They are both very light on my systems and have had no hassles with either so far. Sent from my GT-I9000
Thanks guys, I'll stick with MSE for customers and myself as I have had no trouble with it and any viruses from pen drives etc has been picked up right away. Malwarebytes for malware has been good too. Although it doesnt like the PC World web site or Currys but then again who does lol!
Pretty happy with MSE. Haven't read anything too negative about it. I find it very user friendly too. Stays hidden away, not annoying etc
Avast! on my HTPC, MSE on my 2 other desktops and nothing on my Laptop (running Fedora). If I'm putting anything on a friends pc it's always MSE, usually with Norton or McAfee being removed!.
I don't use any AV software... if I ever have problems (which is extremely rare, like once per year if that) I fire up Malwarebytes and everything's good to go. AV software works best for people who regularly download hacked/dodgy software or spend a lot of time looking at teh pr0n; in my 15 years of internet browsing I have never encountered a virus anywhere else.
I think the Fake AV's are catching so many people out. They ring up and say they are infected but swear it "just happened" then you get talking to them and oh they remember clicking on the box that said would you like us to install something to fix your computer. The best ones is the "Microsoft phoned me today" - total FAIL. Its hard to tell them that MS doesnt care about them and wouldnt ring its a scam. None the less few hundred quid later and a trip to the police station and people still fall for it. Madness I tell you Catherine
That's a dangerous viewpoint - Linux may receive less attention from malware writers but it certainly does receive some attention (Linux/Unix boxes being favoured for command-and-control or spam webhosting - see this Tirqd description and removal instructions for an example of Linux/Unix-specific malware). (Edit: the latest update on the recent Linux kernel repository compromise is another example why people should remain alert, even on an alternate OS). As for the "best antivirus", AV Comparatives is probably one of the best publicly-accessible test sites - in their August 2011 comparative tests, the free AVs Avast (97.2% detection) and Avira (99.5%) were amongst the top performers. In comparison, Symantec (Norton) scored 95.1% and Microsoft's Security Essentials was third from bottom with 92.1%. Shadowserver track botnets and test AVs ability to detect the malware used - their monthly, weekly and daily stats can give a good, though not encouraging, indication of how AVs perform against "in the wild" malware. An AV alone shouldn't be considered enough - being cautious about online activities (so-called safe hex) and taking other steps to secure a system also matter, like using one of the top performing security suites listed here (these do need more expertise to use effectively though). With so much malware being distributed via hijacked webpages, web filtering (disabling Javascript, Java and ActiveX by default - only enabling them on sites you visit regularly and trust) is another important security tool - along with ad filtering since ad servers have been repeatedly used to spread malware.
But Linux is patched almost immediately when a bug is fixed, so even if there was a Unix strain of virus going around that infected my PC, the bug that it exploits will be fixed even before I use that feature! If I have the luck to be infected and left vulnerable, then I will have a slightly broken system, but because of the wonderful Linux permissions then the virus cannot do anything outside of my home folder without my password, which I do NOT give out on a whim. So yes, there is a degree of danger, but common sense eradicates that.
Almost immediately? Not always... Major Linux security glitch lets hackers in at Claranet Bug exposes eight years of Linux kernel Linux kernel purged of five-year-old root access bug That's not to say that Microsoft is any better but to assume that patches will be timely or that they alone will cure all ills is foolish.
Almost all of the anti-virus are good but i don't prefer any freeware. I mainly use Nod 32 but now eset is not supporting my version. It's really weird. As being a technical i personally believe in safe use of computer and internet then of depending upon the antivirus.
Many people use social networks like Facebook, which is well known for adverts infected with various malware like fake av etc, if you have a spritely machine, and no av you may not even know you have a virus. --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.996048,-0.411996
