Is there an antivirus that does not slow you down?

Best Anti Virus Program

The best antivirus bar none is NOD32. It is the smallest, fastest, and has won more VB 100% awards than any other. It is not the cheapest but you get what you pay for. I have used many different antivirus programs in the past. Nod32 is the best one. Get it at: http://www.nod32.com/home/home.htm

 

I have always felt a little leery of NOD. Whilst it's detection rates are indeed excellent, it often tags malware generically rather than providing a specific ID which would indicate a heavy reliance on heuristics. If this is indeed the case, NOD may be less effective than other products when it comes to disinfection.

Maybe. Maybe not. Whilst NOD invariably scores well in the VB tests, others show it to be only an average product. Take a look at the results of the University of Hamburg's testing.

BTW - welcome to the baords

 

caddellwr

You may think that The best antivirus bar none is NOD32 is the best for you ?

But would it be the best for me ?

There are way, way, too many variables involved to say any one AV ( or any other program ) is the best.

System configuration and User preferences are the two main ones.

However we can say " it is best for me. "

It may well be a good piece of software. But that in no way says it is best for everyone.

For example; I like and have had good luck with Norton. For others it either does not behave well or they just plain don't like it for some reason.

BillyBob

 

antivirus

hi; i dont really know alot about this stuff,but im using AVG 6.0 system(ver-6.0.408)it doesnt seem to slow me down.it updates atomatically,and still....no problems.you can download it and its free.....hope i was of some help. e-me if you need a link.

 

The best AV is not a program, it is YOU. I agree with several comments above. Yes Norton and McAfee hog resources and do impact performance - but they continously rank at the top for detecting and cleaning your system. So there is a trade off. But you can make things easier.

If performance is such a major factor, there are a couple things you can do.

You don't have to have AV running 100% of the time if you:

1. Have a good software firewall - I use the free version of Zone Alarm - it's config is a little clunky but it works (and I too like the idea of a separate Firewall and AV program)

2. Have a good Hardware firewall - one that uses NAT - many affordable cable/DSL routers that include NAT also support Dial-up.

3. Keep signature updates current

4. DO Scan all incoming email - If you keep your system clean, do you really need to scan "outgoing" mail?

5. DON'T EVER open email if you don't know it's source - or if it looks "funny" - you can always send a note to sender and verify intent.

6. Perform full system scans weekly.

7. Use an email checker to manage your email - I use Mailwasher - it is simply Great! It is marketed as a SPAM manager but it has other great benefits. I can preview all my mail BEFORE downloading. And if I don't like what I see in the preview - I can delete it from there. And it's free! Although it is so good, I contributed $20 to Nick. It also has user defined filters and blacklists.

If you do the above, and you are the sole user of your system, you can turn off active AV monitoring - thus freeing resources.

Also, when possible upgrade to a faster processor and put your AV on immediately - before seeing and getting used to your new speed. This way, you will not notice the speed hit and will still be happy!

 

I’m inclined to disagree with you - even though I do run without on-access protection!

User error is the most obvious area of vulnerability in any system with only on-demand protection. Example: I recently downloaded a file and, whilst I fully intended to scan it, somehow managed to (stupidly) click Open instead. If the file had been infected "¦

Performing a weekly scan really isn't particularly worthwhile ... it's akin to closing the stable door after blah, blah, blah.

Most modern computers have sufficient resources to run on-access protection without any significant impact on performance, so why be without?

 

Very good point.

It could have been a costly error on your part.

And some of the newer Viruses coming via e-mail do not need to be opened.

I also use MailWasher. This morning it found two that were Virus suspects so they got DELETED right off of the server.

I have also heeded the advice ( given to me some time ago ) and do not bounce them any longer so that I don't take the chance of sending them back to a clean machine.

BillyBob

 

I ....... do not bounce them any longer so that I don't take the chance of sending them back to a clean machine.

Not sure I understand your point about 'sending them back to a clean machine'.

I use MailWasher also and bounce everything, hoping that the 'bounce' will appear to the sender as though my email account is not active, thereby getting me off their mail list. Wishful thinking?

 

Some e-mails do not always come from where they say they do.

I may get an E-mail that says it came form you when actually it may have come from an infected machine that has your address in the address book.

So If I bounce it back it might go to you and now you may have an infected machine.

At least I THINK the above is correct.

And, I agree to the Wishfull thinking. That is about all it is. It does not always work. Because 1/2 ( or more ) of the time it does not come from where it says it does anyway.

BillyBob

 

I hadn't considered infected emails from innocent sources...my intent is (was?) to thwart spam.

Thanks for your reply.

 

doubleu , The least amount of effort you afford those unwanted messages, the better. Bouncing them tends to make things worse. They may use randomly selected return addresses as a method of further propagation and you'll become the unwitting server. Silence is golden.

I'm going to try making my e-mail address something like zzyzxmyzex (or similar) and see how much Spam I get. I expect they're gearing up as we speak.

 

Brett - I find your disagreement with my post a little puzzling. You are taking just the active monitoring statement out of context. I did not have it as a stand-alone statement. You even quoted part of my note that says it all "If you do all the above, ... ".

Perhaps I should have added that if one decides (or is inclined to forget or fat fingers inputs) and skips or misses one of my 7 items, then active monitoring should be turned on. Of course Mailwasher helps in that area too.

Let us also not forgot how this thread started and help the user out with his question. Sallam states that he has an AMD700 (probably a Duron) with XP Pro. Even with half a gig of memory, his system is stretched - not exactly modern (which is why I suggested he upgrade). Running active AV monitoring I am sure is definitely noticeable. He wanted to know if there is an antivirus program that does not slow you down? The answer, of course, is No - but some are better than others.

As far as weekly scannings, they are still necessary and here's why. Let's say you download a brand new previously unknown virus, trojan or worm. One that sits dormant on your drive until a particular date, event or keystroke combo. If you never go back after updating your signatures (that hopefully check for that new dormant bad guy), and do a complete system scan, you leave yourself exposed.

You did reiterate my opening statement ( "The best AV is not a program, it is YOU. ") rather nicely by your statement "User error is the most obvious area of vulnerability" and I thank you for that. We are all human and mistakes happen. If you follow my 7 steps EVERY time, without fail, you can disable active AV monitoring and speed up your system.

Having said that, I definitely recommend a good AV with current signatures AND follow my 7 steps, and you should be safe. I say should because there are some pretty smart bad guys out there trying their hardest to figure out how to get in and wreck havoc on your machine. The AV programs are always on the defensive playing catch-up.

later...

 

billbybob and zephyr....OK, you've convinced me. I'll disable the bounce feature in MailWasher.

 

Zephyr wrote:

Like mine!

8m5bm6xcii001@sneakemail.com

 

Bill - firstly, I do agree with your opening remark - absolutely and wholeheartedly! But:-

1) The Steps will not protect against viruses (such as Nimda) which which are able to propagate via WWW sites;

2) Step 1 of the 7 is largely irrelevant in terms of virus prevention (and, IMO, ZA's MailSafe feature is of only extremely limited value);

3) Ditto Step 2;

4) "Fat fingers" are inevitable - we all have 'em once in a while - (and Sod's Law dictates that there's a 99% probability that we'll become fat fingered at the worst possible time!) so why run the risk of an mishap which was completely avoidable?

You do, however, make a good point about the weekly scans. Sorry

 

Good AV protection is not just the user or the software. It is a COMBINATION of same. Good AV software with half of it disabled is not good protection.

And I would still like to know where the prefromace hit is when using Norton. Is it becasue it slows E-mail transfers ( both in and out ) a little ? Big Deal. NAV grabbed two for me this AM. I say that is well worth the few seconds extra.

Do you want speed or protection ? I myself put speed as the least of my concerns. If protection slows me down a little SO WHAT ? Just ONE Virus can slow you down a heck of a lot more ( and longer ) than a slight bit of loss to run the protection. And certain ones can put you out of business.

Anything that is of any assistance it stopping ( or at least slowing down ) these dam Viruses should be well worth a little system slow down if same does actually exist.

Bill

If you wish GOOD SOLID Virus protection the AV software MUST be run full time. Especially if on a Cable or DSL.

Having a hardware Firewall IS NOT enough. That will only HELP to block incomming attempts.

A software Firewall is required to control the OUT GOING. And it should also be running full time. Especially if on Cable or DSL

If either AV or Firewall is shut down all it may take is a few SECONDS ( or one e-mail ) if you FORGET to turn it back.

As to E-mail, MailWasher, AV updates etc. I agree to a point. Because if you only use Intetegent Updater ( or download the deff or what ever ) it does not keep the Firewall and AV software updated also. LiveUpdate checks all Norton Software for updates. ( even NU 2001 ).

Also one thing that many forget that is of great importance is DO NOT LEAVE File and Printer Sharing bound to TCP/IP And that is not just my wild idea either. That comes right from Symantec and others that give info on system protection.

Another thing to think about. The new Norton AV has the capability of checking MSN, AOL, and Yahoo Instant Messengers. DOES YOURS ?

Is your AV software able to check any e-mail program that you may use ? Some do and some don't.

BillyBob

 

Brett - I'll give you that Firewalls, both software and hardware, have limited value for blocking viruses coming in through the front door (email, cookies, and downloads). They are primarily for blocking hackers trying to corrupt or steal data (passwords, credit card numbers and the like) on your system through unsecure ports.

However, software firewalls can at least help in blocking the spread of viruses OUT (or maybe I'd be more accurate if I say worms or trojans) to other computers by blocking access out of unsecure ports by unauthorized programs on your system. Still a major security concern, but probably not when talking strictly viruses. The problem lies again in new (or morphed) unidentified viruses that have sneaked past your scanner - that lay in-wait to spread out across the network at a later time.

You are right about MailSafe - I don't even pay attention to that and so forgot it existed! (althought ZA Pro's version may be more robust). Mailwasher is by far better suited for that. Mailwasher allows me to preview my email (including the complete header!) BEFORE I download it. Although it does do some virus scaning, it does not pretend to be a do-all scanner and should not be relied upon for that (but I was pleased it identified klez both times someone tried to get me).

So I hope now you have updated your signatures, performed a complete system scan, and have weekly scans scheduled (I do mine at 3 am Fridays).

later...

 

software firewalls can at least help in blocking the spread of viruses OUT

I am now very confused. ( or maybe even thinking wrong ) So I ask " How can that be ? "

An e-mail program has to be ALLOWED ( permitted in my case ) to pass by the firewall. Other wise it would go nowhere.

So if the e-mail program is allowed to access the Internet it is not being blocked and will send out whatever is in the e-mail.

BillyBob

 

BillyBob - viruses, worms, etc often have their own SMTP engine (Klez and Sircam being two such examples) and so do not need to rely on a mail client to propagate. Furthermore, viruses are no longer limited to poaching addresses from the WAB; instead, a wide range of files (HTM, HTML, BAT, TXT, BAK, etc, etc, etc) are interrogated.

 

brett

OK. I am aware of that.

But as long as we are on the Internet ( or using e-mail ) the Virus ( or what ever ) has a means and an online path because we have set the Firewall to allow it.

So that being said.

I am of a strong feeling that the Firewall will not block a Virus outgoing via the e-mail program.

Having AV checking the outgoing mail should ( HOPEFULLY ) catch it. But not the Firewall.

The Firewall would need to block ALL access by e-mail.