Go Back   TechArena Community > ARENA > Guides & Tutorials
Become a Member!
Forgot your username/password?
Tags Active Topics RSS Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 04-08-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,323
Which is the best anti-virus software?

It is a question that is often raised in the forum and discussions are often very lively.

Some believe that the best anti-virus are as below:

AVAST

AVG

Bit Defender

Nod 32

Kaspersky

The list is much longer on other anti-virus, they represent only a sample of the best known in the computer market. But honestly speaking it is not possible for an individual to compare all anti-virus simply because lack of time and resources. It would need thousands of viruses to test the efficiency in the detection and elimination of malware. Let us take a look at their report to determine which to choose.

Testing of antivirus software for the detection of polymorphic viruses

Polymorphic malicious programs (also referred to as viruses) are completely capable of mutating with every new infection, generating multiple samples of themselves.

When scanning files on a computer using the traditional method, antivirus products search for specific traces of a virus - a signature. If the code of a virus that has been assigned a signature is modified, it will no longer be possible to detect it using that signature. A polymorphic virus is capable of performing such modifications to any of its parts.

As a rule, detecting polymorphic viruses makes use of a detection algorithm that is specially developed for each individual virus. The aim of this test is to assess the quality of the special algorithm function in various antivirus products.

Moreover, because polymorphic viruses are the most difficult viruses to detect, the ability to do so reflects the level of professionalism of an antivirus product's developers. They not only have to analyze the complex variants of the viruses but also develop a reliable procedure and methodology to ensure 100% detection rates.

The following is the test results:
  • Excellent Safety
    Avira Antivir Personal Edition Classic 7.06 (31 out of 33 points)
    F-Secure Anti-Virus 2008 (31 out of 33)
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 (31 out of 33)

  • Medium Safety
    Avast Professional Edition 4.7 (25 out of 33)
    AVG Anti-Virus Professional Edition 7.5 (22 out of 33)
    Doctor Web 4.44 (21 out of 33)
    ESET Nod32 Antivirus 3.0 (20 out of 33)

  • Less Safety
    Microsoft Windows Live OneCare 2.0 Pre-Release (19 out of 33)
    Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2008 (18 out of 33)
    Symantec Anti-Virus 2008 (17 out of 33)
    BitDefender Anti-Virus 2008 (16 out of 33)
    Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008 (15 out of 33)
    Sophos Anti-Virus 7.0 (14 out of 33)
    Panda Antivirus 2008 (14 out of 33)
    None VBA32 Workstation 3.12.6 (14 out of 33)

  • Poor Safety
    McAfee VirusScan 2008 (11 out of 33)

Testing of antivirus / anti-rootkit software for the detection and removal of rootkits

It has become increasingly popular for virus writers to make use of rootkit technologies. The reason for this is obvious – they make it possible to hide malicious programs and their components from PC users and antivirus programs. Numerous source codes for ready-made rootkits can be found on the Internet, which inevitably leads to their widespread use in various Trojans or spy programs (spyware/adware, keyloggers, etc.).

There are numerous specialized anti-rootkit products available for the detection and removal of these types of malicious programs. Furthermore, many antivirus developers state that their products include a function to detect active rootkits. The aim of this test is to evaluate the ability of the most popular antivirus and anti-rootkit products to detect and remove malicious programs that use rootkit technologies and actively circulate over the Internet, as well as checking proactive detection capabilities to detect proof-of-concept rootkits hidden on a system.

It should be noted that although testing of malware samples is of real practical use, there is also a great deal of research value in ascertaining the capabilities of proactive detection when combating the hidden threat of rootkits.

Summary of anti-rootkit testing results:
  • Excellent Safety
    Rootkit Unhooker 3.7 (7.5 out of 8 points)
    GMER 1.0 (7 out of 8)
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 (6.5 out of 8)
    Avira Rootkit Detection 1.0 (6.5 out of 8)

  • Medium Safety
    AVG Anti-Rootkit 1.1 (5.5 out of 8)
    Panda AntiRootkit 1.08 (5.5 out of 8)
    Sophos Anti-Rootkit 1.3.1 (5.5 out of 8)
    Dr.Web 4.44 (5 out of 8)
    Trend Micro RootkitBuster 1. (5 out of 8)

  • Less Safety
    Symantec Anti-Virus 2008 (4.5 out of 8)
    F-Secure Anti-Virus 2008 (4 out of 8)
    McAfee Rootkit Detective 1.1 (3.5 out of 8)

  • Poor Safety
    BitDefender Antivirus 2008 (3 out of 8)
    McAfee VirusScan Plus 2008 (1.5 out of 8)
    ESET NOD32 Anti-Virus 3.0 (1 out of 8)
    Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2008 (1 out of 8)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,323
Testing of proactive antivirus protection

The proactive methods of antivirus protection allows anti-virus software to combat malicious programs that have undergone changes and those that are as yet unknown. This development trend is the most promising on the market and almost every developer likes to emphasize just how good their proactive defense is.

The concept of proactive protection is, of course, extremely attractive: a virus hasn’t even appeared and already there is protection against it. But the question arises as to just how effective these technologies are. The results of the test make it possible to say how effective a heuristic analyzer is and in which antivirus product this component performs the best.

The following is the test results:
  • Excellent Safety
    Avira AntiVir Personal Edition Premium 7.0 (71%)
    BitDefender Antivirus 2008 (65%)

  • Medium Safety
    ESET NOD32 Anti-Virus 3.0 (59%)
    Dr.Web 4.44 (57%)
    Sophos Anti-Virus 7.0 (56%)
    Avast! Professional Edition 4.7 (52%)
    None VBA32 Antivirus 3.12 (48%)
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 (45%)
    McAfee VirusScan Plus 2008 (43%)

  • Less Safety
    Symantec Anti-Virus 2008 (38%)
    AVG Anti-Virus Professional Edition 7.5 (37%)
    F-Secure Anti-Virus 2008 (36%)
    Trend Micro Antivirus plus Antispyware 2008 (30%)
    Panda Antivirus 2008 (20%)

  • Poor Safety
    Agnitum Outpost Security Suite 2008 (12%)

Testing of antiviruses for the treatment of active infections

The antivirus industry of today devotes much effort in preventing virus infections. Various proactive technologies are developed and tested, new threat response times decrease, and detection rates increase. At the same time, the rate at which new kinds of and modifications to malicious programs appear is also rapidly increasing. As a result, no antivirus vendor can guarantee 100% protection to users. Malware infections are still quite common, and very few Internet users have not dealt with a virus at least once.

To make matters worse, virus writers keep perfecting their software. Some malicious programs are very hard to remove from the computer, because they use various methods to mask their presence in the system (including via rootkits) and to avoid detection and removal by antivirus programs.

What can be done if a computer is infected? Will an existing antivirus product cope with the problem or will it be necessary to install a competitor’s product?
Most of the users will think in this manner and will continuously fetch for the solutions till the time they get rid of it.

The following is the test results:
  • Excellent Safety
    Dr.Web Anti-Virus 4.44 Beta (82%)

  • Medium Safety
    Kaspersky Anti-Virus 7.0 (71%)
    Symantec Norton AntiVirus 2007 (71%)

  • Less Safety
    Panda Antivirus 2008 (59%)
    Avast! Professional Edition 4.7.1029 (53%)
    AVG Anti-Virus 7.5 (47%)

  • Poor Safety
    McAfee VirusScan 2007 (29%)
    Trend Micro Internet Security 2007 (29%)
    Avira AntiVir PE Premium 7.0 (24%)
    F-Secure Anti-Virus 2007 7.0 (18%)
    Eset NOD32 Antivirus 2.7 (18%)
    Sophos Anti-Virus 6.5 (18%)
    Dr.Web Anti-Virus 4.33 (12%)
    BitDefender 10 (6%)
    None VBA32 Antivirus 3.12 (6%)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-08-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,323
Overall results of the self-protection test, Total points and % of maximum points
  • Kaspersky Internet Security 7.0

  • VBA32 Antivirus 3.11
  • Symantec Internet Security 2007
  • F-Secure Internet Security 2007

  • ZoneAlarm Internet Security 7.0
  • Panda Internet Security 2007
  • McAfee Internet Security 2007
  • Eset Smart Security 3.0
  • Trend Micro PC-Cillin 2007

  • Avast! Professional Edition 4.7
  • Avira Premium Security Suite 7.0
  • Sophos Anti-Virus 6.5
  • DrWeb 4.44 Beta
  • Microsoft Windows Live OneCare 1.6
  • BitDefender Internet Security 10

Lime = Excellent Safety; YellowGreen = Medium Safety; Orange = Less Safety; Red = Poor Safety

Conclusion

If we had to take a decision, anti-virus that I would choose is Kaspersky, because it is able to maintain its top position in almost all tests.

So, after seeing this, according to you which is the anti-virus software more reliable?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-08-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2
Kind of a silly question. Kind of like asking a mechanic "what wrench is the best?"

Best live email scanner?
Best manager of multiple email accounts?
Best live html scanner?
Best hard disk/registry/memory scanner?
Best recovery from infection?

Personally I think the best AV scanner for an infected machine is as follows
hijack log, Deckard's log of infected machine
BartPE
at least five or six different AV scanners (or as many as fit on the CD), and today's updates for them
all the specialized tools you can find for stuff reported in the logs
download the software and compile the disk the day you need it
boot with it, and scan merrily away.

I'd bet on this disk against ANY single scanner ON the infected machine.

but this isn't a LIVE scanner by any means...
my "best" live scanner includes..
A hardware firewall/router
Firefox with NoScript and other anti-malware features
A high tolerance for clicking on "ok".
All remote-control and remote-administration Windows features disabled.
Browsing as rights-limited user

so for me the best live scanner is the one that best deals with what slips through my net, not necessarily the best one for an exposed, all-features-enabled WinXP machine on a high-speed fixed IP.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  TechArena Community > ARENA > Guides & Tutorials
Tags: ,



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads for: "Which is the best anti-virus software?"
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unable to install Panda Global protection 2012 Anti Virus due to Microsoft Anti Virus Macon Networking & Security 5 04-02-2012 07:18 PM
Virus on computer won't let me install any anti-virus software ashleylg Networking & Security 2 18-11-2011 03:29 AM
Can't download Anti-Virus Software dmv113 Windows Software 3 31-03-2011 02:30 PM
Anti-Virus software is not opening Ojibwe Networking & Security 5 04-09-2010 12:33 PM
Importance Of Anti-virus Software Raman1 Networking & Security 4 14-01-2009 07:21 PM


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 09:39 AM.