Which antivirus is best for win7

ciphernemo said:

Virus Bulletin (Virus Bulletin : VB100 award and logo) runs "in the wild" detection tests on many over many years. It's a third-party, non-biased reviewer of anti-virus software and news source for anti-virus and security development. Here's each big name anti-virus developer exposed, for their successful passes, failures, and refusals to submit for testing. Let the results tell you who's the best, not the hype:

• Avast by Alwil: 30 Success / 23 Failure / 11 No Entry (most recent failure: 12/2008)
• AVG by Grisoft: 27 Success / 22 Failure / 15 No Entry (most recent failure: 6/2007)
• NOD32 by ESET: 56 Success / 3 Failure / 5 No Entry (most recent failure: April 2002)
• Kaspersky: 47 Success / 17 Failure / 0 No Entry (most recent failure: 10/2008)
• OneCare by Microsoft: 5 Success / 1 Failure / 58 No Entry (newer product so not many entries, most recent failure: 02/2007)
• Endpoint/Norton by Symantec: 50 Success / 6 Failure / 8 No Entry (most recent failure: 9/1999)

Symantec and ESET are clearly leaders in detection in the wilds, and ESET is a leader in performance and small footprint. Symantec is bloated in comparison, but Symantec offers very advanced administration/deployment tools, making it favored by large corporations and organizations.

ESET's products are still the best mix of performance and detection. If you want the absolute most solid protection of all, Symantec is still a leader here, but that comes at a cost.

If you want free for Windows 7, obviously what Microsoft has is a better choice, but AVG and Avast are somewhat worthwhile for free protection, though clearly not the best.

But don't take my word for all of this. Go review them yourself on VB100 and others sites and you'll see which ones truly shine. Still, no AV package is going to be impenertrable and keep your system protected if your system is already compromised.

Did your antivirus software ever detected any unknown virus? Because if not, well we must consider the choice to skip the unknown virus detection comparison and use only known database.

John Henry said:

Did your antivirus software ever detected any unknown virus? Because if not, well we must consider the choice to skip the unknown virus detection comparison and use only known database.

It's a sign of how powerful/robust an anti-virus engine is. All new viruses are either brand new exploits/malware or different variations of an existing virus. Anti-virus software works on two principles: 1.) heuristics to compare files to known signatures, and 2.) detection of virus-like behavior, known as "detection in the wild", when viruses don't match the database.

Along side of this, there is the problem of "false positives". Those plague most users because something might look like a virus to the anti-virus software, when it fact it is harmless. Symantec is notorious for many false positives, while NOD32 is much better at this.

If you just wanted to protect your system on known viruses, any virus software out there will work, because every company updates their virus databases (aka: signature files). But if you want robust protection in case you happen to get hit at the forefront of a new virus, you'll want to invest in a package from Symantec or ESET. And from a user's perspective, ESET is going to be less intrusive and take up less resources on your system than Symantec, not to mention less expensive too!

There is a huge difference when you talk about the maturity of an anti-virus engines' AI. Symatec, ESET, Microsoft, and Kaspersky are fairly mature and robust now. Grisoft and Alwil are not. But each is doomed to human error at one point or another, because people are imperfect, and developers are people. :)

ciphernemo said:

It's a sign of how powerful/robust an anti-virus engine is. All new viruses are either brand new exploits/malware or different variations of an existing virus. Anti-virus software works on two principles: 1.) heuristics to compare files to known signatures, and 2.) detection of virus-like behavior, known as "detection in the wild", when viruses don't match the database.

Along side of this, there is the problem of "false positives". Those plague most users because something might look like a virus to the anti-virus software, when it fact it is harmless. Symantec is notorious for many false positives, while NOD32 is much better at this.

If you just wanted to protect your system on known viruses, any virus software out there will work, because every company updates their virus databases (aka: signature files). But if you want robust protection in case you happen to get hit at the forefront of a new virus, you'll want to invest in a package from Symantec or ESET. And from a user's perspective, ESET is going to be less intrusive and take up less resources on your system than Symantec, not to mention less expensive too!

There is a huge difference when you talk about the maturity of an anti-virus engines' AI. Symatec, ESET, Microsoft, and Kaspersky are fairly mature and robust now. Grisoft and Alwil are not. But each is doomed to human error at one point or another, because people are imperfect, and developers are people. :)

Completelly agree with ya, but i found this:

John Henry said:

Completelly agree with ya, but i found this:

Nice find. Where was that from? Any ways, malware is covering more than just viruses, but it's also extremely important if you're not running separate anti-malware software.

ciphernemo said:

Nice find. Where was that from? Any ways, malware is covering more than just viruses, but it's also extremely important if you're not running separate anti-malware software.

Retrospective/Proactive Test May 2009 .

You didn't post the results from that which are more telling. Note who's on top, ESET, Kaspersky, and Microsoft for the latest test in May of 2009:




And for the test they conducted earlier, ESET, Kaspersky, and Symantec were on top with the Advanced+ rating.

i'm not using any kind of antivirus solution since 2003...

Now i've decided install this Microsoft Security Essentials and let's see if really woth it...