What is a good virus scanner that doesn't consume too much?

[andyharziner]

Hello

What is a good virus scanner that doesn't consume too much memory?

 

[Gator]

Malwarebytes | Free Anti-Malware & Internet Security Software and SUPERAntiSpyware - Downloads and http://www.avast.com/en-us/index

Keep in mind, the three above aren't considered one or the other. If you need anti VIRUS, you can go with avast. Malware is different than a virus and antispyware is different than both. All should play nice together and all should pick up different "viruses"

 

[5tevie]

I'd go with Microsoft Security Essentials or MSE for short. I use the free version and I have no qualms in recommending it to all.

 

[Gator]

I'd go with Microsoft Security Essentials or MSE for short. I use the free version and I have no qualms in recommending it to all.

MSE is no longer a great option. At least not as a primary deterrent.

Goodbye Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft Now Recommends You Use a Third-Party Antivirus

 

[Layback Bear]

Gato please don't start this again. We have been all over this many times before.

Microsoft has never recommend not using MSE and to shift to a 3rd party anti virus.

It's one of those he said she said and she got it first hand for her boyfriends bartender story.

Their is no place on the web where anybody has found that Microsoft has said any such thing.

The last time I look just a few days ago Microsoft Security Essential was the second most use anti virus program in the world. Yes it's free and always has been.

The best way I can answer your question is telling you what I use. This is my opinion and others will have theirs. Please keep in mind their is no one program that is 100% sure proof. If their was we all would be using it.

1. Microsoft Security Essentials.
2. Malwarebytes Anti Malware Pro
3. Super Anti Spyware (free) on demand.

At times when I think it is needed I have several other programs that I will also run just to make sure. I download them fresh every time I want to use them.

This is Microsoft's statement. Please read.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2013/10/09/our-commitment-to-microsoft-antimalware.aspx

 

[Gator]

Gato please don't start this again. We have been all over this many times before.

Microsoft has never recommend not using MSE and to shift to a 3rd party anti virus.

It's one of those he said she said and she got it first hand for her boyfriends bartender story.

Their is no place on the web where anybody has found that Microsoft has said any such thing.

The last time I look just a few days ago Microsoft Security Essential was the second most use anti virus program in the world. Yes it's free and always has been.

The best way I can answer your question is telling you what I use. This is my opinion and others will have theirs. Please keep in mind their is no one program that is 100% sure proof. If their was we all would be using it.

1. Microsoft Security Essentials.
2. Malwarebytes Anti Malware Pro
3. Super Anti Spyware (free) on demand.

At times when I think it is needed I have several other programs that I will also run just to make sure. I download them fresh every time I want to use them.

This is Microsoft's statement. Please read.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2013/10/09/our-commitment-to-microsoft-antimalware.aspx

Layback, I would prefer a different means of you trying to tell me I'm wrong but to each his own.. However, a simple search can show that Microsoft basically says as much.

Microsoft Admits That Security Essentials Is Just a Basic Anti-Virus Product
http://lifehacker.com/microsoft-admits-that-third-party-antivirus-is-more-eff-1441135677
http://www.howtogeek.com/173291/goo...w-recommends-you-use-a-third-party-antivirus/
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/software/1303828/microsoft-security-essentials
http://www.davescomputertips.com/mi...he-heap-recommends-using-3rd-party-antivirus/

The Microsoft rep admitted, however, that Redmond previously invested a lot of money trying to make Security Essentials achieve better results in all these anti-virus tests.

"We used to have part of our team directed towards predicting test results and figuring out what might be in someone’s test. There’s always a cost to that," she said. "If they are doing that work they are not looking at those threats that are affecting our customers. We always felt that was wrong. There’s something not right about that – we’re not doing the best job for our customers."

Now it all comes down to the collaboration with partners that are supposed to provide better protection, even though Security Essentials doesn’t score well in anti-virus tests.

"We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are," Stewart said. "The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen."

If you want to suggest antivirus that is designed to be bare minimum, then by all means go ahead, but I don't feel comfortable suggesting antivirus with the goals presented as I've seen them.

 

[Layback Bear]

From post #6

Microsoft Admits That Security Essentials Is Just a Basic Anti-Virus Product
http://lifehacker.com/microsoft-admi...eff-1441135677
http://www.howtogeek.com/173291/good...rty-antivirus/
http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/softw...ity-essentials
http://www.davescomputertips.com/mic...rty-antivirus/

All these sites are from Mary told Billy who heard it from XXXXX

None of them are a statement from Microsoft.

All Microsoft stated in my opinion is their are no longer playing the game with all the testing but spend their time and money on making MSE better for their customers. They are not going to do the kids game (my daddy is stronger than your daddy).


You can find thousands of Mary heard from Joe sites.

Millions of people like MSE and millions don't we all know that.

The point I'm making is simple. When someone post that Microsoft said XXXXX then please post exactly the site where Microsoft made such a statement, not hear say.

This pretty much tell all.

"We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are," Stewart said. "The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen."

 

[andyharziner]

I just asked a friend who knows a little more than me.. though not more than many here..

Even if one rejects the authenticity of the interview. There is the fact that Microsoft Security Essentials hasn't been doing well in anti virus tests.

I think that should be taken as an admission from a MS rep that they're not doing well in the AV tests. The rep suggested they're not trying to pass the tests, but to protect their customers from the threats they're facing. That sounds like a lame way to put a positive spin on doing poorly in the tests. One doesn't need to take the MS rep's word for it though. One can simply look at the tests

13 best antivirus for PC and laptop: 2014's best antivirus for protection, best antivirus for performance, and best antivirus for value - PC Advisor
Latest AVTest.org Anti-Virus Test Results for January ? February 2014 Released

Microsoft Security Essentials doesn't seem to even be on the listing..

I notice they list AVG quite high.. but it was horribly bloated the last time I used it(a few years ago) and some google results mention it as horribly bloated. I only mention the tests to make the point re Microsoft Security Essentials.. it looks like they're still not doing well in the tests.

This article is quite fair minded. (though they're trying to excuse themselves for recommending MSE.. by saying it's ok for some.. but some can get by with even less.. it doesn't make it a good anti virus or anti malware)
Goodbye Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft Now Recommends You Use a Third-Party Antivirus
I notice it says AVAST is bloated compared to MSE.

I used NOD32 years ago, and it was slim. Though perhaps not really listed high up in tests.

 

[Gator]

Let me try to clarify a little because I still have MSE in the background. MSE is a good baseline, bottom dwellar program to keep running on your PC as its not intrusive and doesn't take up much room.

However, I do not feel comfortable recommending it to anyone as their only or even primary means of protection. It does in fact (last time I checked) perform poorly in real world tests. I am by no means the authority on this but thats what I get from my research.

Layback, the quote is from a Senior person inside Microsofts Security division and while MAYBE she was slightly taken out of context, she never refuted or said she was quoted inaccurately which tells me that MSE is in fact the bottom of the line and MSE goal now is to keep MSE current but take a more active role in helping their "partners" be as good or better.

Just my two cents..

 

[Layback Bear]

Very good observation Andy.
Did you also observe that no where did Microsoft say to use a 3rd party anti virus and not use MSE.
That is the point I'm trying to get across. Microsoft said no such thing.
One should use what anti virus the feel meets their needs.
I use to watch all those test results and I was changing anti virus very often according to the test results. Then I figured out (in my opinion) the test results would reflect the results the testers wanted. The results would change from website to website and from week to week. I like Microsoft didn't want to play the game any more so I installed MSE and have been with it for years.


Avast and Microsoft must be doing something right.

Which is the most popular antivirus software? | ZDNet

 

[andyharziner]

@Gator what lady said was it's not from microsoft.com and it's meant to be an MS rep making the claim. So she doesn't trust the legitimacy of the quote itself. All you are saying is that this site says it and that site says it, but you see those sites still aren't microsoft.com so you're not saying anything that refutes what she said.

 

[Gator]

What is the basis of that graph though? MSE comes with Windows, of course its going to have the biggest market share, just like IE. However, IE is not nearly the best browser.

 

[Gator]

@Gator what lady said was it's not from microsoft.com and it's meant to be an MS rep making the claim. So she doesn't trust the legitimacy of the quote itself. All you are saying is that this site says it and that site says it, but you see those sites still aren't microsoft.com so you're not saying anything that refutes what she said.

Layback Bear is a guy, the "lady" I'm talking about is a Senior Member at Microsoft in their security division. If you'd like to do the research on her quotes, you can do that. She was interviewed after those quotes were made public and did not say she was misquoted.

Anyway, I have no more interest in this thread. Its going nowhere fast. Good luck.

 

[Layback Bear]

MSE does not come with Windows. One must choose to download and installed it separate from installing Windows 7.

 

[Gator]

Here is a real world example, yesterday I had a friends PC that had been infected. I ran MSE, and it tells me everything is candy canes and rainbows.

I run Malwarebytes and I get 170+ infected files. I ran SuperAntiSpyware and found some others.

This is why I do not recommend MSE as primary protection. Thats the point I will leave this thread with as I've already given my suggestions in post #2.

 

[andyharziner]

@Gator OK I thought her username was ladybear and it was laybear. I didn't mix her up with the MS rep. Your suggestion(AVAST) is noted and I think you and your links look right that MSE isn't so good. (other than it being slim). I wasn't aware of the news re MSE, thanks for getting me up to date on that. And Ia gree the market share graph doesn't prove anything re effectiveness, particularly when it's MS.

@ladybear MS didn't say to use different ones that's true. I'd note though that according to the quote, it was suggested, in that the rep said the others are at least as good. The rep said "We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are" That is about as close to saying to use other anti virus or anti malware software 'cos they aren't being competitive anymore, as you are going to get.

If A is being judged by some body B. (in this case, MS by some anti virus testers) and A/Microsoft seriously believes the tests are not showing A's strengths, then the correct response, particularly by a smart company that has a product that does its job well, is to show faults with the tests. "Look here's this real world threat, your tests don't cover it, ours is the only software that does. Your approach is wrong". But if they're not trying to meet the stndards of any kind of objective tests by a neutral body, and they're just not taking it seriously, not even trying to do well in any test. Pretty much asking their competitors to do it by giving them the threat info and saying they can be at least as good as MS at it. That's MS bowing out. And it even says "Redmond previously invested a lot of money trying to make Security Essentials achieve better results in all these anti-virus tests" And now where is that money being spent? Not on Security Essentials. If it was i'd expect the rep to say so. If you read between the lines, on some of the quotes of that rep.. one could say it suggests MS is telling people to use others. It's certainly not being competitive to say others can be at least as good.
If it was great, and the tests didn't show it in its true light then the company making it would (if they had any sense and MS do), come out all guns blazing talking about flaws in the tests. (rather like a well run country might come out all guns blazing disputing a shoddy UN fact finding report!), giving an argument that can be judged on its merits. You can dispute the authenticity of the quote. You can dispute the validity of the tests. But then if that were so, MS should state the flaws in the tests. Until then, MSE is not doing good and probably deserves its poor score. (Except for the fact that it's slim! it deserves props for that).

 

[ShamrockRig]

This is my overall security procedure that i follow once every sunday.

I use AVAST! Lightweight and doesn't use many resources, Good solid protection and easy to use.

I also keep on hand, MalwareBytes, Adwcleaner, JRT, SuperAntiSpyware, RogueKiller, MalwareBytes Anti Rootkit and will run ESET online scanner perhaps every two weeks and i've never been infected since i started this routine. I highly advise anyone if they want to keep their system clean? Then follow something very similar to what i do, just my personal preference and i do have some level of OCD when it comes to keeping my computer tidy and safe, thanks

 

[UsernameIssues]

Here is a real world example, yesterday I had a friends PC that had been infected. I ran MSE, and it tells me everything is candy canes and rainbows.

I run Malwarebytes and I get 170+ infected files. I ran SuperAntiSpyware and found some others.

This is why I do not recommend MSE as primary protection. Thats the point I will leave this thread with as I've already given my suggestions in post #2.

The terminology matters when making these statements.

I'm going to venture a guess and stay that none of the files that Malwarebytes found were infected*. The files themselves were probably a type of malware that MSE ignores by choice (e.g. Conduit - which some other AV tools ignore also).

*An infected file is one that was once clean, but was modified by a virus. A virus and the files that it infects are not typically cleaned by Malwarebytes.

This is why some people suggest that you use MSE as and antivirus and Malwarebytes for other types of bad files. MSE's reputation has been discussed over and over in this forum. There is no need to rehash it here.


I'm not attempting to bait you back into the thread. I'm only suggesting that you pick your words carefully. Especially since you are job hunting. Also, the link that you put in post #2 has been discussed in many other articles. There is considerable disagreement about what Holly Stewart said.

 

[Gator]

My problem is that I keep getting taken out of context because my first post about MSE clearly states my disapproval of MSE "As a primary deterrent" which is exactly what I said. I was not aware how many times that article was discussed here as the last few years I've been focused on school and didn't come around here much so I apologize if thats the case.

To me Holly basically says we aren't the best and we aren't trying to be the best. If I'm going to suggest something, its going to be the best because I don't want to be the person who suggested the bare minimum protection and you get infected and lose your files. If I recommend MSE, its not #1, thats all I'm saying.

As far as the terminology goes... Thats mbams words.

 

[UsernameIssues]

Let me start be saying that I'm not MSE's biggest fan. And yet I still install it for some users that I support because there is no better alternative (long story).


You are correct, I ignored the "primary" part of what you said. I did notice it, but I did not know what you meant, so I ignored it. That was my error. I should have asked what you meant. So.... what did you mean by "At least not as a primary deterrent"?

Most people here say that you should not run two real-time scanning antivirus apps that the same time. So I don't think that you are saying to run AVG as the primary and MSE as the secondary. Malwarebytes claims that they are not an antivirus app and that they ignore certain groups of bad files. So, what should be the primary protection/deterrent against viruses? Can that primary app be used along side of MSE?

I'm not attempting to argue - I really don't understand your whole primary thing.


I've not researched the whole Holly thing because it won't matter what I find. People think what they want to think about MSE. The article that you quoted (and others like it) have taken on a life of their own. I'm not attempting to stop that. I can say that other articles claim that she did not say those words at all. Still other articles claim that she said something like that, but her words were taken out of context.


Infected:
During my reading/researching for this thread, I revisited places where the staff at Malwarebytes defines an infection a bad file changing a good file. They then went on to say that Malwarebytes does not handle those types of changed files. In other words, if a bad file infected shell.DLL on your computer, Malwarebytes is not going to cure it. They might detect it, but they don't try to fix it. If you saw 170 infected files being removed by Malwarebytes, then they contradict themselves in their terminology. Why do the terms matter? See this long thread.

Perhaps the terms don't matter when talking about Malwarebytes. Maybe I was thinking back to those other two threads and being too sensitive toward your use of the term infected. I was attempting to be helpful. Sorry.