Whats the Best Antivirus/ Security Suite??

[rive0108]

Wow thats a pretty overall list of things Joe, thanks I appreciate it. Although I already have SpybotS&D, and Spyware Doctor. I do registry cleaners and defrags also.. and I don't want to use something like avast or AVG becuase I don't want to use a free anti virus program, I want to pay for a nice top of the line one that will give me the best protection.. or are you saying the mix ur using is better than Kaspersky or anything of that sort..??

Thanks for ur input, but I was hoping to get some idea's or input on people that have, use, or know of whats the best thing for a Anti-virus or for a Internet Security Suite. Because thats what I'm looking for at the moment.. Thanks again..

Anyone else have some thoughts feel frreeee to Share please!

---right now I use AVAST(Download FREE antivirus software - avast! Home Edition)as recommended by member 'BRINK' here at W-V-forum and it is the BEST! and is perma FREE (for home use) once you register online with them---I have Windows firewall + defender, came with Vista-32---I have never liked Norton's at all---(my friend also never uses any a/v for 5+yrs!)

peace

The scoop on "free AV Programs" Which one is better?

Avira Antivir (Advanced)
Avast! (Advanced)
Bitdefender (Advanced)
AVG (Standard)


poor performers-Not recommended
Vipre (ineffective removal of detected malware threats)
Advanced SystemCare 3 (disables critical Windows components, low detecton rate, and high false alarms)
CyberHawk (high false Alarms)
CyberDefender (Network Dynamics aka CyberDefender Corp-Product vender known for releasing spyware/malware [eblocs/spyblocs], low detection rate)


Assuming for a moment the "free" versions offer the same Detection/scanning abilities of their more advanced full program brethren...

Avast! is ok for a free program, but is outperformed by Avira Antivir in hueristic Detection in the NOV 2008/Feb 2009 test sets. Both are better than AVG which has only managed 1-star certification (standard).

Avast! out of 3-star certification has only managed to achieve 2-star "Advanced" due to a high number of false alarms, and low detection of new and emerging malware threats.

Using reg cleaners, and so called "performance boosters" without oversight, will more often than not result in Windows corruption and possibly utimately the inability to boot. Unless you know the purpose of the registry entry the program wants to "clean", I would not use it If I were you. Reg cleaners/Utilities are gimmicks that often cannot distinguish between legitimate and unwanted registry entries. I hope you have created a Windows image, and regular data file/User folder backups, otherwise you may find yourself desperately trying to recover lost/corrupted data in the near future.

The best malware out there is not easily detectable, and is silent and deadly. Things such as loggers, rootkits, etc., Those who think they are not in need of AV products are usually those who become part of botnets, with backdoors for remote by malicious Users, and in worst cases suffer fron the "unexplained" issues of Identity theft when their passwords, Bank Accounts, and other Info is comprimised. Look around, the black market for SSN numbers, credit cards and other personal data is flourishing. Hundreds of sites, and as soon as one comes down, another goes up. Where do you think this data comes from? Hacking data networks, and personal computers is big money. Worms, and botnets with hundreds of thousands of comprised computers is also flourishing. Those without Antivirus, or poor performing AV products (includes those that are expired, with old definitions), or unpatched Windows make up the bulk of those in botnets, and whose comprimised personal data is for sale for pennies on the black market. The sad thing is most Corporations that have your credit card number and accounts use substandard Av products, or unpatched servers without AES encryption measures in effect, and while you cant do anything about that (other than not give your SSN to those who use it for "filing identification purposes": i.e., doctors, dentists, etc.,) The only ones who "need" this information are the Government, Banks, and Employers. You can at least reduce the risks (and time consuming methods involved in repairs/malware removal) by at least securing your own Computer and data- this is a must if you do online banking and shopping [and who doesnt do this?]

Note- Test results reflect Avast! Professional Edition 4.8, and AVG Antivirus 8.0
Scanning engines for the free versions are similiar, but are usually without the advanced scanning and hueristic detection abilities, and as a result offer "standard" protection compared to the full paid versions without such things as Internet shields, Network scanning, etc, things not critical to home Users.

 

[djfla]

Then if it were for false-positives the best one out there would be
Microsoft (2)
Sophos(5)
Symantec's Norton Antivirus (7) or even F-secure (7)

which had results of less false positive than ESET & Mcaffee, both with 13 false positives.

Avira received a total of 24, ranging average

rest of results:
Kapersky (14)
AVG, eScan (17)
Norman (23)
Bit Defender (25)
Trustport (27)
Avast (28)
G-data (44)
Authenticom (55)

A false positive detection does not mean your computer is infected, but the AV confused a virus for some other file in your system. This test is performed to measure a program's reliability in terms of sensitivity vs specificity, statiscally speaking. Of course false positive are not harmful to your system but it becomes a hassle if it happens often. I for one have Avira and have not gotten one false positive since I installed it in october 2008. Virus Bulletin offers false positive monthly tests which may help you see the program's performance and how you may be affected. In october 2008, Avira is reported to have 1 false positive under their testing.


BUT What is it that u want from an anti virus? I'd say the most u want is protection of course.

Avira falls #2 in Virus Detection Rate @ 99.7%
(#1GDATA @ 99.8%)

rest of results for Total Detection Rate (in %):
#3 Mcaffee - 99.1
#4 Symantec- 98.7
#5 Avast- 98.2
#6 Bit Defender, eScan - 98
#7 ESET -97.6
#8 Kapersky, Trustport - 97.1
#9 Fsecure- 93.4
10 AVG - 93
11 Sophos - 89.6
12 Command - 88.9
13 Norman - 87.1
14 Microsoft - 87.1
15 Kingsoft - 84.9

Three star ADVANCED category
Symantec, ESET, Kapersky, Mcafee
(did you know you have to pay for all of these?)

Two Star ADVANCED category
G-data*, Avira*, Avast*, Bit Defender*, eScan*, TrustPort*
(*all received lower 2 star award due to false alarm factor)

Other popular AVs:
Fsecure also received 2 stars Advanced
AVG, Sophos, Microsoft: STANDARD One Star Category
Authenticum, Norman, Kingsoft - no star
are paid for.

MOST Two Star category can be found in free versions while all Three Star category are paid for and pretty expensive IMO.

But the these test only evaluate the ANTIVIRUS PERFORMANCE...Your computer has other needs too. Thats where System Resources comes in. How much will this program you are installing affect YOU while using your computer? Which antivirus will run using very little resources so your computer's performance won't be affected. I'm sure most everyone has had the oportunity to run a Symantec Norton's AV and then uninstall it and see how much faster & responsive your computer will be. Norton is one of the AV's that will use the most resources and it also comes with a lot of extra features, you, the common/home computer user DONT NEED. I dont have a chart on which uses the least but i can tell you Avira is one of AV's available that least use up your computers resources. Which means the antivirus can start a scan with the "Luke Filewalker" and perform its job while you are using your computer doing whatever you have to be doing. Updates are done in the background and the AV can also run in the background, which are all important things to consider when evaluating ANY program you install in your computer. The better you manage how resources are used on your computer the best you increase your computer's feedback & lifespan.

Avira's free version has realtime protection and is guaranteed to offer the same protection as the Premium version. As I said before the Premium version is mostly targetted for Corporations or places that have multiple computers or need network AV coverage of sorts.. For the common/home computer user the free AV will keep you protected. Also I'd like to add that the free version comes with a nag screen when the AV is opened but this can be easily disabled without affecting the program's performance. (Instructions to disable are found here for all OS: Disable the Avira Antivir PE Classic avnotify nag screen).


Those are the test results and those are all the facts.
Then again I need not convince you or tell you my opinion.
If you want it, Avira is the best IMO.
But you are free to make your own decisions about which best Suite your needs. You can read the full reports/reviews for yourself and come to your own conclusions...

AV-Comparatives test results for February 2009
http://av-comparatives.org/images/st...c_report21.pdf

Virus Bulletin Monthly Test Results for Avira
Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Avira

Virus Bulletin VB100 Results (Pass/Fail basis for detection/false positives all AV comparison chart)
Virus Bulletin : VB100 results summary


PCWORLD Antivirus Ratings (Jan09):
Chart - Top Internet Security Suites - PC World


HAPPY HUNTING

 

[djfla]

btw, yeah best site to download Avira would be avira.com but the homesite fowards you to Download.com anyways. Plus download.com is a very popular & safe site. Great reviews are available always in Download.com, CNET.com since they test the program or gadget, respectively to write a review and have a set of established tests for each type of software, system or gadget, depending on what you are looking for. Plus you get to see user's opinion which is also very helpful to read when planning to buy or trust anything be it computer related (Download.com) or a lifestyle investment (CNET.com). At least to start your research.

Another way to know if you're placing a safe bet is doing a little bit of *extra research and entering or joining other forums. One of my favorites for computer purposes is notebookreview.com.

My final suggestion is If you want a free antivirus my bet would be with Avira Antivir. My second free choice would be Avast.
But I had it before Avira, since everyone recommends this one but for starters the Update Database announcer scared the hell out of me everytime so i made some research of my own, and found Avira. Next thing I uninstalled Avast!- substituted it with Avira, and I'm a very satisfied protected costumer.
If you want one that is paid for go with ESET.

Avira has a 5/5 star editor rating & 3.5/5 user rating in Free Software Downloads and Reviews - Download.com
And is CNET Editor's Choice for Antivirus (Apr/2009)

"Avira AntiVir should remain on top of every free antivirus users' list."
CNET Download.com 03/17/2009​

 

[djfla]

The best Antivirus available right now is Avira Antivir. It is small in size, so it wont slow down your system nor use your resources. It protects 24/7 (with Antivir Guard Activated), automated scheduled scans that run in the background slowing down your pc's perfomance minimally. In comparison with other antiviruses out there it has the best results for scans, since it gives the least false positives, antivirus database updated daily automatically. Detects virus effectively and removes them effectively as well. Best of all, its FREE. The Free edition is guaranteed as effective as the Premium edition, since the paid version is meant for company use. Check it our for yourself.. You can download from download.com.

I run it alongside SuperAntiSpyware as an Adware/Malware scanner. This I do manually as this is free. The 24/7 protection guard is paid for. But along with the AntiVir, the manual version is more than enough.

Make sure both are run every 1-3 weeks depending on how much you use the internet. Im online 24/7 almost and run them every two..

Happy Hunting

Not anymore-

It was rated Advanced+ (3-STAR CERTIFICATION in Aug 2008 testing), and the best in 2008 (Eset NOD32 3.0 took a close second). Eset NOD32 was the best in 2006 and 2007.

Avira Antivir has failed to recieve 3-star Certification in the last two AV-Comparative tests. It is only certified 2-star now [Advanced]

Avira Antivir in recent AV-Comparative Nov 2008/Feb 2009 testing dropped down to only Avanced certification (2-star) due to a high number of false alarms in a clean set [24]. Eset NOD32 recieved Advanced + (3-star) in both the Nov 2008 , and Feb 2009 testing. Avira recieved only 2-star Certification (Advanced) in both testing sets.

Only Avira Premuim was tested- Not the free edition. Certification for Avira reflects Avira Antivir Premium 8.2.0.374 [scanning engines for both versions should be similiar though, but the difference between Premium and Free versions may be reflected in the lack of real-time scanning options, advanced Hueristic detection, or in some cases Internet shields, or network options-Usually not things critical for Home Users. Free versions usually offer Real Time scanning with On-demand Scanners, but with some advanced features disabled]

The new awards (as of Feb 2009) are based on detection, and the amount of false alarms. A product that is sucessful at detecting a high percentage of malware, but suffers from false alarms may not neccessarily be a better product. False alarms (false positive detection) can result in legitimate Windows components/Programs being labled as malware, and removal/quarantine of these components can result in Corruption/instability and crashes of the system/programs. Programs with high false Alarms is on par if not worse than a program that has a low detection of malware.

AV-Comparatives Feb 2009 test results:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report21.pdf

Eset Nod32 and other 3-star Certified products [Nov-2008/Feb 2009]
note (5)-McAfee is 3-star with Artemis Only. McAfee would have acheived 1-star certification without Artemis (standard certification only)

check previous 2posts above- its my reply.. thanks for your feedback

 

[archie123]

Eset for the win

of course everyone has thier favourites and no one will change wgatever anybody says , this argument will go on and on , and false positives are not really an issue as they pose no threat to security , they are merely a minor annoyance

 

[benko286]

using NOD32(eset smart security) 4.0 and before 3.0, awesome AV :D

 

[rive0108]

The new May 2009 Hueristic/proactive/retrospective detection results are out.

Looks like Symantec Norton/Avira didnt fare too well. Only recieved 2-star certification.

 

[djfla]

The new May 2009 Hueristic/proactive/retrospective detection results are out.

Looks like Symantec Norton/Avira didnt fare too well. Only recieved 2-star certification.

Yes just saw the report, Avira still has excellent detection rate, its #1 on the list. It just has a problems with false positives. For free, I stick with Avira. Perhaps Eset * Kapersky, even Microsoft (which outperformed ESET) have 3 stars but their detection rate is lower and they are paid for. I mean if it were all failure and I did have a problem with false positives as I did with AVG I'd gladly pay if it meant to stay protected. But the truth is I'm not a hacker and i try to surf as safely as i can so I think Avira's got me covered for what I need. On the other hand those Avast trusters, just one star, sadly on the same level as AVG. Also pretty bum, to pay for a program like Symantec & Mcafee, and rely on a flat two star withheld by poor detection, that is much much worse. When I pay I like to receive a good program for the money Im investing but the truth is any antivirus can be held vulnerable specially since there's malware/viruses/trojans/adware evolving for the worst,attacking more efficiently and being less and less detectable. It needs to be said,all AVs performed poorly on this last AV-Comparatives tests. Being 69% the highest detection rate, by Avira... Its a scary world out there...

So my recomendation is no matter what your AV is, Surf Safely! Until next report, which hopefully will have better results

 

[rive0108]

Yes just saw the report, Avira still has excellent detection rate, its #1 on the list. It just has a problems with false positives. For free, I stick with Avira. Perhaps Eset * Kapersky, even Microsoft (which outperformed ESET) have 3 stars but their detection rate is lower and they are paid for. I mean if it were all failure and I did have a problem with false positives as I did with AVG I'd gladly pay if it meant to stay protected. But the truth is I'm not a hacker and i try to surf as safely as i can so I think Avira's got me covered for what I need. On the other hand those Avast trusters, just one star, sadly on the same level as AVG. Also pretty bum, to pay for a program like Symantec & Mcafee, and rely on a flat two star withheld by poor detection, that is much much worse. When I pay I like to receive a good program for the money Im investing but the truth is any antivirus can be held vulnerable specially since there's malware/viruses/trojans/adware evolving for the worst,attacking more efficiently and being less and less detectable. It needs to be said,all AVs performed poorly on this last AV-Comparatives tests. Being 69% the highest detection rate, by Avira... Its a scary world out there...

So my recomendation is no matter what your AV is, Surf Safely! Until next report, which hopefully will have better results

Keep in mind this is heuristic (proactive/retroactive) testing only, not On-Demand. It simulates the release of a new malware threat(s), for which there are no Malware definitions or existing signatures available. In reality new malware threats are constantly emerging, and so a good antivirus needs to have excellent Hueristic capabilities and minimal false alarms.

Next test is On-Demand. Hueristic testing is when they use old signature definitions for malware (i.e., 6 month old virus signatures), and then introduce "new" malware, and the program Instead of looking for specific signatures, Is forced to use heuristic scanning looking for certain instructions or commands within a program that are not found in typical application programs. As a result, a heuristic engine is able to detect potentially malicious functionality in new, previously unexamined software such as the replication mechanism of a virus, the distribution routine of a worm or the payload of a trojan.

I fear most do not understand the significance of Heuristic detection capabilities- Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take screenshots nowadays too-i.e, Spy Lantern Keylogger ), that captures your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria), or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs, etc.

It is good the Onecare did well, and with few false positives. lets see if it can do as well in On-demand Testing, and consistantly obtain Advanced+ certification.

Regarding the High detection, and high false Alarms of the other AV's
“To better evaluate the quality of the detection capabilities, the false alarm rate has to be taken into account too. A false alarm (or false positive) is when an antivirus product flags an innocent file to be infected when it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much trouble [just] like a real infection.”
Most will assume it is a legit virus, worm, trojan and let the antivirus app "clean" or remove it. This can in itself cause data/Windows/Program corruption, thus causing the same damage as if it were a real malware infection. Leading to Windows/Program Instability or crashes and damaged/corrupted data that becomes useless.


In the end, the lesson of all this is no matter how good (or bad) your AV is, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, backup your data at least on a weekly basis, and image your HDD every six months. damage isnt always caused by Malicious software, User error is just as bad and even more common.

 

[djfla]

Yes just saw the report, Avira still has excellent detection rate, its #1 on the list. It just has a problems with false positives. For free, I stick with Avira. Perhaps Eset * Kapersky, even Microsoft (which outperformed ESET) have 3 stars but their detection rate is lower and they are paid for. I mean if it were all failure and I did have a problem with false positives as I did with AVG I'd gladly pay if it meant to stay protected. But the truth is I'm not a hacker and i try to surf as safely as i can so I think Avira's got me covered for what I need. On the other hand those Avast trusters, just one star, sadly on the same level as AVG. Also pretty bum, to pay for a program like Symantec & Mcafee, and rely on a flat two star withheld by poor detection, that is much much worse. When I pay I like to receive a good program for the money Im investing but the truth is any antivirus can be held vulnerable specially since there's malware/viruses/trojans/adware evolving for the worst,attacking more efficiently and being less and less detectable. It needs to be said,all AVs performed poorly on this last AV-Comparatives tests. Being 69% the highest detection rate, by Avira... Its a scary world out there...

So my recomendation is no matter what your AV is, Surf Safely! Until next report, which hopefully will have better results

Keep in mind this is heuristic (proactive/retroactive) testing only, not On-Demand. It simulates the release of a new malware threat(s), for which there are no Malware definitions or existing signatures available. In reality new malware threats are constantly emerging, and so a good antivirus needs to have excellent Hueristic capabilities and minimal false alarms.

Next test is On-Demand. Hueristic testing is when they use old signature definitions for malware (i.e., 6 month old virus signatures), and then introduce "new" malware, and the program Instead of looking for specific signatures, Is forced to use heuristic scanning looking for certain instructions or commands within a program that are not found in typical application programs. As a result, a heuristic engine is able to detect potentially malicious functionality in new, previously unexamined software such as the replication mechanism of a virus, the distribution routine of a worm or the payload of a trojan.

I fear most do not understand the significance of Heuristic detection capabilities- Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take screenshots nowadays too-i.e, Spy Lantern Keylogger ), that captures your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria), or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs, etc.

It is good the Onecare did well, and with few false positives. lets see if it can do as well in On-demand Testing, and consistantly obtain Advanced+ certification.

Regarding the High detection, and high false Alarms of the other AV's
“To better evaluate the quality of the detection capabilities, the false alarm rate has to be taken into account too. A false alarm (or false positive) is when an antivirus product flags an innocent file to be infected when it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much trouble [just] like a real infection.”
Most will assume it is a legit virus, worm, trojan and let the antivirus app "clean" or remove it. This can in itself cause data/Windows/Program corruption, thus causing the same damage as if it were a real malware infection. Leading to Windows/Program Instability or crashes and damaged/corrupted data that becomes useless.


In the end, the lesson of all this is no matter how good (or bad) your AV is, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, backup your data at least on a weekly basis, and image your HDD every six months. damage isnt always caused by Malicious software, User error is just as bad and even more common.

Thanks for that explanation But as you say to back up info is essential, i'm one of those that always postpones the backup but I think you just motivated me to do it tomorrow haha. If I were working right now I'd maybe go with one of the top 3, Eset mainly, since Microsoft is cant be called reliable for good performance based on one test only. But for the moment I'll have to rely on what I've got!! Like I said smart-websurfing is always good. Still Avira is on the top of the two stars with consistent good detection rate, so its still the best *free* AV out there. Also Avira's results for false positive based on February/April although it is considered "many" it was basically average when compared to the rest. For people like me that can't or don't want to pay for pc protection, I'd say this is as good as it gets. On the other hand with Symantec has had consistent 3 star for the past 9 months and now a flat two star, and its paid for. I mean Ive never considered Symantec a good AV more overrated, I'd say. But keep in mind that a bad patch can happen even to the best, a trojan/virus/bot/worm etc.. can sneak into your system or in a case of bad judgement you can create all of the disaster by just clicking the wrong button on to a pc crash, taking along the valuable stuff you have in there to a never ever after story hehe, not cool. So as Rive says, to have a backup is very important.

As for the False positives, when the file is flagged or quarantined make sure you read the whole file directory and know the program associated with it to at least get an idea of what it is...

--------------------------
*For those using Avira*
To have the most effectivenes out of the AV make sure the Antivirus heuristics for both "Guard" & "Scanner" are set to high.
-Go to: Configuration, and enable "Expert Mode"
-Expand "Scanner" and then expand "Scan", 4 options open, GO TO: Heuristic
-Enable Macrovirus Heuristic
-Enable AHeaD and Select High Detection Level
THEN-Expand Guard, Expand Scan and GO TO: Heuristic, Repeat
-Enable Macrovirus Heuristic, Enable AHead and Select High Detection Level.

These are not default settings. You have to enable them to get the most protection available from Avira AV.

Also I recommend at least a weekly scan for your computer. Specially if you are connected a lot. If you'd like to schedule the Scans at a more convenient time you can go to Administration in the left panel, open Scheduler and Insert a new job for time/day more convenient.

I had posted it before but I'll post it again, cause it is well, a nag:
To disable the nag screen go here: Disable the Avira Antivir PE Classic avnotify nag screen). It explains how to get rid of it depending on your Operating System.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safe Surfing & Happy Hunting

 

[rive0108]

Nice post DJfla

Avira/Avast! are 2-star certified, and for free programs you cant go wrong there.

 

[Ecoclimber]

Personally, I don't believe you can just rely on just on. With spyware, malware, viruses, rootkit and keyloggers, I check performance and results of these programs at various test sites and organizations. These programs vary from year to year. Below are a few sites that I monitor.

Virus Bulletin : Independent Malware Advice
AV-Comparatives - Independent Tests of Anti-Virus Software - Welcome to AV-Comparatives.org
Wilders Security Forums - Powered by vBulletin
Spyware Warrior :: Index

I use Avira AntiVir, Avast, Adaware, Spybot, WinPatrol, Windows Defender and Agnitum OutPost Firewall. Call me paranoid :-)

 

[rive0108]

VB100 and AV-Comparatives are good.

 

[vdel14]

Hey-- Question for all you folks using NOD32. I installed the trial version to check it out, but my internet started acting screwy. Meaning, I could open my browser (Mozilla) and the first few URLs I use will load, and then it just stops loading pages. I'm still connected to the internet, because I can continue to chat with my friends, but pages won't load.

Have any of you encountered this problem? Is it even related to the NOD32 program?

Anyway, I uninstalled it and went with another AV trial until I figure out what the deal was, so I continue to use the internet...

--Victoria

 

[dinesh]

Hi Victoria, i have been using Nod32 4.0.314 and never had this issue. Reinstall NOD32 and update it as well.

 

[vdel14]

Dinesh-- Are you using just the AV or are you using the whole Security Suite?

 

[dinesh]

Just AV.

 

[rene636]

I think the best is AVG. I have Norton, I won't use it. Norton does not catch all trojens, etc. A lot of people I have discussed this with even feel the free AVG is better than the paid Norton or Mcafee. I use the paid version of AVG and for system cleaning I run Advanced System Care 3. Great program!!

 

[vdel14]

@Dinesh--Thanks I reinstalled and updated it and it is working like a charm.

 

[calabrache]

Have you tried this Download FREE antivirus software - avast! Home Edition

I would not recommend PANDA
Company I work use McAfee
Kapersky as a good engine but has failure in detection of pishing / malware