Good Samaritans stop Pattaya transwoman stealing from German

[Richb2004v2]

Yesterday I bought an anti-virus disk seemingly full of every software option available. My question is which one to install and use? I've always thought that NOD32 was one of the best but in the past I've had problems getting it to work on my machine. What about Kapersky or Bitdefender?

[Crushdepth]

Try Microsoft Security Essentials (new M$ antivirus, free). Or if you don't trust that just yet, try Avira (free edition).

[MikeWill]

much depends on personal preferences, I'll put them in this order: NOD32 > Kaspersky > > BitDefender

[Richb2004v2]

I've just installed Symantec. I'll try that for a while.

[HDRIDER]

I've just installed Symantec. I'll try that for a while.

Hi

Can you update? long time ago i tried as well it came up that it was a pirate copy so it would not allow me to update,, a new Norton, Bitdefender, Kasper. cost around 5-700 Baht

[Mousehound]

AVG is free and seems to do a good job.

[Phatcharanan]

I have used Kapersky before but have been trying out Microsofts 'Essentials' for the last 2 weeks.

Pretty good so far.

[stolidfeline]

Most PC's brought to our shops for various reasons have viruses, and most PC's in Bangkok seem to have NOD32 installed at the same time as the (copy) OS by local shops. So it is quite apparent that NOD32 is quite poor at detecting viruses. AVIRA free has always worked well here. Kaspersky, AVG also good. Norton, MacAfee, and many other big name brands are heavy on resources, unstable, have compatibility problems with many programs, and overly expensive.

I think I know the kind of disk you have bought. Personally, I would throw it away immediately, and use AVIRA free version installed direct from the web.

Edited November 29, 2009 by stolidfeline

[coxhoedave]

AVG is free and seems to do a good job.

I'll second that

[Archimedes]

Trend Micro Internet Security Pro is a very nice bundle (antivirus, firewall +++) , you can purchase it as a download online with a 3 pc license at a reasonable price too.

Edited November 29, 2009 by Archimedes

[tavarich]

I have been pricing the Kaspersky. It is 1700 baht at the IT stores here. I see it priced at around around 4000 baht on the internet. This price is for 3 machines. Does anyone know why the price would be so far apart???????

[Richb2004v2]

I've just installed Symantec. I'll try that for a while.

Hi

Can you update? long time ago i tried as well it came up that it was a pirate copy so it would not allow me to update,, a new Norton, Bitdefender, Kasper. cost around 5-700 Baht

Yes it seems to update, and this is a copy.

I was using free AVG before this.

Whats funny is that after I installed the full AVG version on my netbook I then opened another file on the Anti-virus disk and was told by AVG that it contained a virus. Typically Thai I guess. A virus on the anti-virus CD!

Edited November 30, 2009 by Richb2004v2

[Samuian]

AVG is free and seems to do a good job.

use it since "ever"...never had a prob!

[Digitalbanana]

ESET 4.0

[lopburi3]

I have been pricing the Kaspersky. It is 1700 baht at the IT stores here. I see it priced at around around 4000 baht on the internet. This price is for 3 machines. Does anyone know why the price would be so far apart???????

Believe they are pricing at what the market will take - which is a lower price in Thailand. Just as many game producers have done.

[2008bangkok]

ESET Smart Security..very good

[Bagwan]

Comodo firewall and virus checker. I've never had a problem - and they're free.

[dave111223]

AVG is free and seems to do a good job.

use it since "ever"...never had a prob!

I use AVG on a couple of computers and i keep getting popups to upgrade to 9.0(?), and it does not seem to have a free version anymore...?

I use NOD32 on my primary work computer, just bought this years renewal for 700Baht (they charge you around 1400 if you purchase online through their US website, so make sure you purchase a Thai copy)

[welo]

Let's bring some facts into this discussion:

Two hopefully independent organizations that focus on av reviews and comparisions:

http://av-comparatives.org

http://www.av-test.org

Latest articles on AV comparisions

http://av-comparatives.org/images/stories/...vc_report24.pdf - latest proactive ('guard','shield') test from Nov 2009

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/collection/...virus_2010.html - latest test by av-test.org for/with PCWorld magazine

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2009-antivirus...ew-1315-17.html - comparison by tomshardware, not very concise on its test methods though but interesting verdict considering different user requirements (best detection, best speed, freeware)

I personally trust av-comparatives.org most, not least because they are fellow countrymen (Austrians) , also because they appear most professional to me. However, I am in no position to really judge their methods and state claims on their independence.

About the names mentioned in this thread (in no particular order):

Avira Antivir

• scores best (!) detection rates on av-comparatives.org among paid products (with high number of false positives though),
  
• is named the best free Antivirus in tomshardware ('beyond its competition') with very good performance,
  
• shows only average (7th overall) on pcworld due to missing behavioral detection and lack of a fancy interface, but at the same time naming it 2nd best in the 'important heuristic tests' with only 2-week-old virus samples.
  

NOD32

• scores very good detection rates on av-comparision.org (4th) with a low number of false positives,
  
• earns points for its slick interface and performance on tomshardware but is critisized for failing on 'files infected with more rare types of viruses' and
  
• PCWorld says it 'lagged behind every other program we tested when it came to detecting known malware with signatures'
  

AVG

• scores average to low on detection rates on av-comparision.org (10th, but still better than Symantec and McAfee)
  
• is harshly critisized on tomshardware for its resident protection ('shield'), which 'is almost as good as not being there at all'
  
• and doesn't show up on PCWorld (not tested? not within Top 11?)
  

Kaspersky

• scores 3rd best detection rates on av-comparision with only a low number of false positives earning it a better overall score than Avira
  
• earns mixed reviews on tomshardware and PCWorld which are hard to summarize, check it out yourself (tomshardware, pcworld).
  

Norton

• scores only 13th on av-comparision.org
  
• gets positive feedback on its ease-of-use and performance on both tomshardware and PCWorld
  
• scores average detection rates on tomshardware but 'blocked only 42 percent of two-week-old signature files and newer malware' on PCWorld (2nd worst) but makes up with a very good behavioral detection
  

My comments:

AV-comparatives check on detection rates only and ignore user interface, ease of use, etc. I am not completely sure they reflect behavioral detection (detects malware by identifying bad actions) in their tests, I think this is why Norton scores really bad on their tests and Avira really good. Avira gets penalized for a high number of false positives which can be a serious issue for inexperienced users.

Avira scores with excellent detection rates and good performance, but lacks some features and espescially behavioral blocking. It is still my number 1 choice though, which I install on all my and my friends' computers since its price is not to beat in the free version

AVG scores bad on many tests and has so for quite some time now, I cannot understand why some people are still advocating it. The low impact on system performance compared to other (free) products is a thing of the past (meaning that it is no longer an issue with most programs).

Norton had a horrible reputation some time ago (resource hog, uninstall problems, etc) but seemed to have completely changed on those points with the last version(s?).

welo

[Gonsalviz]

I like Vipre

[stolidfeline]

Welo, thanks for that post. The reviews and your summing up mostly tend towards what I pointed out in my post above. NOD32 is poor at detecting real viruses, and AVIRA is the best overall. I really hate NOD32 because of the false sense of security it instils in its user base. AVIRA false positives can be reduced by turning off the heuristic malware detection, or reducing its aggressiveness, in the "configuration" section.

For example. A few months ago I had a guy at work whose computer was slow and almost unuseable, I told him that its behavior was typical of a virus infection. He said I was wrong, because he used NOD32, the best virus checker, as installed by all the shops. Indeed, when he ran it to show me, his machine was clean. He actually started a serious argument about it.

After several other people had failed to help, I persuaded him to install free AVIRA and it detected a virus on the initial memory scan. After signature update, a full test revealed 19 more which NOD32 had failed to detect. 3 of these were false positives, but the rest were real viruses. Most of them were from torrent downloads.

BTW - A typical installation disk of various XP ripoffs as used by the majority of shops has several viruses and adware on the disk. Everyone gets them - free!

Edited December 17, 2009 by stolidfeline

[Gary A]

I guess most programs are pretty good. At one time I used AVG and my computer needed a format and an operating system re-install. No more AVG for me.

Last year I tried a free trial of Norton Internet Security. I think Norton is excellent and never had any problems. Since the 2009 edition, it is light and fast. My years subscription is finished soon so when I upgraded to Win 7 Pro, I decided to use the Microsoft Security Essentials and the Windows Firewall. I also use Advanced System Care Pro. So far, so good but I felt safer with Norton.

[aussiebebe]

From 2003-2006 I bought Norton and found it effective although intrusive; I really didn't use the internet enough to justify it. Since moving to LOS, I've had NOD32 for the last three years and never had a problem - but I only use my computer for basic things.

I just uninstalled it because HSBC are offering it's internet banking customers a free 12-month trial to McAfee anti-virus. this McAfee program works great and automatically installs security upgrades - which is comforting. McAfee also has more interaction than NOD32 such as a site advisor.

I'd suggest this route for any other HSBC customers out there; as long as you let McAfee know that you won't re-subscribe, then it really is free for a year.

[jackr]

hats funny is that after I installed the full AVG version on my netbook I then opened another file on the Anti-virus disk and was told by AVG that it contained a virus. Typically Thai I guess. A virus on the anti-virus CD!

More than likely.

I use AVG on a couple of computers and i keep getting popups to upgrade to 9.0(?), and it does not seem to have a free version anymore...?

The pop-up is for the paid version, but if you go to the site you can still d/l the free one.

[welo]

AVIRA false positives can be reduced by turning off the heuristic malware detection, or reducing its aggressiveness, in the "configuration" section.

I don't recommend to do that. Its heuristic engine is what makes Avira one of the best antivirus products out there. It helps detecting unknown viruses (new ones as well as rare ones that are not - yet - in the virus definition database).

As for paid software there are many good products out there, Kaspersky, Norton, Avira just being three of them (in no particular order).

As far as free antivirus software goes Avira is the clear winner for me at the moment.

The results for ESET's NOD32 are conflicting. av-comparatives.org rates it pretty well whereas it seems to have completely failed on tomshardware (see my previous comment).

I would not choose NOD32 just for the reason that it is so popular in SEAsia. Malware and Viruses produced for the SEAsien 'market' will very likely implement attack or stealth techniques targeted at NOD32. Whereas this doesn't make NOD32 a bad product, it is just reasonable to not go with the crowd when it comes to antivirus software.

AVG seems to be the clear loser at this point, still benefiting from its 'glorious' past but delivering average protection at best (and this already for some time now).

welo

All those results are not written in stone and might

[Gary A]

I really don't have any faith in the sites who do the testing. Most sell software or at least have links to other sites who sell. Some sites will rank an anti-virus program as number one and the next site will give it a poor rating.

The bogus software bundles that you buy here in Thailand for 150 baht are VERY likely to have various virus infections. A Thai friend recently gave me a disk from Panthip that had various programs and the disk contained MANY different viruses.

[welo]

I really don't have any faith in the sites who do the testing.

Are you talking about sites testing AV products in general, or those sites that I linked to in particular?

If you take the time to read about av-comparatives.org you'll find that their testing methods appear to be well-documented, transparent and professional.

Of course this is no guarantee that test results are really fair and independent (and correct). This is why I would never rely on one testing website alone, hence I referenced three different websites in total.

This is also an interesting read:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/AVTW.pdf

Since I understand your doubts and I'm interested in this topic I will try to come up with more references. Btw my goal is not to come up with THE one best antivirus product, but to provide a list of respectable and reliable antivirus products that users can choose from.

But one thing that seems pretty certain to me so far is that AVG is not one of them.

welo

[Gary A]

I was speaking in general. I looked at MANY reviews trying to choose a decent program that I could trust. It was strange that the first three sites had Bitdefender as the absolute number one system. It was then seldom seen in the top ten programs using other sites.