anti virus programs

anyone got any advice on a decent one

thanks
ritch

Ritch said this...
> anyone got any advice on a decent one

AVG. Good as most and the price is right.
Google will show you the way.

--
º~ dªv¡d ~º

In article <Xns93FFF0AB465D0d4v1d@62.253.162.114>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Ritch said this...
> > anyone got any advice on a decent one
>
> AVG. Good as most and the price is right.

It's fucking abysmal.

Take a look at it's scores on the Virus Bulletin website
www.virusbtn.com

--
________________________
Conor Turton
(E-Mail Removed)
________________________

Conor Turton said this...
> It's fucking abysmal.

> Take a look at it's scores on the Virus Bulletin website
> www.virusbtn.com
>
I see a pass for the latest version. Is there something I'm missing here?
--
º~ dªv¡d ~º

"Ritch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bkqghb$k17$(E-Mail Removed)...
> anyone got any advice on a decent one
>
> thanks
> ritch
>
>
AVG is very very good -- in these virus ridden times the virus
definnition files are usually updated dailly.

Also download Lavasoft Ad-Aware to clear spybots and Kerio Personal
firewall

Groove wrote:
> Conor Turton said this...
>> It's fucking abysmal.
>
>> Take a look at it's scores on the Virus Bulletin website
>> www.virusbtn.com
>>
> I see a pass for the latest version. Is there something I'm missing
> here?

Don't think so. I've used AVG for a year now. Easy to update and doesn't
tie a metaphorical brick to your processor (unlike some other anti virus
programs).

I wouldn't ever aboslutely *rely* on any anti-virus program to keep me out
of trouble however. Mk1 brain cell does that.

Tim

--
Remove the obvious to reply by email.

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 08:00:35 GMT
Groove <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Conor Turton said this...
> > It's fucking abysmal.
>
> > Take a look at it's scores on the Virus Bulletin website
> > www.virusbtn.com
> >
> I see a pass for the latest version. Is there something I'm missing
> here?--
> º~ dªv¡d ~º

It might be better to look at the big picture, this page shows AVG to
have had only 2 passes in 21 tests -
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 00:58:53 +0100, Conor Turton
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>It's fucking abysmal.

You seem to be maintaining your level of inaccuracy. Most
knowledgable people would disagree with you.

>Take a look at it's scores on the Virus Bulletin website
>www.virusbtn.com

The "independent" magazine.

Domain Name: VIRUSBTN.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
Sophos Plc (IS3425-ORG) (E-Mail Removed)
The Pentagon
Abingdon, Oxon OX14 3YP

Virus Bulletin,
The Pentagon,
Abingdon Science Park,
Abingdon, Oxfordshire OX14 3YP, UK.

Sophos Plc
The Pentagon
Abingdon Science Park
Abingdon, OX14 3YP, UK

Irrespective of its independence or otherwise how useful the magazine
results are is a matter of debate. A virus product which failed to
detect hundreds of viruses can score 100% but one which detected all
of them but produced a single false positive would be marked as
"failed". Without looking at recent detailed results (only
available in the subscription magazine) the award marking is worse
than meaningless.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

Danny Horne said this...

> It might be better to look at the big picture, this page shows AVG to
> have had only 2 passes in 21 tests -
> http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml
>
I hear you Danny, thanks. I did have just the quickest look at the site after
Conor posted. I'll go back when time and clients permit and read in more
detail.

--
º~ dªv¡d ~º

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:14:54 +0100, Danny Horne <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>It might be better to look at the big picture, this page shows AVG to
>have had only 2 passes in 21 tests -
>http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archiv...ts.xml?avg.xml

Without seeing the test results in detail the results are
meaningless. Indeed they are arguably worse than meaningless as they
can positively mislead you.

Other testing organisations include
http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communi...rus/labs.shtml
and
http://www.check-mark.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl

The only consistency between the three organisations is that they
produce different results from each other even though they supposedly
use the same virus list for their testing (the Wild List
http://www.wildlist.org/WildList/)

Practically, of the many viruses around only about 230 are listed on
the current "wild list" with another about 600 on the supplemental
list. For most people only the most common are a real threat and all
products are more or less equally effective against these. How easy
the thing is to use, how much it slows down your machine etc is not
tested.

Products can "fail" the tests for a variety of reasons, such as
giving a single false positive in some cases, but would pass using
other testers criteria. A simple pass/fail mark is not useful when
comparing these products unless you know the details of the tests and
the full results.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/