The best free security software

avast 5 is even lighter than avira. it does use a bit more ram but runs way better than avira for me.

 

My favorite free security app is a drive/file encryption one - Truecrypt - free in price and the source is open so you can verify it does what it says it does.

 

This is a very helpful thread. I'm runnin' Windows 7 professional on i5 with 4gb ram and 7200rpm hdd. I've the latest ThreatFire, MBAM, and Avast on my system. I disabled all the Windows stuff, and only running the above three. Am I spreadin' them too thin or I've gone over-board with all these diff. software? Please let me know, thanks in advance.

 

good setup but maybe you would want to replace avast with mse.
im not sure about the new avast, but i found the older versions kinda heavy on system resources

 

Avast! 5 has much better performance that MSE.

I'd say stick with what u have (avast! and Threatfire). Its more than enough.

 

MSE scored the highest in the last av comparatives i saw.
what makes you say avast 5 is better?

 

Agreed that MSE scored as one of the highest in performance ratio (and detection rates).
Avast 5 seems to be comparable to MSE in detection rates, although from what I saw, MSE was one of the few ones with the ability to completely remove infections from the system (even if it required a restart), while others couldn't.

In any event, I'm sticking with MSE myself and am installing it on other people's computers if they don't already use something similar/comparable.

 

Detection wise MSE and Avast! are the same.
Removal, yes, MSE does better.
Performance wise, Avast! is way better.

Sorry i wasn't clear before. By performance, i meant cpu usage, IO, RAM,etc.

 

Avast 5's Web Shield eats up some CPU, and slows down web browsing a little bit.

 

I have only the network, file and behaviour sheilds running and its very light. Definitely the least overhead on the system i have experienced.

 

really? mse is quite light and thats one of the major reasons people hre prefer it.

do you have a link with some comparative info on this? would be interested to find out myself

cheers

 

Would like to find out more about Avast vs MSE. I'm runnin' Avast 5 and it's definitely not a resource hog. Much better than previous editions, but I've never used MSE.

Thanks to everyone who replied to my question earlier.

 

1. From personal tests i found avast! more responsive than MSE.
2. I think there is a Performance Comparison chart from Av-comparatives.

 

oic
you were talking more of you personal experience
ok thanks anyways

 

av comp has yet to officially test the detection of avast 5. there is a performance test available. on a old celeron m 1.4 there is NO SLOWDOWN whatsoever from avast 5 internet security so no way is it heavy. it is for sure lighter than mse i have run both. avast also has better detection from my tests than mse. i have run both through my collection of av and malware (more than 25,000 samples) and for sure avast is better than mse.

 

yeah just checked it out.
avira reigns supreme in performance, as always
avast comes up just right below microsoft in the rating

 

So in terms of gaming, Avast > MSE?

 

Yeah, it uses less memory and has a silent mode for people that play games.

 

The RAM usage for MSE comes to about 50MB in total, so yes it's higher when compared to Avira and Avast.
Not really a big deal though, even on systems with 512 up to 1GB of RAM really.

MSE is only slow performance-wise under first run.
Follow-ups aren't really intense for the system and a person can usually continue with their work.

Though, you don't really do anything on the computer while running a virus scan.
At least I don't.

 

I really wouldn't know my scan from MSE was even running if it didn't pop up and tell me. I continue running several apps during this time and forget all about it.

 

MSE came installed on my DM3. I was impressed. Seems better integrated than Avast or Avira to me. Couldn't tell it was running.

 

Is it worth it to upgrade to a paid version of Avira? I keep going back and forth about whether to buy Norton Internet Security 2010 or just simply upgrading my free Avira to the paid version...or just sticking with what I've got.

I do download quite a bit (and use Facebook apps, like Farmville), so I want good protection. Presently, I also have the WOT add on for Firefox and IE to help me hopefully detect bad links when I search.

I ended up with the Avira because my stinking Trend Micro quit working when I upgraded to Windows 7 (64 bit). I tried everything the Trend website suggested, but I never could get it to work again.

So, I am running the Avira free version, Comodo and Threatfire.

Any advice?

 

Light-Weight Paid: Eset,Avast,avire
Protection Suite: Kaspersky

It's your choice but norton didn't catch some I had that were marked as dangerous on other anti viruses.

 

I'm using a paid version of Avira Premium Security suite but apparently the license for the original sale only lasts a year??? Because it wants me to renew the license or it will stop updating, and I have to buy a new license. Expensive stuff man.

 

I'm running Microsoft Security Essentials now. Very satisfied. Free and less drain on my system than Avast. Genuine 64 bit too.

 

I'm running MSE and Avast! on different machines. Both are nice and lightweight on each machine so I can't complain .

 

I had also been considering Kaspersky...so expensive though, for any of them. Which is why I thought maybe I should just upgrade to the paid Avira, but I just didn't know how good it was in comparison to something like Kaspersky.

I keep seeing a lot about the MSE, but don't remember how it did in the comparatives study.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no need for a paid antivirus. I'd suggest either MSE or Avast 5.

 

Okay, thanks for the help!

 

The only thing I'm annoyed about avast 5 is that the firewall is only included in the most expensive version.

 

AVAST ANTIVIRUS

ANYWAY TRY this on netbooks .. need something that isnt that much of a resource hog

 

Avira has the best AV-Comparatives detection rate (see OP). Why would you choose something with a lower detection rate? Isn't the main idea of AV software to detect (and then remove) viruses?

 

You don't want AV that generate a lot of false positives as well.

 

+1, I switched away from avira cause of this.. and the slow update download

 

I haven't had a problem with false positives with Avira. Update downloads are in invisible mode, so I don't notice. The only thing I notice is a spike in temperature during the daily scan.

Within reason, aren't a few false positives better than a few missed viruses?

MSE seems to use fewer resources, but I wouldn't want to risk a virus slipping through.

 

Am using Avast5 atm but with Avira I've seldomly encountered FP issues.
Also, I guess a lot of folks think that MSE is light because they don't take the MsMpEng.exe into account (the old Windows Defender process)

 

believe me, with my experience, you'll go nuts
but maybe it's just me .. (and others LOL )

 

I just looked at that study, AV Comparatives seems to give a higher rating to MSE than Avira.

 

Not in the scores in post#1.

 

Hitman Pro 3

For quite some time I've been hesitant to add this antimalware program to the list.
It's an excellent and fast (very fast) program.
Hitman Pro 3 uses a combination of behavioural scanning and cloud scanning.
Antimalware software from several different vendors is combined in Hitman Pro;
A-Squared (= A-Squared and Ikarus engines), G-DATA (= Avast and BitDefender engines) and Dr. Web.

HitmanPro 3 can be run from USB-stick/CD/External HDD, it does not necessarily need to be installed on your HDD.

So why not listed asap?
The program is free for detection only after 30 days.
When an infection is found, you can activate it into a 'full version' automatically for 30 days and remove the infection but after 1 month it will be detection only. Buying the program is another option of course.
Because of the combined technology it's got high detection rates and HitManPro3 excels in 0-day infection removal so I recommend it as a secondary scanner, even though it's not completely free/30 day malware removal period only.
It runs on XP, Vista and 7, 32- and 64-bit. Hitman Pro 3 link
Cheers.

 

I'm talking about the full study as published on their website.

 

The ratings are different from the detection rates. Avira got a lower overall rating because of its high number of false positives. However it's detection rates are the best.

 

The way I understand it is the detection rates are best because they include false positives.

That's why Avira gets a lower overall rating.

 

The malware sample Set B, used by AV-Comparatives in it's August 2009 main comparative review, contained about 1.6 million malware samples.
F.i. Avira detected 99.4%, Avast detected 98%.
Avira scored 21 FP's, Avast scored 5 FP's. (Only mentioned here as examples)

The number of files in the 'clean sample set', used to compare the number of produced false positives isn't mentioned in the False positive PDF report (PDF link) but it's a different sample set than Set B.
It consists of samples known to be clean.

So while it's true that Avira is more prone to producing FP's, these aren't detected among the malware sample sets.
It's not that Avira has a high detection rate because it detects files in one sample set (as FP's) that were 'missed' by others.
The difference between (99.4%*1.600.000=)1590400 and (98%*1.600.000=)156800 is not accounted for by the number of reported FP's because different sample sets are used for different tests.

AV-Comparatives decide themselves where to put a FP treshold, in the Aug 2009 review, it was set at 13.
So AV's like Bitdefender and Symantec who scored 4 and 13 FP's, were considered to score a low number of FP's.
AV's like Avira and Kingsoft, who scored 21 and 47 FP's were considered to score a high number of FP's.
I find the difference between 13 or 21 FP's a bit arbitrary but it's AV-Comparatives who have to draw a line somewhere and they did. At 13.
Cheers.

 

Great thread. Will definitely forward this to a few people.

http://www.zonealarm.com/security/en-us/free-upgrade-security-suite-zonealarm-firewall.htm

Zone Alarm fire wall free version. Haven't used it in a few years, hopefully it's still as nice as before.

 

It's not, bloated and buggy now.

 

I was using Avast 5, liked it, but it used some noticeable CPU when web browsing/ downloading. So I am using MSE for now.

 

Hey guys need your opinion..

Which of this setup would be good?

Setup 1
-Panda Cloud AV 1.01
-MalwareBytes AntiMalware PRO (With Realtime)
-SpywareBlaster
-Windows/Comodo Firewall

Setup 2
-Avast! 5 Free AV
-MalwareBytes AntiMalware On-Demand
-Spyware Blaster
-Windows/Comodo Firewall

 

I would say Setup 2 would be a better option.
Though I hardly think you need Spyware Blaster.
And as for a firewall, well, if you have Win 7, you can use it instead of Comodo.

 

Your current setup, number 2 is fine.
MBAM's paid version is worth the money but you've got to decide for yourself if your habits might require it.
With a strong HIPS, you already have an added layer of security of course.
When Online Armor have their 64-bit version firewall ready, it's worth giving it a try.
(It's my favourite software firewall on 32-bit systems).