What antivirus software you use for vaio z?

What antivirus software you use for vaio z?

as post title says

Im confused on choosing which one is best.. coz had to choose one... or running 2 wont effect the performance?

Model: Z117GG (Maxxed out config)

 

I use Microsoft Essentials. Does the trick with a very low footprint.

 

I use Norton Internet Security 2010.

You shouldn't run 2 AV applications...

 

NOD32, a antivirus which doesn't slow down your laptop/computer.

 

I like Avira AntiVir Free.

I heard it has the best detection rates of all the free AVs.

 

Microsoft Security Essentials

 

Microsoft Security Essentials(MSE) is great and what I love is that it doesnt have a huge performance hit. even lighter than AVG.

 

Hi, Fam!

I'll also give my vote to Norton 2010. As you'll frequently hear, in the old days, Norton was an enormous pig, which would slow down the fastest system. However, in their 2010 revamp, they really did play close attention to performance, and even came up with a completely new scanning approach which yields an extremely small performance impact on virtually any system. Quite impressive, this new code!

Cheers!
Mark

 

Its true that Norton improved ALOT, but its very hard to compete with a free product that does the job well and is EVEN lighter than Microsoft Security Essentials.

 

MSE. Used to use Kaspersky for more than 10 years, but with MSE there's no reason to pay for AV anymore.

 

I am using Microsoft Security Essentials and so far 0 issues and unlike Avira or AVG or now Avast it does not slow down web browsing at all.

 

I use Linux.

 

I don't have internet.

 

I don't use any. the internets safe if you dont open emails from everyone

 

I used to have a mac best antivirus going

 

AVG free does the job here

 

I don't see the need for Anti-Virus if you don't open strange attachments.

Perhaps someone can scare some sense into me?

 

No its not, just by surfing the net you can get a virus.
Has happened to me and MSE detected it.

 

Me too.
Nod32 also doesn't catch many false negatives.

 

Norton Internet Security 2010.

I use MSE on a netbook I have and my son's entry-level laptop where the performance hit is very noticable.

It is important to remember that MSE does NOT use any heuristic/behavior-based checking; it only checks against it's list of known problems.

 

Linux need anti-virus software too.

 

Does anyone have experience with Symantec Endpoint Security? I can get it free from my college, but is it any better than MSE or AVG?

 

I use MSE as well, but I've seen good things about Panda Cloud Antivirus (which requires an internet connection). Both are very light on system resources - certainly less resource intensive than Norton products.

 

It isn't bad. It is designed for Enterprise environments, but the updates are pretty good. Remember, the day it runs out, it stops working (didn't seem to even have a days leeway).

I still think the free options are just as good. I run AVG for years and my system is old now. I wouldn't even notice it on the Z.

I wonder how Antivirus's, SSD's and battery life work out?

 

To be honest, the only reason to use AV software on Linux is if your Linux box acts as a mail server for Windows clients, file share for Windows and Mac users, or you run Windows programs under Wine or similar.

Due to Linux being OSS, any worms or viruses that can find a buffer oveflow to exploit will be patched against before the AV software has updates recognizing it. So the detection of known threats is, quite frankly, worthless. That leaves the detection of unknown threats, and SELinux tends to stop those dead.
To my knowledge, there has NEVER been a virus on Linux that an AV program stopped before the vulnerability was patched.

I speak with a certain authority on this subject, being the author of the world's first heuristic virus killer, and the first that used library files for updates. (VScan for the Amiga)

 

Sure...

See this... Google and Yahoo banner ads delivering trojans
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/09/28/google-and-yahoo-banner-ads-delivering-trojans/

Still think you are safe?
Google controls a huge market share of banner ads.

Note there are plenty of other news sources that covered this, this was just the first I found when I did a quick search. Most people didn't hear about it apparently. Myspace and Facebook have also been hit by this sort of thing.


I put AVG Free on most computers I work on, but I'm starting to use Avast Free (which I use) on more and more.

 

No, you aren't.

Take a look.
http://www.google.com/search?q=mac+...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Anti-virus programs do more than JUST block viruses, the line between viruses, adware and trojans are blurring and no one is safe. Not even your precious Mac.

I would say Mac and Linux owners are more vulnerable than Windows users because most have this belief that they are safe so they surf the net recklessly and never bother checking.

You're not safe either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

 

Malware != viruses.

Malware includes trojans, which rely on human stupidity to trigger. Someone relying on AV software to catch those, or who believe they are safe because they have AV software deserves to get infected, and usually will be too.

Viruses attach to files (or bootblocks) and replicate themselves. These are not a problem when user processes can't escalate to be allowed to write to those files. This is why Linux doesn't have any real viruses -- unlike Windows, users have no write access. (Arguably, there's a "shell virus" that attaches to a user's .profile, but it has no spread vector, and relies on social engineering to be triggered by other users.)

Worms spread automatically, don't need to attach to existing programs, but rely on weaknesses in architecture or configuration. These, there are a few of for Linux, but in every single case where the attack vector was a weakness in a program, a patch for the program appeared before AV software could recognize the worm. Which means that the only benefit of AV software in this regard is to stop worms that infect due to user stupidity (weak passwords, insecure configurations and similar). Cause they won't stop the ones that exploit flaws -- the flaws will be plugged first.

Again, anyone who believes that their AV software keeps them safe is a danger to themselves and others.
AV software can be useful, but must never be relied on as THE fix. AV software won't prevent you from getting viruses and worms any more than innoculations prevent you from getting sick, or locks prevent you from being robbed. Useful, yes, but a panacea, no.
Understanding that you should never extend the human trust model[*] to computer operations, and setting up your computer securely is far more effective than any AV software.


[*]: Who you get something from is irrelevant. People who will open an e-mail attachment because it came from their best friend deserve the worst a trojan can do (and should IMO lose their personal computer privileges for at least 6 months). Similar with those who open their network wide to a friend's computer, or trust that someone they don't know in a faraway country has set security properly on their OEM laptop, or even understands security.

 

Browsing on a system where the browser doesn't have permission to overwrite files or write to binary folders, nor to execute arbitrary files, yes, I do believe i'm safe from these.

Never mind that I'm using Adblock Plus and won't see those ads in the first place.

And never mind that trojan horses depend on the recipients being stupid enough to not think "wait a minute..." before bringing it inside the fortifications.

 

not true, you must be doing something wrong

 

lelie ann maybe in the midwest but I havent

 

Thanks for the suggestions guys..

Though most suggested MSE

I'm planning to go with it..

What i do is.. Lot of browsing.. and day to day file editing etc.

Currently Using AVAST, so prolly i'll remove it and go with Microsoft security essential.

More suggestions and comparison are welcome!

 

I used my mother-in-law as guinea pig last weekend and installed Comodo on her all too slow laptop. She had been using F-secure for a while but the laptop was all but useless with it running in the background all the time, a total hog.

Comodo seemed much more efficient, I only tested it for a few hours but I will probably try it on my Z as well, if I don't get too much complaints from her.

 

As antivirus software evolve in complexity (as viruses do), so due their hardware requirements. It might be me being used to faster and faster computers, but back in the day AVG was extremely light-weight and fast. Nowdays, I install AVG and the same machine struggles to start up in less than 5 minutes (with a clean installed OS).

At the moment though, MSE is by far the lightest I've used. They used to have a bug where the scan process kept on hogging the CPU after the scan was 'finished', but that seems to have been fixed with the lastest software update...

Honestly, can't fault it.

And I think the mods should keep an eye out on this thread incase it becames sticky-worthy, or if it becomes an anti-virus troll scene...

 

I use Avast free.

 

Would you please explain / expand on this? Thanks.

 

Anyone tried Bitdefender seems im using one. I find it best. MSE is reallt that good? Not much review on MSE

 

why would this even become sticky? now that would be a waste

 

I'm not a security expert so please take this with a pinch of salt...

A Symantec guy just gave a talk, and one of the questions was how MSE compares to what Symantec offers. The guy said that the value of what they do lies in the attack signatures which they learn from end-users (they retrieve information from your machine, with your permission). And that MSE isn't doing what they do (he's vague about that which I understand). But the overall unease I have is whether MSE is that light because it isn't doing that much anyway, OR is it because since it's built by the same company that made the OS, it can be made more efficient. Any experts?

 

The weakest link in the security chain is always the human being.

 

Standard procedure for trojans is to e-mail itself to everyone on the user's address book. These e-mails will appear to be from that person, including use of the "full name" in the e-mail address and first name in the e-mail itself. A typical email like that can go like:

-----------------------------------------------------------
From: John Doe <[email protected]>
To: Jane Roe <[email protected]>
Subject: I thought you'd like this

Hi, Jane!

Dave (Dave Wuzzenstaffer, that is) sent me this, and I thought you and Peter would get a giggle out of it.
[image with a lolcat and a buffer overflow that installs the trojan]

John
-----------------------------------------------------------

Jane thinks that because it came from John, it should be safe. Especially so since it asks about her husband Peter, and states that it came from a mutual friend, Dave.

In reality, John has no idea that his machine is infected, and sending e-mails on his behalf. And now Jane doesn't know that her machine is infected either, and will do the same to everyone in HER address book.

The main error Jane does is extending human trust to a machine.

See, the address book supplied the trojan not only with the first names "John" and "Jane", but the name of Jane's spouse (Peter), and a probable mutual acquaintance (another person, Dave Wuzzenstaffer, was a mutual recipient on other e-mails).
And the trojan could be even smarter. It could check the "date of birth" and "anniversary" fields in address books, and re-send itself as a "Happy Birthday" or "Happy Anniversary" e-mails to the correct people on the correct date.

When sending attachments, embeds or links, it's good practice to first negotiate its sending. If you know that John is going to send you a file, you're much safer opening it.
If you have to send something unsolicited, at least make sure that you verify that it's really you, and not an automated program running on your machine. This can be done by mentioning something that can not be stored in a standard database on your computer.


Human propensity for trusting based on WHO and not WHAT is why trojans are so successful. In my estimate, more than 80% of all infections are due to the mark trusting a person and erroneously extending the trust to data (whether sent by that person in ignorance, sent by a trojan, or sent by an impersonator who means harm).

Antivirus programs help against this, but not as much as you'd think. The first few days (or even weeks), the AV programs don't know about the exploits, and can't protect against them. And that's when the majority of infections happen.

 

Agreed Norton Internet Security was very resource heavy up until 2008 but the 2009 and 2010 versions are much better. The install process is also now a lot better and faster than before. I use NIS 2010 on my Z and I'm happy enough with it.
My desktop uses MSE which is also good but I don't think has nearly as much protection as NIS.

 

I'm not an expert. But check some charts on the web. The MSE is doing surprisingly well...usually scores just below Kaspersky and Nod32. I'm using it along with Comodo firewall and it feels like very nice protection combo.

I should be proud about Czech products like Avast or AVG. But I'm not, they are simply trash. Nod32 is another Czech product and along with Kaspersky they're the best. But I don't feel like paying for AV anymore when MSE is free and "nearly" as good as those two.

 

(I'm slow, I'm just catching up with this)

I was wondering how companies can give out anti-virus programs for free. Now it makes sense: what's important are the signatures, which is used to identify the bad stuff. And the signatures can only be generated after significant numbers of reports from end-users have been received. So even though the programs are given out for free, the end-users help by contributing these reports.

Which means that since the Windows base is huge, over time as more people use MSE, Microsoft can probably generate signatures faster than anyone else. And they can send patches out simultaneously too. Or if knowledge of the exploit has not gone into the wild, they can quietly patch things up.

I suppose the question I really want to ask is: should the anti-virus/malware functionality be the responsibility of the OS-maker, or can anyone else do it?

 

AV products now incorporate protection against all types of threats and many incorporate a firewall as well.

You seem to have this idea that Linux is impervious, and wrongfully so. There are Linux threats, don't kid yourself. And just as with Windows, the Linux community is also reactionary, new threats are not always handled before they are found. Linux is one of the safer systems out there (BSD is better), but it still faces threats.

 

You are either joking, or completely ignorant of the current threats out there.

 

Norton has improved, I still severely dislike it.
It's over complicated.

Ever try to enable file and printer sharing to a couple computers with Norton 360 v2? It's a joke.

 

They can give it away because most offer corporate anti-virus for a fee or charge for support.

Do NOT count on Microsoft having a larger database of threats. Many companies share one database of threats, several top brands buy their virus definitions from Grisoft, the company who makes AVG.

There is a bad side to so many using MSE that most never consider.


Take this example (not accurate, just meant for demonstration purposes)
90% of all computer use Windows
Of that 90%...
90% use Windows firewall
20% use Norton
20% use MSE
20% use nothing but the firewall, if that.

If you want to spread a worm, if you attack Norton, and MSE, you just created a system that infects over 50% of the world just by breaking two programs.

Diversity is good. If half of Norton users switched to something else, you just made the world 10% safer. Same for MSE.


Yes, there are programs that target these systems specifically. Norton has been a target many times now. While they are good about stopping these problems, you have to remember, they are reactionary, instead of pro-active. Norton can't fight off an attack, until they can get a copy of the threat. Then they have to create a patch and distribute that patch. All of which can take days. The last major worm spread globally in under 10 minutes, the next is expected to do so in under 6 minutes. One hour is an eternity in terms of threats.

 

Sure, they're not. But they're not handled by AV programs either.
Find me one, just one example of a threat for Linux where an AV program was able to catch it before a patch was made available. Just one.

Being a system administrator for 20+ years, and an Antivirus author, I think I speak with some authority here.

There are no (in any meaningful sense) viruses for Linux. (The accounts running programs don't have write access to modify them.)
There are a handful of known worms. All of which were patched before AV software vendors could implement a signature.
There are a handful of trojans, but that's human engineering, and AV programs cannot make up for ignorance or gullibility.
Rootkits are the greatest threat, but AV software does absolutely nothing to prevent those -- only informed administration does.

Or, ask yourself this: How come almost all Linux servers out there have no active AV software on them whatsoever? And yet the machines still run!
Are the admins very lucky ignoramuses, or do they, perhaps, know something you don't?

 

How often you update may be determined by outside factors.

When my Myth box was up, dependencies were a nightmare so updates had to wait for all other authors to catch up before you could update.

As for worms, I find it very difficult to believe that every worm was patched before it was ever went into the wild. Someone had to know that worm was coming ahead of time.

The last major worm went around the world in under 10 minutes, the next is expected to be under 6. Sorry, patches don't come that fast, granted neither do anti-virus.

Not to mention if you have Linux and Windows in a shared environment with Linux serving as the file server, having an AV on the Linux box is a darn good idea because while it couldn't be infected the same way, it can still pass infected files off to a Windows machine. The same goes for email servers. MANY Linux email servers DO run an AV and yes I realize it is mostly to protect Windows users.


While I respect your opinion and agree most people running it for home use or a (strictly) web or DNS server don't need it, I still wonder how many can or have been infected and no one knows.

There are hundreds of thousands of infected Windows machines and people have no clue. Being that we know there ARE trojans and viruses in the wild for other systems means there is that chance. Just because you have never seen one doesn't mean they aren't there.




Going back to file servers and even some web servers, at which point does your protection of users end? We both know many don't use one anything with Windows, and since a Linux box could pass on a virus, don't you think there is at least some responsibility to ensure what you send out is not infected? Just because you can't be infected doesn't mean you are being responsible.