Recommendations for anti-virus to replace Avast Premier.



  • @Pathduck said in Recommendations for anti-virus to replace Avast Premier.:

    My dream scenario would be something like F-Secure ca. 2001, but with modern malware databases and detection. Dream on I guess 🙂

    1065c22e-42a3-42bb-914d-d8cc2150d399-image.png

    You and me both, my friend. I'd love to see a modern AV that had a simple, no-frills interface... AND more importantly, actually showed what it was doing, rather than just having a meaningless percentage or progress bar.



  • As others, off-topic posters 🙂 also said, I also don't use any AV on my Windows machine for over 3-4 years now and never had any problems. Sooo much better in stability and performance, the OS performs as it was designed to do.

    I use a "user account" since the days of NT and previously I would additionally extra-tweak some things in the group/user policies and access permissions to files, since Windows Vista things got better. Similar to @Ayespy I don't use cracked software, I use Libreoffice instead of anything MS, Steam for playing some games, don't download torrents, and don't visit "dubious" sites. For p0rn... just stay mainstream and you are ok 😉 If I have some suspicions I run malwarebytes or run it anyway every 3 months or so, but so far everything was clean. Rarely when I have to check some files I upload them to https://www.virustotal.com/ and all is fine :). But it's everyone's decision to believe or not AV companies (that want to sell their products) or take the "risk?"

    Similar to @derDay 's link there are lots of threads and comments about it like https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/


  • Vivaldi Translator

    How big a list should I paste of regular trusted big name sites that have been compromised to server drive-by malware to visitors ?

    Being careful used to be good enough but this is 2019



  • @npro Are you using Windows Defender, or have you been able to completely rid the OS of it? The reason I ask is that the articles I've read often give it the worst score on performance (which is strange since it's basically a part of the OS anyway) and very bad on false positives. And getting completely rid of it on Win10 is not so easy as some would have it.

    One reason I've considered ditching Avast is performance, but then I've never considered going without an AV. You'd need to be real careful what you download, and not sure I'd like to have to upload every downloaded executable/document etc to Virus Total. But respect to you I guess, if you are able to do without any AV at all.

    I really don't trust running only on-demand scanners like MWB "once in a while" - too easy to get infected by downloading a file and running it, even if it's from a safe source. Like @Dr-Flay says above, download sites are regular targets for (successful) malware attacks.



  • @Pathduck said in Recommendations for anti-virus to replace Avast Premier.:

    @npro Are you using Windows Defender, or have you been able to completely rid the OS of it? The reason I ask is that the articles I've read often give it the worst score on performance (which is strange since it's basically a part of the OS anyway) and very bad on false positives. And getting completely rid of it on Win10 is not so easy as some would have it.

    no, completely rid, full commando 🙂

    One reason I've considered ditching Avast is performance, but then I've never considered going without an AV. You'd need to be real careful what you download, and not sure I'd like to have to upload every downloaded executable/document etc to Virus Total. But respect to you I guess, if you are able to do without any AV at all.

    It's not that dramatic, usually it's about .exe files or installer files and if your sources are trusted/you don't install every trash lying around there is no problem (other than incidents like the hacking of the ccleaner website, which I don't use either), .dll files (infected or not) are called by an .exe so they are not active threats either, and who needs/downloads .scr (screensaver files) anyway, it's all about the use, if I'd use random templates/documents .odt of course I would be a little more careful for macros etc or if I were a software developer having to use .js too, but I'm not 🙂

    I really don't trust running only on-demand scanners like MWB "once in a while" - too easy to get infected by downloading a file and running it, even if it's from a safe source. Like @Dr-Flay says above, download sites are regular targets for (successful) malware attacks.

    yeah ok, no one can be safe 100% but if you "update your software and OS regularly and practice skeptical computing" as the article says and as described in my previous post you are pretty much safe and your OS is solid like it came out of the box today. But again this is a "risk" one decides for himself, can't tell you what to do 🙂



  • ESET Smart Security Premium has been my choice for years. Since you use Vivaldi you might like ESET because of its also more customizable than other AV. Being a power user I like as many options as possible. One option was logging. ESET isn't perfect logging but its the best I've seen. Even though I've used it for 5 years, I've also used Bit Defender and Norton 360 during that time. I used 360 for 8 years and this is better. Last holiday season I bought Bit Defender because the AV reviews said it caught the most exploits. Maybe, but the software is extremely limited in configuration. Also, ESET has a great infosec website and they're very involved in the community. Check out ESET.



  • @brenji Thanks for the input. I've heard good things about ESET, a couple of years ago.
    What's the resource usage for the processes, like memory (private bytes/working set) and CPU time?



  • @Pathduck Sorry to resurrect an old thread but yes, you read it correctly, 1.2 GB - but that's with a bunch of custom databases in addition to ClamAV's standard databases. If you were to use just ClamAV's own official databses, it'd be much lighter. I made the comparison that way, because it's only with the SecuriteInfo and SaneSecurity databases that I can get a detection-rate approaching that of commercial solutions such as F-Secure. It's also how I use ClamAV, so was easiest to test. I've just checked the size of the official ClamAV databases in /var/lib/clamav and they're currently occupying 268.4MB. I've just tried clamscan with the --official-db-only option, and RAM consuption during a scan of /home appears to be somewhere in the 500-700MB range according to "top".

    I too miss the interface of that version of F-Secure, or the interface of McAfee VirusScan 2/3/4, or Dr Solomon's AVTK. Looking at that screenshot, it has all the options you want or need. Crucially, you can set a default option but there's still a "confirm operations" checkbox! It's clear and intuitive, and doesn't waste screen space. Fantastic! It'd be so easy to recreate that and just add an extra checkbox or tab for "Ransomware protection", etc. - without loads of fluff, big fonts, vast white spaces and dumbed-down options for idiots.



  • @jamesbeardmore said in Recommendations for anti-virus to replace Avast Premier.:

    Sorry to resurrect an old thread but yes, you read it correctly, 1.2 GB - but that's with a bunch of custom databases in addition to ClamAV's standard databases.

    Don't worry - the thread is still going far as I'm concerned 😉
    I'm not so much worried about memory usage during a scan, since that's something I'm doing rarely anyway. It makes sense that it would load the database into memory when scanning, for speed of lookup.

    What's more interesting is the memory use during regular background usage, and to a certain extent CPU usage during such background monitoring as well, but it's harder to get data on obviously.

    For instance Avast in the background uses ~80MB, and to be honest I doubt I'll be able to find any that uses less.

    loads of fluff, big fonts, vast white spaces and dumbed-down options for idiots.

    I know, it seems every single AV solution is following the same UI design now, in the end they all look exactly the same... all for the sake of being "user-friendly".

    I'm reminded of this quote:

    The user's going to pick dancing pigs over security every time
    -- Bruce Schneier


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.