 |
Anti-virus
and Computer Security
by The F@t Guy |
|---|
  
|
TFG's Best Anti-Malware Picks 2010 - The F@t Guy's Recommended Software List |
| 123009:
Well, Here we are again - Nearly 2010, and I will be finishing up my
Anti-Malware Picks List a wee bit early this year. That is partly
because this particular page doesn't need much editing... As always, our particular testing criteria are based largely upon what we consider to be the most effective software in real-life use, upon real-world, infected machines which pass across the testbenches here in the PIT of DOOOOM!!! This criteria tends to bias us greatly toward those things which are best in on-demand scanning, as that is the lion's share of what we do. That bias seems to be a good one, because regardless of whatever real-time effectiveness might be featured in an anti-malware product, it is pretty standard knowlege that on-demand is normally more effective than real-time, and also because on-demand scanning is the very last onboard tool available to the user - And therefore must be completely bulletproof. The way this works is pretty simple - When I diagnose an infected box, I use at least five anti-virus tools every time. On each machine being diagnosed, the order of those candidate anti-malware tools is changed up, and my observations are determined by which anti-malware leaves the least for the others to pick up. Since the order is different every time, it doesn't take long for some pretty clear (albeit subjective) results. In addition to the anti-malware products that I own personally, other candidates are downloaded into my test benches as trialware, and run as long as their trial period allows (generally 30 days). The entire testing period runs a general course of 60 days upon 3 test benches. The only other delimiter placed upon these tests is to disqualify the anti-malware products that are native (and updated properly) on each infected box, as the product obviously didn't do a good job in the first place. This disqualifier is a bit of a mini-test in it's own right, as it is important to note which softwares come in to the bench most frequently being ineffective in their native responsibilities. Without a doubt, this indicator is somewhat unfair, and very subjective, as new client's boxes are generally what I get to work upon. Once those clients have been informed on how to keep their boxes clean, they tend to be less likely to return with an infection. This may be due to that education, it may be due to the conversion of the box to anti-malware that I recommend, it may be due to the user turning over a new leaf, or many other incidental statistical anomalies that I cannot begin to calculate in such a short time. Even so, it is a caution. And the winners this year will not surprise many who know me - in fact, this page is becoming so very ordinary in it's presentation every winter, as to be rather ho-hum... Our Anti-Virus Picks: As far as detection is concerned, the top of the heap, as always, remains in the hands of Kaspersky antivirus. Following closely, Nod32 by Esset. After that, by a small margin, F-Protect, Sophos, and BitDefender. Dr.Web deserves an honorable mention, but it's tendencies (as always) toward false positives make it less desireable in the hands of joe-user. As far as my hand-picked fav is concerned... That is less easy to do this year. Our house brand has been F-Protect since dropping Symantec in utter disgust in 2002. The main reason for that has always been bang-for-buck. It is not the best, but it is really very good - Our continued blessing has been tipped by a really easy user interface, lighter resource consumption, and an extremely nice price, especially for multiple machines. Those attributes have not been diminished in this last year in any way. But my main complaints against Kaspersky have been diminished - While it is still somewhat heavier than F-Protect, it's superior performance in detection justifies the resource expense. It is substantially less resource intensive than it has been in the past - and is nearing the point of nimbleness. Kaspersky has also worked hard to deliver a decent multi-use package... This is critical in this day and age, when most households own more than one computer... Their 3-seat package is very comparable to F-protect's 5-seat package, and their corporate package is only about double the F-protect corporate package. This is a substantial drop in cost. And one of my complaints against Nod32 must be withdrawn too - They have finally come out with a nice user interface - the confusion of yesteryear is now gone. And they are still among the lightest on resources of all. The only thing eliminating Nod32 from my fav pick is their lack of a reasonable multi-user license. Sophos and Bitdefender have snugged up hard against the leaders from below as well - Their ability to detect successfully has launched them into the running as too. While all of the above are good, even excellent, my pick this year is going to Kaspersky. Yhis is a change from F-Protect, which has been my pick for many years. I am willing to pay the difference in price and resources in order to obtain their hallmark security, and all of my machines will be running KAV before the spring. If money is a real concern, F-Protect is the better buy, and will do very well in all but the most viral of environments. The same is true if resources are dire. If you have but one machine, by all means, go with Nod32. Oh, and those infected machines... What were they running most often this year? Symantec, hands down... Followed closest by McAfee and PC-Cillin. More to come (Free Anti-virus, Anti-Spyware, Anti-trojan) ::TFG |
