Support Forums

(06-19-2011, 08:11 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: [ -> ]Ha, that would be a good idea. Yeah, I do notice that eset has a lot of false positives but in retrospect would you rather have false positives or an AV that misses some stuff?

I thought someone might say that if I mentioned false positives, however I do have more respect for Norton and Bitdefender in that regard. Because they actually have developers that can determine what is malicious and what is not with their code. Personally for me, i'd rather have an AV that doesn't have a bunch of them. I have knowledge to easily fix intrusions myself though, so for others it may be different and they aren't able to take that risk.

(06-19-2011, 09:12 PM)Ace Wrote: [ -> ]I thought someone might say that if I mentioned false positives, however I do have more respect for Norton and Bitdefender in that regard. Because they actually have developers that can determine what is malicious and what is not with their code. Personally for me, i'd rather have an AV that doesn't have a bunch of them. I have knowledge to easily fix intrusions myself though, so for others it may be different and they aren't able to take that risk.

Yeah, that is very true as well; it depends on the user then. Is that what you use, bitdefender? Most infections are usually harmless if dealt with the right way, but taking the risk of losing very personal data is not worth it to me.

I am currently Norton as mine, it's a pretty good antivirus if I do say so myself.

(06-21-2011, 06:52 PM)Annuit Coeptis Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, that is very true as well; it depends on the user then. Is that what you use, bitdefender? Most infections are usually harmless if dealt with the right way, but taking the risk of losing very personal data is not worth it to me.

I've been back and forth from Bitdefender and Norton, but both i've had very good success with in terms of keeping my system protected. I love the Firewall embedded in Norton the most, it seems to have been very powerful in analysing incoming data on most ports to my computer through downloads, even visiting websites, and a few other things too.

If you want an AV with a wicked and very configurable/optimizable firewall, use the latest version of Norton 360 if you can get your hands on it. It's auto-protect is amazing.

I use Avast 4 and back that up with Avira.

I have a school-supplied laptop, so it has Symantec Endpoint Protection. On my real laptop, I just have Malwarebytes.

I have McAfee Internet Security and MalwareBytes Anti-Malware.

I used to be an Avira man, but Kaspersky has really excelled itself in recent times, it's detect ratio is very impressive and efficient and even when crypted trojans are not detected it still gives you an option to block them. I also run a Malware Bytes Scan every so often for the little things Kaspersky missed so I highly recommend these 2 for awesome security.

(06-19-2011, 06:24 PM)Ace Wrote: [ -> ]lol ESET... I can see why you experience that, because as of May 21st, 2011, it was considered one of the AV's with the most false positives. I think i'll create an AV that blocks out everything including WindowsUpdates (wuapp.exe), and lets make some money

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/st...ay2011.pdf

I see you're now liking my sources.

The best Anti is yourself. Just watch your downloads and you should be mostly in the clear. I'm not saying not to use and antiviral program though. I use and would recommend Avast. Imo it's the best (for me). It has good detection rates, and isn't resource hogging.