I bought a copy of PC Format today, here is their view on anti-virus software:

"There is an argument against using any antivirus software at all."

Avast! with it's exclamation mark is not that well rated
AVG comes out pretty good
That's the free stuff
Pay-for-it, they rate Avira Premium Software Suite (above McAfee Total protection 2009, F-Secure Internet security 2009 and Norton Antivirus Gaming Ed 2009)

See also

Picture of Anti-virus
sort by: active | newest | oldest
1-10 of 46Next »
grundisimo6 years ago
Avast! is the best.
DJ Radio8 years ago
Using antivirus software is a must, however, I don't like the fact that you have to pay for a subscription or use a limited version of the software.
lemonie (author)  DJ Radio8 years ago
AVG Free is just that. L
Its a limited version of AVG. I want to see a fully functional antivirus software that is a free download. Antivirus software that only requires payment at the register and does not require subscription fees would be a good start....
For windows you mean? Because such software already exists for linux...
Linux is probably the easiest computer to hack and plant viruses on. Seeing how it is open source and everyone has full access to the code, hackers can easily find cracks and spread viruses faster than windows or mac. The only reason why almost nobody does it is because Windows and Mac are more popular and virus writers will infect more people.
DJ, please don't take offense when I say this, because I mean it with love: you are a moron. :D

Linux, (like most/all unix systems) are inherently safer than windows in many ways. For example, you -and, importantly, every last program, process and daemon - don't go running around with root access all day long (at least, not unless you're a numpty and do the bad, bad thing of staying logged in as root...) - thus, malware cannot install itself, nor can it access critical system components without you ever even knowning. In addition, unlike windows, Linux is designed with networking and multi-user functionality in mind. They've designed the system to be connected to other machines, and to be safe doing it. In windows, one system or program vulnerability can knock out everything. You're sunk. Not so in Linux.

While it's true that everyone has access to all the code, that's actually a good thing - rather than wait for some giant soulless company to notice a security hole, actually announce it and get off it's duff and release a patch, the community can examine the code and go "hey, might wanna fix that there", and get a patch written asap (and there are hardly any viruses/worms/trojans etc for Macs, either).

It's just not true that linux is "security through obscurity". It's built more securely.
Mm, You have good points there, but just like there are people who notice holes in code and try to fix them, there are people who try to exploit them.
Sure, but you are wrong in saying that Linux is probably the easiest computer (I assume you mean OS?) to attack, and that the only reason there are few viruses for it is because it has a very small market share.
actually....the SINGLE BIGGEST reason that linux isn't riddled with viruses (and mac's OS) IS because of market share....there are only a few reasons for someone to write a virus or malware the biggest is money...people get paid for setting up botnets and spam engines and all the massive pay per click scams....if you're going to take the time to write a complex piece of code that does all of this...don't you want to maximize your return? why would you target less than 10% of computer users with a money making scheme? i'd much rather hit the 90% majority the second biggest reason to write malicious code is to cause damage (deleting files, DOS attacks, DDOS attacks, etc.)....again...if your point is to cause maximum damage...why target the minority? and the third largest reason is for ideological reasons...some people just hate MS and want to scrap their product... and as to linux being inherently safer than anything else...thats preposterous...the BIGGEST security hole in ANY computer system is the loose nut behind the keyboard....LINUX security relies on the assumption that the people running the system know what they're doing and know not to log on as root, and know to set a strong root password, etc... this simply isn't fact...there are A LOT of people running linux as root right now...and there are A LOT of people with a VERY easy root password....any idea how easy it is to brute force a root PW if the password is password? yes the percentage of linux users that can be considered "tech savvy" is much higher than the percentage of windows users with the same skill set...HOWEVER that's is only explained by linux marginal market share and it's steep (steeper than MS) learning curve. at the moment linux (any flavor...and i don't care what anecdotal evidence you've got) isn't a viable OS for MOST people on the planet because it is harder to learn how to use (not how to be a tech wizard...just how to do your day to days)...this may be because most people are used to windows...but it's still a fact that MOST people struggle for a while trying to figure out how to do ANYTHING in linux also....your point about the community being able to patch flaws quickly....there's a flaw in that design (actually 2 flaws but one is more glaring)...with MS...when they release a patch for a security flaw it gets pushed to your system automatically (assuming auto update is on...which it should be)...with linux you have to assume that a user is watching the community and looking for patches...then applying said patches on their own...unless there's an automatic patch distribution system in place most systems will go unpatched the second flaw in the community scenario is someone going rogue...with MS that's not an issue...if you get your updates from MS (which you should) then there's almost no chance of there being malicious code in it because someone will lose their job if there is. where as with linux....someone could very easily jam some malicious code into a batch and then host it on their site... then what? who's going to take that down? what happens to that guy who wrote the code?'s not illegal...and there's no one to fire him
1-10 of 46Next »