Today, more than ever, antivirus software is not only the most demanded in the security system of any "OS", but also one of its main components. And if earlier the user had a very limited, modest choice, now there are a lot of such programs. But if you look at the list of "Top 10 antiviruses", you will notice that not all of them are equal in terms of functionality. Consider the most popular packages. At the same time, the analysis will include both paid and shareware (anti-virus for 30 days), and freely distributed applications. But first things first.
Before starting to compile some kind of rating, perhaps, you should familiarize yourself with the main criteria that in most cases are used when testing such software.
Naturally, it is simply impossible to consider all known packages. However, among all those designed to protect a computer system in the broadest sense, the most popular ones can be distinguished. At the same time, we will take into account both the official ratings of independent laboratories and the reviews of users who use this or that software product in practice. Besides, mobile programs will not be affected, we will focus on stationary systems.
As for the conduct of basic tests, as a rule, they include several main aspects:
As you can see from the above list, checking the operation of antivirus software allows you to determine the strengths and weaknesses of a particular product. Below are the most popular software packages, included in the Top 10 antiviruses, as well as their main characteristics, of course, taking into account the opinions of people who use them in their daily work.
To begin with, let's consider the software modules developed by Kaspersky Lab, which are extremely popular in the post-Soviet space.
It is impossible to single out any one program here, because among them you can find both a regular Kaspersky Antivirus scanner and modules like internet security, and portable utilities like Virus Removal Tool, and even boot disks for damaged Rescue Disc systems.
Immediately it is worth noting two main disadvantages: firstly, judging by the reviews, almost all programs, with rare exceptions, are paid or shareware, and secondly, system requirements are unreasonably high, which makes it impossible to use them in relatively weak configurations. Naturally, this scares off many ordinary users, although activation keys for Kaspersky Antivirus or Internet Security can easily be found on the World Wide Web.
On the other hand, the situation with activation can be corrected in another way. For example, Kaspersky keys can be generated using special applications like Key Manager. True, this approach is, to put it mildly, illegal, however, as a way out, it is used by many users.
The speed of work on modern machines is average (for some reason, more and more heavy versions are created for new configurations), but constantly updated databases, the uniqueness of technologies for detecting and removing known viruses and potentially dangerous programs are on top here. It is not surprising that Kapersky Lab is today a leader among developers of security software.
And two more words about the recovery disk. It is unique in its own way, because it loads a scanner with a graphical interface even before the start of Windows itself, allowing you to remove threats even from random access memory.
The same goes for the portable Virus Removal Tool, which can track down any threat on an infected terminal. It can only be compared with a similar utility from Dr. Web.
Before us is another of their strongest representatives in the field of security - the famous "Doctor Web", who stood at the origins of the creation of all anti-virus software from time immemorial.
Among the huge number of programs, you can also find regular scanners, and protection tools for Internet surfing, and portable utilities, and recovery disks. You can't list everything.
The main factor in favor of the software of this developer can be called high speed, instant detection of threats with the ability to either complete removal, or isolation, as well as a moderate load on the system as a whole. In general, from the point of view of most users, this is a kind of lightweight version of Kaspersky. there is still something interesting here. In particular, this is Dr. web katana. It is believed that this is a new generation software product. It is focused on the use of "sand" technologies, i.e. placing a threat in the "cloud" or "sandbox" (whatever you want to call it) for analysis before it penetrates the system. However, if you look, there are no special innovations here, because this technique was used in the free Panda antivirus. In addition, according to many users, Dr. Web Katana is a kind of Security Space with the same technologies. However, speaking in general, any software from this developer is quite stable and powerful. It is not surprising that many users prefer just such packages.
Speaking about the Top 10 antiviruses, one cannot fail to mention another brightest representative of this area - ESET, which became famous for such a well-known product as NOD32. A little later, the ESET Smart Security module was born.
If we consider these programs, we can note an interesting point. To activate the full functionality of any package, you can do two things. On the one hand, this is the acquisition of an official license. On the other hand, you can install trial antivirus free, but activate it every 30 days. With activation, too, an interesting situation.
As absolutely all users note, for ESET Smart Security (or for a regular antivirus) on the official website, one could find freely distributed keys in the form of a login and password. Until recently, only this data could be used. Now the process has become somewhat more complicated: first you need a login and password on a special site, convert it into a license number, and only then enter it in the registration field already in the program itself. However, if you do not pay attention to such trifles, it can be noted that this antivirus is one of the best. Benefits reported by users:
Separately, it is worth noting that the load on the system is minimal, and the use of the Anti-Theft module even allows you to protect data from theft or misuse for personal gain.
AVG Antivirus is paid software designed to provide comprehensive security computer systems(there is also a free truncated version). And although today this package is no longer among the top five, nevertheless, it demonstrates a fairly high speed and stability.
In principle, it is ideal for home use, because, in addition to the speed of work, it has a convenient Russified interface and more or less stable behavior. True, as some users note, sometimes it is able to skip threats. And this does not apply to viruses as such, but rather to spyware or advertising junk called Malware and Adware. The program's own module, although widely advertised, still, according to users, looks somewhat unfinished. Yes, and an additional firewall can often cause conflicts with the "native" Windows firewall if both modules are in the active state.
Avira is another member of the antivirus family. Fundamentally, it does not differ from most similar packages. However, if you read user reviews about it, you can find quite interesting posts.
Many in no case recommend using the free version, since some modules are simply missing in it. To ensure reliable protection, you will have to purchase a paid product. But such an antivirus is suitable for the 8th and 10th versions, in which the system itself uses a lot of resources, and the package uses them at the lowest level. In principle, Avira is best suited, say, for budget laptops and weak computers. On a network installation, however, there can be no question.
Free at one time became almost a revolution in the field of antivirus technology. The use of the so-called "sandbox" to send suspicious content for analysis before it enters the system has made this application especially popular among users of all levels.
And it is with the "sandbox" that this antivirus is associated today. Yes, indeed, this technology, unlike other programs, allows you to keep the threat out of the system. For example, any virus first saves its body on the hard drive or in RAM, and only then begins its activity. Here, the matter does not come to preservation. At first suspicious file goes to cloud service, where it passes the test, and only then can it be saved in the system. True, according to eyewitnesses, alas, this can take quite a lot of time and unnecessarily heavily loads the system. On the other hand, here it is worth asking yourself what is more important: security or increased scan time? However, for modern computer configurations with an Internet connection speed of 100 Mbps or higher, it can be used without problems. By the way, its own protection is provided precisely through the "cloud", which sometimes causes criticism.
Now a few words about another bright representative. It is quite popular with many users, however, despite the presence of the same “sandbox”, anti-spyware, network scanner, firewall and virtual office, unfortunately, Avast Pro Antivirus clearly loses to such giants as software products Kaspersky Labs or applications using Bitdefender technologies, although it demonstrates high scanning speed and low resource consumption.
Users in these products are attracted mainly by the fact that free version package is as functional as possible and does not differ much from paid software. In addition, this antivirus works on all Windows versions, including the "top ten", and behaves perfectly even on outdated machines.
Before us is probably one of the fastest antiviruses of our time - 360 Security, developed by Chinese specialists. In general, all products labeled "360" are distinguished by an enviable speed of work (the same Internet browser 360 Safety Browser).
Despite the main purpose, the program has additional modules to eliminate operating system vulnerabilities and optimize it. But neither the speed of work nor the free distribution can be compared with false alarms. In the list of programs that have the highest indicators for this criterion, this software occupies one of the first places. According to many experts, conflicts arise at the system level due to additional optimizers, the action of which intersects with the tasks of the OS itself.
Another "old man" among the most famous defenders of "OSes" is Bitdefender. Unfortunately, in 2015 he lost the palm to Kaspersky Lab products, nevertheless, in the antivirus fashion, so to speak, he is one of the trendsetters.
If you look a little more closely, you can see that many modern programs (the same 360 Security package) in different variations are made on the basis of these technologies. Despite the rich functional base, it also has its shortcomings. Firstly, you will not find the Russian antivirus (Russified) Bitdefender, since it does not exist in nature at all. Secondly, despite the use of the latest technological developments in terms of system protection, alas, it shows too high a number of false positives (by the way, according to experts, this is typical for the entire group of programs created on the basis of Bitdefender). The presence of additional optimizer components and your own firewalls generally affects the behavior of such antiviruses not for the better. But you can't refuse the speed of this application. In addition, P2P is used for verification, but there is no verification at all Email in real time, which many do not like.
Another app that scores enviably well with and without reason is Microsoft's own product called Security Essentials.
This package is included in the Top 10 antiviruses, apparently, only because it was developed exclusively for Windows systems, which means that it does not cause absolutely no conflicts at the system level. Besides, who, if not specialists from Microsoft, should know all the security holes and vulnerabilities of their own operating systems. Incidentally, it is interesting that the initial Windows builds 7 and Windows 8 had MSE as standard, but then for some reason this kit was abandoned. However, it is for Windows that it can become the simplest solution in terms of protection, although you can’t count on special functionality.
As for this application, it looks quite interesting. True, it earned the greatest popularity in the field of application on mobile devices with all kinds of locks, nevertheless, on stationary computers this antivirus behaves no worse.
The program has low-level support for P2P networks when sharing Instant Messenger files, and also offers 2-level protection, in which the main role is assigned to the WormStopper and ScriptStopper modules. But in general, according to consumers, the functional set is at an average level, and the program itself is focused more on detecting spyware, computer worms and trojans and preventing executable scripts or malicious codes from penetrating the system.
Naturally, only those included in the Top 10 antiviruses were considered here. If we talk about the rest of the software of this kind, we can note some packages that contain anti-virus modules in their sets.
Naturally, all antiviruses have certain similarities and differences. What to install? Here you need to proceed from the needs and the level of protection provided. As a rule, corporate clients should purchase something more powerful with the ability to network installation(Kaspersky, Dr. Web, ESET). As for home use, here the user chooses what he needs (if you wish, you can even find an antivirus for a year - without registration or purchase). But, if you look at user reviews, it is better to install Panda Cloud, even with some additional system load and sandboxing time. But it is here that there is a full guarantee that the threat will not penetrate the system in any way. However, everyone is free to choose what he needs. If activation does not make it difficult, please: ESET products work fine in home systems. But using optimizers with anti-virus modules as the main means of protection is highly undesirable. Well, it’s also impossible to say which program takes the first place: how many users, so many opinions.
In this comparative test, we studied the effectiveness of antiviruses and HIPS programs in countering the latest designs. malware transmitted to users in the most common way now - through infected websites.
Practically all other laboratories (AV-Test.org, AV-Comparatives.org) test tests of antiviruses for the quality of protection were criticized by the professional community about their being somehow synthetic or detached from real life.
The first and main complaint was that when you run a check of file collections, only some components are tested antivirus protection, such as classical signature detection or heuristics, while the possible contribution of relatively new technologies, such as behavioral analysis or HIPS, is not taken into account in any way. In addition, the work of other protection components included in modern "combines" (Internet Security class products) is not taken into account, in addition to antivirus, for example, Firewall / IDS (can detect suspicious traffic and signal infection), scanning HTTP traffic on the fly, etc. .
The second good reason is that real user does not store or run legacy malware on its hard drive. As a rule, new samples get to it, from which its antivirus may not protect. The methods by which malware enters the computer are also important. Infection can occur when opening a link received in some way (by e-mail, ICQ, etc.) or simply found in a search engine, opening a file attached to a letter, a file downloaded from the network or rewritten from an external medium.
Their effectiveness can largely depend on the penetration method, since for some antiviruses the threat of infection can be eliminated even at the stage of trying to activate a malicious script on a web page, while for others it can only be done by activating the loader loaded by the exploit, for the third one even further - when launching a downloaded malicious program.
In our comparative testing, we studied the effectiveness of antiviruses against the latest malware samples transmitted to users currently the most common way- through infected websites. To do this, we collected links to infected sites from various sources (daily collections of links from MessageLabs + help from our community). As a rule, each of us stumbles upon such links in search engines, receives them by e-mail, ICQ or other means of Internet communication, including social networks.
The essence of comparative testing is to check integrated capabilities of antiviruses in counteracting the latest threats in the form of malware distributed through infected websites.
The test took place from August 5 to September 15, 2008. Before the start of the test, the test environment was prepared. For this, under the control VMware Workstation 6.0.3 a set of clean virtual machines on which it was installed operating system Microsoft Windows XP Pro SP2 ( Latest updates deliberately omitted). Each machine was individually installed with its own protection program from among those listed below.
Whenever possible, we took into the test products for integrated protection of the Internet Security class, but if there were none in the vendor's line, then we used products that were younger in the line. As a result, the comparison involved:
Also, two special programs for proactive protection against newest species HIPS class threats (Hosted Intrusion Prevention System):
Unfortunately, during the course of the test and the processing of the results, some vendors released updates to their products, which could not be reflected in the final results.
It is important to note that all antiviruses have been tested with default settings by default and with all the latest updates received in automatic mode. At its core, the situation was simulated as if a simple user with one of the tested protection programs installed on himself used the Internet and followed links of interest to him (obtained in one way or another, see above).
For the test, we selected links to sites infected only with the latest malware samples. What does "newest" mean? This means that these downloadable malware samples should not have been detected by more than 20% of the file antiviruses from the list of tested products, which was checked through the VirusTotal service (in total, 38 different antivirus engines are connected to this service). If the selected samples were detected by someone, then the verdicts were usually inaccurate (suspicion of infection or a packed object).
The number of images that met these requirements was small, which significantly affected the size of the final sample and the timing of testing. In total, over a month of testing, 34 working links to the latest malware were selected.
With any of the above options for preventing infection, the antivirus was set 1 point. No distinctions were made, since from the user's point of view it does not matter at what stage and which particular protection component eliminated the threat of infection. The main thing is that it has been eliminated. If the infection was not prevented, including partially, then the antivirus was set 0 points.
In practice, such an evaluation system means the following. 1 point was given if an infection attempt was detected explicitly or a suspicious activity was detected, and the infection was completely stopped under the condition right choice user in a dialog box (about detecting a dangerous action, preventing an infection attempt, detecting an attempt to launch a suspicious program, detecting an attempt to change files, etc.). In all other cases, 0 points were given.
It is worth noting that in some cases the presence of a malicious program on a computer was detected after infection using a file monitor or firewall/IDS, but the antivirus could not cope with the infection. In this case, the antivirus was still given 0 points, since it did not protect against infection.
HIPS class programs were evaluated on the same principle as antiviruses. They were given 1 point in all cases where malicious or suspicious activity was detected and infection was prevented.
The final results of the comparative testing of antivirus programs and HIPS are presented below in Figure 1 and Tables 1-2.
Figure 1: The effectiveness of various protection programs against latest threats
Table 1: Effectiveness of antivirus programs against the latest threats
|
Antivirus |
% of max (34) |
|
|
Kaspersky |
||
|
Avira |
||
|
Sophos |
||
|
BitDefender |
||
|
F-Secure |
||
|
Dr. Web |
||
|
G Data |
||
|
Avast! |
||
|
Outpost |
||
|
Trend Micro |
||
|
Microsoft |
||
|
Eset |
||
|
McAfee |
||
|
Panda |
||
|
Norton |
||
|
VBA32 |
Among the antiviruses, Kaspersky Internet Security, Avira Premium Security Suite and AVG Internet Security turned out to be the best, which were able to prevent infection in 70% of cases and more. Sophos Anti-Virus, BitDefender Internet Security and F-Secure Internet Security (aka STREAM.Antivirus) turned out to be slightly worse, breaking the barrier of 50%.
The high protection rates of Kaspersky Internet Security are primarily associated with the built-in HIPS component, which allows you to evaluate the malicious ratings of any applications using reputation mechanisms (whitelisting).
Avira Premium Security turned out to be effective due to the high level of detection of exploits (see Table 3 in the full test report) and packaged objects (meaning the detection of malware by the packer used in it). The proactive detection technologies in AVG Internet Security, Sophos Anti-Virus, BitDefender Internet Security and F-Secure Internet Security (STREAM.Antivirus) turned out to be quite effective, taking 3rd to 6th places respectively. In the work of F-Secure Internet Security, the application control module (DeepGuard technology) was noticeable.
It is important to note that when malware was detected (alerts were displayed), many compared products often failed to prevent infections.
Table 2: Effectiveness of HIPS against the latest threats
|
HIPS |
Number of infections prevented |
% of max (34) |
|
DefenseWall HIPS |
||
|
Safe "n" Sec |
As can be seen from Table 2, among the HIPS-class programs, DefenseWall HIPS showed a very high result, which was able to detect almost 100% attempts to infect the system. Safe "n" Sec turned out to be less effective, but its result is still much better than many antiviruses compared in this article.
Safe "n" Sec and DefenseWall HIPS products are very different in user interaction approaches. If Safe "n" Sec is similar in principle to anti-virus products and does not require special education, then with respect to DefenseWall, everything is not so simple. To learn how to use the latter effectively, you must at least have certain knowledge and experience, as well as carefully read the user manual.
It should be noted that the above results are not the ultimate truth, indicating the super reliability of some products and the weakness of others. The test does not claim to be absolutely objective - this is a small study, which should be the first step towards comparative testing of complex products for anti-virus protection.
This article should be considered as a trial step towards comprehensive testing of the real effectiveness of anti-virus software protection. In the future, we plan to improve the method of such comparative testing: use a large sample of malicious programs, record and conduct an accurate analysis of the effectiveness of various product components, etc.
In this final qualification work, the problem of combating computer viruses handled by antivirus software. Among the set of programs used by most personal computer users every day, anti-virus programs traditionally occupy a special place.
If this work does not suit you, there is a list of similar works at the bottom of the page. You can also use the search button
Other related works that may interest you.vshm> |
|||
| 20284. | Public participation as a factor in the effectiveness of the development and implementation of programs for the development of megacities and agglomerations: a comparative analysis | 146.65KB | |
| The role and importance of strategic planning for the development of large cities and agglomerations. Expanding the scope of strategic planning. World experience in the development of strategic development documents and the presence of a public participation factor in them. The Barcelona experience: The evolution of strategic planning in Barcelona and its metropolis. | |||
| 19100. | Comparative analysis of intuitive and logical thinking | 22.37KB | |
| Comparative analysis intuitive and logical thinking. Basic theories of thinking and approaches to its study in foreign and domestic psychology. In the process of thinking, a person reflects the objective world differently than in the processes of perception and imagination. In the course of independent work, the main theories of thinking and approaches to its study in psychology will be considered. | |||
| 21121. | Comparative analysis of econometric regression models | 1.78MB | |
| The basis of econometrics is the construction of an econometric model and the determination of the possibilities of using this model to describe the analysis and forecasting of real economic processes. The objectives of the course project development of design solutions for information and methodological support of research in the field of econometric modeling, as well as obtaining practical skills in building and researching econometric models. The ultimate applied goal of econometric modeling of real socio-economic processes in this ... | |||
| 14351. | SHADOW ECONOMY IN MODERN INTERPRITATION: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS | 186.56KB | |
| To achieve the formulated goal, the following tasks are set. First, it is necessary to consider the main causes and prerequisites for the emergence of the shadow economy. Second, give general characteristics the concept of the phenomenon of the shadow economy, its economic nature. Thirdly, there is a need to conduct a meaningful and structural analysis of this economic phenomenon. | |||
| 18490. | 115.79KB | ||
| Responsibility of a public notary in the implementation of notarial acts. The legal basis for the activities of privately practicing notaries in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Responsibility of a notary in private practice. Comparative analysis of institutions of public and private notaries in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Judicial practice in considering cases of challenging the actions of notaries in the exercise of notarial ... | |||
| 18483. | NORTH AMERICA INDIAN TALES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS | 8.39KB | |
| The phenomenon of a fairy tale is a very mysterious topic of research, since oral folk art, more than other types of art, is subject to changes and distortions of meaning under the influence of changing factors in the sociocultural environment. | |||
| 9809. | Comparative analysis and prospects for the development of portable computers | 343.85KB | |
| The problem of this study is relevant in modern conditions. This is evidenced by the frequent study of the issues raised and despite all the abundance of information about laptop computers remains incomprehensible functional features, fundamental differences and long-term development prospects. | |||
| 20554. | Comparative analysis of approaches to determining margin requirements for derivatives portfolios | 275.48KB | |
| Central counterparties serve markets that often differ significantly both in terms of microstructure and range of financial instruments with different risk profiles: spot markets with T+ execution mode, money market instruments (for example, repos), exchange-traded and over-the-counter derivatives | |||
| 16100. | Demand for Education Services in Russia: Comparative Econometric Analysis | 228.72KB | |
| Data and variables used To analyze Russian household spending on educational services, we used data from a regular sample microsurvey of household budgets. Federal Service state statistics of the Russian Federation for 2007. The variable was changed to eliminate outliers in the sample and obtain more robust estimation results. Models and results Heckman model The Heckman model was chosen to estimate household demand for education, the variables with asterisks are unobservable... | |||
| 19049. | COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF PC POWER SUPPLY | 1.04MB | |
| A modern power supply is a switching unit, not a power unit. The impulse block contains more electronics and has its own advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include low weight and the possibility of continuous power supply when the voltage drops. The disadvantages are the presence of a not very long service life compared to power blocks due to the presence of electronics. | |||
Table 1. Comparison of the functionality of antivirus solutions
It is no less interesting, of course, to compare the reviewed antiviruses in terms of their effectiveness in detecting malicious software. This parameter is evaluated in special and internationally recognized centers and laboratories, such as ICSA Labs, West Сoast Labs, Virus Bulletin, etc. The first two issue special certificates to those antiviruses that have passed a certain level of tests, only one caveat - all known packages today have such certificates (this is a certain minimum). The antivirus magazine Virus Bulletin tests a large number of antiviruses several times a year and, based on the results, assigns them VB100% awards. Alas, today all popular viruses also have such awards, including, of course, the ones we have reviewed. Therefore, we will try to analyze the results of other tests. We will focus on the tests of the reputable Austrian antivirus testing laboratory Av-Comparatives.org, and the Greek company Virus.gr, which specializes in antivirus software tests and antivirus ratings and is known for one of the largest collections of viruses. According to Av-Comparatives.org's latest On-Demand Scan test in August 2009 (Table 2), Avira AntiVir Premium and Norton AntiVirus performed best among those reviewed. But Kaspersky Anti-Virus was able to detect only 97.1% of viruses, although it is, of course, completely unfair to call such a level of virus detection low. For more information, we note that the volume of virus databases involved in this test amounted to more than 1.5 million malicious codes, and the difference is only 0.1% - this is neither more nor less, but 1.5 thousand malicious programs. As for speed, it is even more difficult to objectively compare solutions in this aspect, because the speed of scanning depends on many factors - in particular, whether the antivirus product uses emulation code, whether it is able to recognize complex polymorphic viruses, whether deep analysis of heuristic scanning is carried out, and active scanning of rootkits, etc. All of the above points are directly related to the quality of virus recognition, so in the case of antivirus solutions, scanning speed is not the most important indicator of their performance. Nevertheless, the specialists of Av-Comparatives.org considered it possible to evaluate the solutions, and according to this indicator, as a result, Avast turned out to be on top among the antivirus programs under consideration! AntiVirus and Norton AntiVirus.table 2. Comparison of antivirus solutions in terms of malware detection (source - Av-Comparatives.org, August 2009)
| Name | Scan speed | |
| Avira AntiVir Premium 8.2 | 99,7 | Medium |
| Norton AntiVirus 16.2 | 98,7 | Fast |
| 98,2 | Fast | |
| ESET NOD32 Antivirus 3.0 | 97,6 | Medium |
| Kaspersky Anti-Virus 8.0 | 97,1 | Medium |
| AVG Anti-Virus 8.0.234 | 93 | slow |
| Dr.Web anti-virus for Windows | Not tested | No data |
| PANDA Antivirus Pro 2010 | Not tested | No data |
According to the results of the August testing of Virus.gr, presented in Table. 3, the data is slightly different. The leaders here are Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010 with 98.67% and Avira AntiVir Premium 9.0 with 98.64%. Incidentally, it is worth noting here that free program Avira AntiVir Personal, which uses the same signature bases and the same testing methods as the paid Avira AntiVir Premium, is quite a bit behind the commercial solution. Differences in the results are due to the fact that different laboratories use different virus databases - of course, all such databases are based on the "In the Wild" collection of wild viruses, but it is supplemented by other viruses. It depends on what kind of viruses they are and what percentage of them are in the total database, which of the packages will take the lead.
Table 3. Comparison of antivirus solutions in terms of malware detection (source - Virus.gr, August 2009)
| Name | Detection percentage different types malware |
| Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2010 | 98,67 |
| Avira AntiVir Premium 9.0 | 98,64 |
| Avira AntiVir Personal 9.0 | 98,56 |
| AVG Anti-Virus Free 8.5.392 | 97 |
| ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0 | 95,97 |
| Avast! AntiVirus Free 4.8 | 95,87 |
| Norton AntiVirus Norton 16.5 | 87,37 |
| Dr. Web 5.00 | 82,89 |
| Panda 2009 9.00.00 | 70,8 |
It is also worth paying attention to the extent to which antiviruses can deal with unknown threats in practice - that is, the effectiveness of the proactive methods of antivirus protection used in them. This is extremely important, since all leading experts in this field have long agreed that this particular area is the most promising on the anti-virus market. Similar testing was carried out by Anti-Malware.ru specialists from December 3, 2008 to January 18, 2009. To conduct the test, they collected a collection of 5166 unique codes of the latest malicious programs during the freezing of anti-virus databases. Among the antiviruses considered in this article, the best results were demonstrated by Avira AntiVir Premium and Dr.Web (Table 4), which managed to detect a relatively high number of malicious codes missing from their databases, however, the number of false positives for these antiviruses turned out to be high. Therefore, the laurels of championship in the form of the "Gold Proactive Protection Award" were given by experts to completely different solutions. These are Kaspersky Anti-Virus, ESET NOD32 AntiVirus and BitDefender Antivirus, which turned out to be the best in terms of the balance of proactive detection and false positives. Their results were almost identical - the level of heuristic detection in 60% and the level of false positives in the region of 0.01-0.04%.
Table 4. Comparison of anti-virus solutions in terms of the effectiveness of proactive anti-virus protection (source - Anti-Malware.ru, January 2009)
| Name | Percentage of detected viruses | Percentage of false positives |
| Avira AntiVir Premium 8.2 | 71 | 0,13 |
| Dr.Web 5.0 | 61 | 0,2 |
| Kaspersky Anti-Virus 2009 | 60,6 | 0,01 |
| ESET NOD32 AntiVirus 3.0 | 60,5 | 0,02 |
| AVG AntiVirus 8.0 | 58,1 | 0,02 |
| Avast! AntiVirus Professional 4.8 | 53,3 | 0,03 |
| Norton AntiVirus 2009 | 51,5 | 0 |
| Panda Antivirus 2009 | 37,9 | 0,02 |
From the above data, only one conclusion can be drawn - all the considered anti-virus solutions can really be classified as worthy of attention. However, when working in any of them, one should never forget about the timely updating of signature databases, since the level of proactive protection methods in any of the programs is still far from ideal.
Security information security systems is one of the top issues. IN modern society information protection plays a particularly significant role, since the Internet is teeming with viruses, and even the simplest of them can cause serious harm to a computer and the data stored on it. These threats can be of the most diverse nature - disrupt the system by destroying important system files, steal important information, passwords, documents. This leads to sad consequences - from reinstalling the system to losing important data or money. Therefore, the question of choosing an antivirus program for a computer that can protect important data becomes very important. In this article, we will look at some popular antiviruses and try to choose among them the most optimal for the average user (most of them will be free, because, nevertheless, exactly, free antiviruses are the most accessible wide audience users). So, we will consider 4 antiviruses - Avast Free Antivirus, Panda Antivirus, 360 Total Security, ESET NOD32. Let's start with the introduction and brief information about each of them.
