# What is the best anti-virus?



## anthroguy101 (Sep 15, 2010)

I've heard several claims.  I want to know what the experts here think is the best.  I'm sure we have our opinions, but I'm looking for what is best based on detection rate.


----------



## Aden (Sep 15, 2010)

Inbe4 "get a mac"

Wait, that's my job.

uh.

hrm


----------



## Lobar (Sep 15, 2010)

Avast! free version combined with MalwareBytes, a firewall, and Firefox with the noscript addon is more than sufficient protection, and it's all free.


----------



## Ames (Sep 15, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Avast! free version combined with MalwareBytes, a firewall, and Firefox with the noscript addon is more than sufficient protection, and it's all free.


 
This.

Also, why do i think of pirates every time I see the "Avast" icon on my desktop?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 15, 2010)

JamesB said:


> This.
> 
> Also, why do i think of pirates every time I see the "Avast" icon on my desktop?


 
because pirates are _awesome_


----------



## Joeyyy (Sep 15, 2010)

well Dontlookatporn is a pretty good antivirus i have heard... :V


----------



## Runefox (Sep 15, 2010)

Avast! is my recommendation. Lightweight and a good detection rate (as good or better than most commercial AV's like Norton). If you need something closer to the state of the art in terms of detection rate, go for Microsoft Security Essentials or Avira, but be warned that they're a lot heavier.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Sep 15, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Avast! is my recommendation. Lightweight and a good detection rate (as good or better than most commercial AV's like Norton). If you need something closer to the state of the art in terms of detection rate, go for Microsoft Security Essentials or Avira, but be warned that they're a lot heavier.


"Safety First" I say.


----------



## Random User (Sep 15, 2010)

I heard Avast! is an excellent antivirus, but personally I prefer using McAfee.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 15, 2010)

Random User said:


> I heard Avast! is an excellent antivirus, but personally I prefer using McAfee.


 
Enjoy using one of the worst anti-virus products on the market. It's one of the heaviest, least effective and most error-prone out there.


----------



## Folgrimeo (Sep 15, 2010)

My pick was for AVG, but then it started to fail grabbing updates and became slower and was failing program updates, so I jumped ship to Avast! But I second the opinion that McAfee's horrible. If for nothing else than you have to wait about half a minute for its silly splash screen to go away and show you its home screen whenever you want to do anything with it.

What I look for in an anti-virus product is one that's lightweight and unintrusive enough that I forget it's there and doesn't cause unfathomable slowdown to everything I do. Because historically I've hated anti-virus for that one reason that it will slow down everything by some amount (or at least the ones I had tried). So by that token, Microsoft's Security Essentials seems to be a good pick. Say what you want about Microsoft, it's been getting good reviews and said to do well enough regarding detection rates and all.

But the overall problem is: I don't get viruses. Or I don't think I do. So I've had no proof, positive or negative, that my anti-virus actually works. I'm reasonably safe, don't go downloading strange stuff or cursor packs or smileys. Now yes, I did get the PE_HANTANER thing a long time ago (supposedly an easy one to remove) and that infamous Blaster worm (managed to apply the fix to that somehow), but other than that, nothing. I've gotten into a lull thinking that viruses are nothing to worry about, because it's that frickin' spyware I have to worry about now. So keep an anti-spyware program around at least, because spyware's the sort of thing where you can be safe in your internet activities for a month and still have that stuff lurking around.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 15, 2010)

Avast and most anti-virus products today are actually generalized anti-malware suites nowadays, even though they maintain the "anti-virus" label.


----------



## Sauvignon (Sep 16, 2010)

JamesB said:


> This.
> 
> Also, why do i think of pirates every time I see the "Avast" icon on my desktop?


 
Avast! actually makes a point of celebrating "International Talk Like a Pirate Day" (which is in three days!).


----------



## Runefox (Sep 16, 2010)

lucaaat said:


> Kaperski anyone?


 
Kaspersky's one of the best on the market, but since Microsoft Security Essentials and Avira are both free and similar in detection rate (MSE specifically), you're really better off using one of those if you want top-tier protection.


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 16, 2010)

i use norton 360 4.0 and im happy with it


----------



## Runefox (Sep 16, 2010)

lucaaat said:


> Uhmm... I mistrust MSE because the word "microsoft" is in it



I'm pretty sure if you mistrusted MSE because of the word "Microsoft", you'd be using Linux or Mac OS.


----------



## Saintversa (Sep 16, 2010)

avira


----------



## anthroguy101 (Sep 17, 2010)

I keep getting pop-up ads but nothing is being detected by Avira, which is what I have now.  Do I have malware?  Also, it keeps blocking autorun.inf.  Again, do I have malware?


----------



## Runefox (Sep 17, 2010)

Blocking autorun.inf? If the autorun.inf file is blocked because it's infected, then chances are good. You should grab Malwarebytes Anti-Malware and give it a scrub.


----------



## Vo (Sep 17, 2010)

Comodo Internet Security. Set the "Defense+" (process monitor) and firewall to "Safe Mode" and spend the next while whitelisting your known good processes as prompted. (It's probably easiest to understand if you just install it (in a VM?) for a while to see. Once you've got the usual bunch of prompts done for your usual activities it should go fairly smoothly until you run something new or pick up malware, at which point you just disallow it to run at the Comodo prompt, run a quick scan in Malwarebytes' to make yourself feel better, and move on.

I only had CIS pick up one piece of malware when I was using it and stayed clean otherwise. I was already using Opera with a Javascript whitelist though.


----------



## Barak (Sep 18, 2010)

BitDefender 2008 8)


----------



## LLiz (Sep 18, 2010)

I used to loath Norton AntiVirus with passion, but a lot has changed. 

The program is now relatively light on resources, rarely gets in your way (unobtrusive) and is also pretty quick. 
I highly recommend Norton AntiVirus 2011.


----------



## Fenrari (Sep 18, 2010)

I'm vouching for Avast! as well. To note though, if you're smart about what you access and download (legally or otherwise) you shouldn't have too many problems.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 18, 2010)

Jack.is said:


> Comodo Internet Security.


 
It's a good last line of defence - The firewall blocks at the execution level - but for the most comprehensive security, CIS + Avast, Avira or MSE is my pick. But that's only in extreme cases; CIS is very overkill for most purposes, and I usually only use it for high-risk systems (as in, high-risk of becoming infected, such as my roommate's PC). For completely locking down a Windows machine software-wise, CIS is pretty awesome at it.


----------



## Vo (Sep 18, 2010)

CIS does come with an antivirus component but I didn't actually use it because, really it's just the tech background and all, I can generally spot malware without all that. So I never really saw if it was any good. Have you?

Also you can put CIS in Clean PC Mode, where you know everything currently on the PC is known good and it whitelists them and then prompts for new things. Could be much better for the end user but CIS is such that they'd probably still need training on how to handle the prompts (especially considering the technical descriptions of what the processes are trying to do - Joe Blow doesn't know what it means when example.exe is "trying to access the disk directly". 

I haven't really used enough of the common AV suites to say which would be best overall. I kind of envy the understanding others seem to have of them.

Also, Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware paid edition is kind of nice. It definitely detects malware in real time as well as its manual scanning component does. I've had issues with what I consider false positives in the site blocker though (like zoklet.net). I'm told it isn't quite suitable as the only line of defense, in any case.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 18, 2010)

lucaaat said:


> touche  nah I am trying to avid Microsoft wherever I can, but for software and budget reasons I am stuck with Windows



I've had mixed experiences with Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) on my Windows XP test system, but nothing but good experiences with MSE on my Windows 7 test system.  As long as it's free and getting good reviews, you shouldn't avoid it just because of the Microsoft name.



Barak said:


> BitDefender 2008 8)


 
Get rid of that crap.  Anti-malware software ages like milk, not like wine.


----------



## Flatline (Sep 18, 2010)

I use the free version of Avast! along with the free version of Comodo Internet Security (without the AV).

I also use KeyScrambler, SpywareBlaster and Firefox with NoScript, WoT, Ghostery, AdBlock Plus and LinkExtend... Do I need anything else? Or is it too many? >.<

Anyway, I always used Avast!, only tried Avira once, but wasn't very impressed so I'm using Avast! again.


----------



## Lapdog (Sep 18, 2010)

Well, Kaspersky is my choice, bought the 2009 version awhile back, but got it upgraded to KIS 2010 for free, shortly after it got upgraded again to KIS 2011, so well worth buying the 2 year deal. But if your super cheap and don't want to fork out the dough, (Like everybody has been saying) Avast! is great. Not used it personally but alot of the computers I get to repair are running Avast! in the background, and seems to work perfectly. But I cannot stress enough not to get McAfee security... It's full-on terrible.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 18, 2010)

Jack.is said:


> CIS does come with an antivirus component but I didn't actually use it because, really it's just the tech background and all, I can generally spot malware without all that. So I never really saw if it was any good. Have you?


 
I haven't tried the anti-virus component of CIS, but I don't trust it much. I much prefer a dedicated solution for that; Avast! + CIS equates to a nigh-impenetrable shield (barring user error) while having very little performance impact by comparison to the protection. Avira or MSE could be used instead, but their advantages in detection rate could potentially be negated by CIS' extra protection. Still, I don't recommend CIS under normal circumstances because it's both very chatty (and thus user-unfriendly and in certain cases interferes with normal software) and generally overkill. Only in situations where it's almost assured that the machine is at a high risk of infection do I recommend using CIS because of the extra overhead and the potential issues involved. As a firewall proper, CIS is incredibly overkill, albeit completely leak-proof.



lucaaat said:


> I stand to my ideals


 
Ideals don't amount to much in the computer world, and especially not in the security world.



Miles Snowpaw said:


> I use the free version of Avast! along with the free version of Comodo Internet Security (without the AV).
> 
> I also use KeyScrambler, SpywareBlaster and Firefox with NoScript, WoT, Ghostery, AdBlock Plus and LinkExtend... Do I need anything else? Or is it too many? >.<



KeyScrambler is probably a little overkill, and I had thought that SpywareBlaster was almost entirely replaced nowadays with Spybot: SD's immunization function. I used to use that myself back in The Day(TM)... Ghostery and NoScript, I thought, had similar functions, and NoScript does pretty much everything Ghostery does - That said, I haven't been using Firefox for a while now.


----------



## VoidBat (Sep 18, 2010)

I'd say Avast.

Though it should be noted that any AV, regardless of specs, can be rendered useless in the hands of the ignorant and retarded.


----------



## Vo (Sep 18, 2010)

> Ideals don't amount to much in the computer world, and especially not in the security world.



You mean I can't convince the rogue antivirus writers that they're cheating meanies and should stop it? ;___;


----------



## Leafblower29 (Sep 19, 2010)

ESET Smart Security


----------



## Folgrimeo (Sep 19, 2010)

I'm sure Avast and Avira are free, maybe, but I'm puzzled why they require registration or have a trial period. That doesn't strike me as "free". Same with NOD32, I was going to download it until I saw a mention that it was a trial version. I don't like the idea of registering for anything unless they plainly state it's a one-time activation thing rather than a mailing list or pay-us-money thing. When I hear "register", I think of "buy a registered version of this software for full capabilities!" from the 80s. Guess I'm staying with AVG then...


----------



## Runefox (Sep 20, 2010)

Folgrimeo said:


> I'm sure Avast and Avira are free, maybe, but I'm puzzled why they require registration or have a trial period. That doesn't strike me as "free". Same with NOD32, I was going to download it until I saw a mention that it was a trial version. I don't like the idea of registering for anything unless they plainly state it's a one-time activation thing rather than a mailing list or pay-us-money thing. When I hear "register", I think of "buy a registered version of this software for full capabilities!" from the 80s. Guess I'm staying with AVG then...


 
... Except AVG does (or at least, did) exactly the same thing. Avast's registration can be done in-app, and only requires basic information. I usually just feed it a fake e-mail like a@a.com. They don't even need e-mail confirmation any more.


----------



## anthroguy101 (Sep 24, 2010)

I've added a poll for all the freeware programs that I could find.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 24, 2010)

My overall vote still goes to Avast. As far as performance impact and accuracy goes, I believe it strikes the best balance.


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 24, 2010)

Oh man, this totally happened at the EXACT moment I voted.

But yeah, Avast has served me well for years now. Never any problems. And by problems, I mean anti-virus/application conflicts, as well as virus problems.


----------



## SnowFox (Sep 24, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> Oh man, this totally happened at the EXACT moment I voted.
> 
> But yeah, Avast has served me well for years now. Never any problems. And by problems, I mean anti-virus/application conflicts, as well as virus problems.


 
Why has your porn tab gone all red and scribbly? :V


----------



## Runefox (Sep 24, 2010)

Grimfang said:


> Oh man, this totally happened at the EXACT moment I voted.
> 
> But yeah, Avast has served me well for years now. Never any problems. And by problems, I mean anti-virus/application conflicts, as well as virus problems.


 
I love silent mode.  At least turn the sounds off.


----------



## Grimfang (Sep 24, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I love silent mode.  At least turn the sounds off.


 
I enjoy being able to say "Thanks, Jarvis," though.

I also hate the vocal announcement of updating my virus definitions. You are right, although I just let it keep blabbering loudly... usually while my computer is booting up, and the volume's set to high, and nonadjustable because of the start-up load.



SnowFox said:


> Why has your porn tab gone all red and scribbly? :V


 
Whoa, that must be a virus or something. I better look into that. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## Esonver (Sep 27, 2010)

Norton Ghost is my best choice .


----------



## Azbulldog (Sep 28, 2010)

My suggestion goes to MSE right now. I have been using it on each of my computers without any problems. It's very passive and you _never_ notice it or have to fuss with it except when it thinks it's been awhile since the last scan and the tray icon changes color. This of course is an exception when it finds something.
I have used Avast, AVG, and Comodo firewall in the past. Comodo was decent software but a firewall is now irrelevant with Windows Firewall, and AVG I've read became rather bloated or clunky. I assume Avast is still a good option, but I'd prefer MSE.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 28, 2010)

The best antivirus is Linux's natural immunity! There are some annoying compatibility issues with some websites, but it's an acceptable loss.


----------



## Esonver (Sep 29, 2010)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> The best antivirus is Linux's natural immunity! There are some annoying compatibility issues with some websites, but it's an acceptable loss.


Ya. Linux can immune to Windows's viruses .


----------



## CynicalCirno (Sep 29, 2010)

What about linux viruses?
A linux without an antivirus is still a fail.
I use Vipre and it works for me. Not to mention the Israeli firewall.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 29, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... Except AVG does (or at least, did) exactly the same thing. Avast's registration can be done in-app, and only requires basic information. I usually just feed it a fake e-mail like a@a.com. They don't even need e-mail confirmation any more.


 
AVG Free doesn't anymore, and it's been several versions since it did.  The installer comes preloaded with a key, and the only nagging it does is a slide-out ad from the main window's bottom.

The only thing you've got to watch out for are the toolbar and the reset-to-Yahoo checkboxes.


----------



## Kaine Wuff (Sep 30, 2010)

A topic that's constantly brought up, but is impossible to easily answer.

Personally, Avira was the only thing that successfully detected and helped me deal with a nasty MBR rootkit that hit me over a year ago, outside of specific rootkit detection software. And it runs reliably with a low overhead, so I've been using it ever since on my new PC build.

I'll never go back to any of the big label brands, like Norton or McAffe - more trouble than they're worth imo.

I've heard really great things about F-Secure and Kapersky as well. But no antivirus, free or otherwise, is perfect of course.


----------



## Lapdog (Sep 30, 2010)

Why isn't Kaspersky on the poll? That's what I would have voted for.

However, as it is not; I will vote on the next-best-thing, and that for me is Avast!. A great piece of anti-virus that just plain works. Detected almost everything, and is simple and easy to use.


----------



## RedFoxTwo (Sep 30, 2010)

It's so reassuring to see that Avast! is top of the list by quite a lot. I had no idea what to get - so I got Avast!



Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW.


----------



## Kaine Wuff (Oct 1, 2010)

RedFoxTwo said:


> Flying Spaghetti Monster FTW.



What's FSM have to do with Avast? o.o


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 1, 2010)

Kaine Wuff said:


> What's FSM have to do with Avast? o.o


 
It's a pirate term, and Pastafarianism requires its followers to dress up as pirates to stop global warming.


----------



## Barak (Oct 2, 2010)

That pool is missing BitDefender 2011 <.>


----------



## medjai (Oct 2, 2010)

My favorite antivirus is the immunity method. Namely, Linux.


----------



## LizardKing (Oct 2, 2010)

I just voted for Panda because I felt pity for it. Poor little panda with no votes ;_;


----------



## Wolffin (Oct 4, 2010)

I like NOD32, very easy to use and update.


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 6, 2010)

It's a tie between AVG and Norton.
<3 Malwarebytes majorly, though.

Would love to try Kaspersky (sp?) when I get the chance, though. I don't really need another antivirus program at the moment, though.

EDIT:


Wolffin said:


> I like NOD32, very easy to use and update.


I used to love NOD32 as well until I found out it was letting a lot of nasty things through. /shrug
It's been a while though. Not sure if they've fixed things up.


----------



## WolvesSoulZ (Oct 6, 2010)

I've been happy with Nod32 since 2004, it has served me good.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 7, 2010)

SkyeThing said:


> It's a tie between AVG and Norton.


 
You may want to re-think your tie? Norton has (Most likely) one of the worst detection rates and is (Extremely) bloated.



SkyeThing said:


> Would love to try Kaspersky (sp?) when I get the chance, though. I don't really need another antivirus program at the moment, though.



Likely to be a good idea, get the trial version of 2011 Internet Security, if you go to a website, it blocks the Entire site, and the Worm, Trojan ETC before its even in your PC. Well worth the money.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 7, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> You may want to re-think your tie? Norton has (Most likely) one of the worst detection rates and is (Extremely) bloated.



Actually, I'd totally agree with you two years ago and start talking about the many cases of people trying to run it on really old PC's, but since NAV 2009, they've totally streamlined it. It's actually pretty incredible, it's about as light as Avast is now, and they even have performance meters that tell you how much system resources NAV is taking up so you can monitor it yourself. Internet Security is still a complete bust though, their firewalls do more harm than good. Supposedly, the detection rate for NAV is similar to AVG, but most malware is designed with Norton in mind and if it squeaks by, it's going to blow Norton away.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 7, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Actually, I'd totally agree with you two years ago and start talking about the many cases of people trying to run it on really old PC's, but since NAV 2009, they've totally streamlined it. It's actually pretty incredible, it's about as light as Avast is now, and they even have performance meters that tell you how much system resources NAV is taking up so you can monitor it yourself. Internet Security is still a complete bust though, their firewalls do more harm than good. Supposedly, the detection rate for NAV is similar to AVG, but most malware is designed with Norton in mind and if it squeaks by, it's going to blow Norton away.


 
Well, if I'm honest, I haven't use Norton (Personally) for about 2 years, and every time I get a computer to repair (Its a Saturday job), if it has Norton 2010 then it just completely clots the computer, and sucks up about 50MB of RAM.

As for proof of a bad detection rate, you got me there as (Like I said) I last used Norton about two years ago, so doubtless they have improve it somewhat.


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 7, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Internet Security is still a complete bust though, their firewalls do more harm than good. Supposedly, the detection rate for NAV is similar to AVG, but most malware is designed with Norton in mind and if it squeaks by, it's going to blow Norton away.


That's why I have two antivirus programs - AVG's got a nice firewall imo, and as for undetected malware, I run Malwarebytes scans regularly, usually at the same time as Norton (AVG runs its own scheduled scans). The only performance drop I notice with either of them is when a scan is actually running, but that's to be expected.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 7, 2010)

... You really should never run two AV's at once. Among other things (like memory usage and slowdown if both have their shields active), they CAN cause problems with each other.


----------



## Ibuuyk (Oct 7, 2010)

A mix of AntiVir and Malwaresbyte.


----------



## Vo (Oct 7, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... You really should never run two AV's at once. Among other things (like memory usage and slowdown if both have their shields active), they CAN cause problems with each other.


 
A full AV + MBAM is the one exception I know of (I suppose along with other simple malware removers like Spybot S&D). While it may not be entirely worthwhile to run it alongside a full AV suite, I've not seen it actually cause trouble.


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 7, 2010)

Runefox said:


> ... You really should never run two AV's at once. Among other things (like memory usage and slowdown if both have their shields active), they CAN cause problems with each other.


Aye, I know. It's amusing when AVG and Norton both think the other is a virus.
I really haven't noticed any problems with running two at once. If they do arise, I know how to take care of them.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 7, 2010)

Jack.is said:


> A full AV + MBAM is the one exception I know of (I suppose along with other simple malware removers like Spybot S&D). While it may not be entirely worthwhile to run it alongside a full AV suite, I've not seen it actually cause trouble.


 
Anti-malware solutions like MBAM aren't AV's, and unless you purchase MBAM, it doesn't provide an active shield, so it's not what I'm talking about.


----------



## Vo (Oct 7, 2010)

Yeah, that's why it's one of few exceptions to not running parallel security software.


----------



## TrinityWolfess (Oct 7, 2010)

my grandpa put Avast on my computer and his and it works great


----------



## Kaine Wuff (Oct 9, 2010)

Ibuuyk said:


> A mix of AntiVir and Malwaresbyte.


 
I have to ask, why is MBAM so highly recommended? I have used it on and off for the last two years, and it has literally picked up ZERO things. I've had much better detection rates with avast and Avira.

Used Malwarebytes on PC's I know were infected in the past, it failed to pick anything up.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 9, 2010)

Kaine Wuff said:


> I have to ask, why is MBAM so highly recommended? I have used it on and off for the last two years, and it has literally picked up ZERO things. I've had much better detection rates with avast and Avira.
> 
> Used Malwarebytes on PC's I know were infected in the past, it failed to pick anything up.


 
That's bizarre. You do need to keep it updated, but it actually removes very stubborn infections at a good rate. It's more a removal tool than anything, though, so really it's like Spybot rather than Avast. You should keep it, Spybot S&D and the anti-virus of your choice on hand for general cleanup. My toolkit also includes Autoruns, GMER, Ice Sword, Combofix and Hiren's BootCD+Ubuntu+Slax (all running off a USB key with GRLDR).


----------



## Kaine Wuff (Oct 9, 2010)

I keep other specific detection toolkits on hand of course, and have my own copy of Hiren's, heh. And I've kept MBAM up to date too of course.

Haven't used Spybot in ages, personally.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 9, 2010)

Kaine Wuff said:


> Haven't used Spybot in ages, personally.


 
Yeesh, last time I used that was on my old Desktop computer, where I had no money and nothing in the form of a firewall. (Although Windows XP had a built-in one, I wasn't really knwoing if it was actually doing anything; nothing came in the form of a message saying: "Windows has blocked this website as it has been added to the Microsoft Black List" or something like that) But when I did use it, it did have a good detection rate and immunised almost all of the programs. (Again, not much proof it actually did anything)


----------



## Runefox (Oct 9, 2010)

I actually find Spybot less useful for picking off infections as such than just doing post-removal cleanup. It's quite good at that. Plus the immunization thing, which is a concept borrowed from SpywareBlaster back in the day.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 9, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I actually find Spybot less useful for picking off infections as such than just doing post-removal cleanup. It's quite good at that.


 
Perhaps that's all it was designed to do in the first place, and people just automatically assumed it would also pick up other things too.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 9, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> Perhaps that's all it was designed to do in the first place, and people just automatically assumed it would also pick up other things too.


 
Oh no, it used to work wonders back in the day when it was between it and Ad-Aware. Ad-Aware is useless nowadays, mind you.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 9, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Oh no, it used to work wonders back in the day when it was between it and Ad-Aware. Ad-Aware is useless nowadays, mind you.


 
Doesn't affect as much areas any more, nor is it as affective at getting people annoyed because (Almost) any anti-virus blocks it as standard.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 9, 2010)

Lapdog said:


> Doesn't affect as much areas any more, nor is it as affective at getting people annoyed because (Almost) any anti-virus blocks it as standard.


 
Actually, Ad-Aware is an anti-malware program as well, one of the early ones alongside Spybot back when GAIN was the big threat. It still exists, but it's pretty bad.


----------



## Lapdog (Oct 11, 2010)

Runefox said:


> Actually, Ad-Aware is an anti-malware program as well, one of the early ones alongside Spybot back when GAIN was the big threat. It still exists, but it's pretty bad.


 
I misread your post, I though you put "Ad-Ware" and not Ad-Aware, my bad.

But your right (As per usual) it is abit useless these days as viruses are now alot more complex and not as easy to "Disarm" (I couldn't think of a better word for it).


----------

