Free anti-malware software is effective

[OhauitiWeather]

The influential Consumer Reports publication in its June issue gives its recommendation to anti-malware freeware for protecting Windows and Mac computers

In what could be regarded as a controversial test of anti-malware effectiveness, the influential Consumer Reports publication in its June issue gives its main recommendation to anti-malware freeware for protecting Windows and Mac computers. With some caveats, Consumer Reports says in its "Security Software" article it regards it as unnecessary to buy commercial anti-malware software.
 
Consumer Reports says it carried out the testing of 18 separate anti-malware software applications -- four of them free and 14 paid -- in conjunction with International Consumer Research & Testing based on how well the software defended against live exploits from websites.
 
It combined these results with other tests related to "ease of use," as well as a measurement of how the software used memory or other "resources" that might slow computer operation during a scan. The testing also looked at "scan speed" related to how fast large groups of files could be scanned, and "updating" to see how fast each software package would be updated against new malware. Other categories such as "information help," related to how clear and useful instructions are, and "clear warnings" were examined. The effectiveness of any "firewall performance," "spam filter," "parental filter" and "non-boot rescue" were also technically reviewed by Consumer Reports and its testing partner.
 
In the June issue, Consumer Reports recommends that consumers use free anti-malware tools -- the top choice being Avira Free Antivirus, followed by AVG Anti-Virus Free 2012, Avast Free Antivirus and Microsoft Security Essentials, unless the user should be considered among the "most at-risk Internet users."
 However, the publication does not define what that is in much detail, except to suggest "if you remotely access files on your computer when you're away from home, for example, you'll need stronger protection."
 
Consumer Reports also acknowledges "pay suites offer more features and are simpler to use, with a single interface, just one download and installation, and a single upgrade from time to time."
 
Despite its strong recommendation for Avira and the three other anti-malware freeware programs, the Consumer Reports article indicates that the freeware it tested did not generally do better in the "Net threats" protection tests against viruses and exploits than the paid anti-malware software did. In fact, it usually did worse.
 
In the "Net threats" dense tests against live exploits from websites, Avira Free Antivirus, Avast Free Antivirus and Microsoft Security Essentials earned the middle-tier "good" rating, with only AVG Anti-Virus Free 2012 rising above that to a "very good" ranking.
 
In contrast, the paid Avira Internet Security 2012 did better against "Net threats" with a "very good" ranking, as did paid software from G Data Internet Security 2012, ESET Smart Security 5, Norton Internet Security 2012, F-Secure Internet Security 2012, BullGuard Internet Security 2012, and Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2012.
 
Top-ranked for "Net threats" defense with an "excellent" rating were Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 and BitDefender Internet Security 2012. However, McAfee Internet Security 2012 and Panda Internet Security 2012, both paid anti-malware programs, only reached the middle-tier "good" category, according to the Consumer Reports "Net threats" tests.


Published by Computerworld, written By Ellen Messmer | Framingham | Wednesday, 30 May, 2012
Link to article:  http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/security/consumer-reports-free-anti-malware-software-for-windows-mac-is-effective?opendocument&utm_source=security&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=security

• Tweet

[TonyC]

I've been using Avast on all my computers (6 in total) and it seems to be pretty effective especially in finding and quarantining infected mail messages. I bought a years subscription of Norton for my ageing laptop and ended up scrapping it after 3 months and replacing it with Avast as slowed the machine down to a snails pace.

[OhauitiWeather]

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials on my Server, 5 Workstations and 3 Notebooks for about 18 Months, it has worked well, seamlessly updates as part of Microsoft update and has caught all the nasties that have come my way.  Previously ran Avira Free for several years before that.  I also know a number who have used or are using Avast and finding that it is keeping their systems clean.

@TonyC.  Based on my experiences over 30 years as a Computer Engineer I can only agree with your comments about Norton and unfortunately some of the others like Symantec etc.  They really do take over your system hogging system resources and crippling performance, very often they are also very tricky to uninstall and they can take a huge amountof time to uninstall manually.  I recently cleaned up a new i5 Notebook where the Norton installation was interrupted and it took over 3 hours to get it sorted, needless to say I did not install Norton.  My rule is NEVER run Norton but if you have no option then only run on a really new and powerful hardware platform.

Contrary to most popular misconceptions Free Antivirus and Malware software does work and if you stick to the ones listed in the article above they should do a more than adequate job for you.  My approach has always been and will continue to be that  any computer needs to be well patched with up to date software and Operating System plus good up to date Antivirus and Malware software.  Just need to convince all the computer users and owners out there to think the same way.

Kind Regards

[Rwood]

I've found both Avast and Malwarebytes to be good.

[ato2]

I use ClamWin- used it for many years