This software is clearly the best for users who prefer protection that is light on system resources. Avira did extremely well in the last AV-Comparatives file detection test. It missed less than. All the other vendors offer their free anti-virus in an attempt to earn name recognition and impress users, but Microsoft has no paid anti-virus to sell.
Some of the cleanliness is due to a lack of features, however. MSE posted middling results in our performance tests. It required almost twenty minutes to fully scan our test drive and its background process consumed about 6.
Early testing of MSE suggested it was surprisingly competent, but more recent tests have been less kind. Avira is the technical standout. It has posted excellent scores in recent protection tests and it also ran away from the competition in our performance metrics. The downside is a confusing user interface.
I had to explore the software for a few minutes before I understood how to operate it. If Avira could make the software just at tad more intuitive it would have the perfect product. It is nearly as good as Avira in our performance benchmarks and it offers a slick, simple interface. Advertising is kept to a minimum, as well. Lavasoft and AVG are suitable choices, but both have a catch that may be significant for some users. Lavasoft uses far more resources than the competitors while running in the background and AVG has an unattractive interface loaded with advertisements for the full version and other AVG products.
Both offer competent protection, however. Last, and least, is Microsoft Security Essentials. It was not the slowest in our tests, nor did it eat the most RAM, but protection studies have shown it to be the least effective at stopping threats by a large margin. Going with MSE makes you substantially more vulnerable. Windows has been around since , making it positively ancient. Have you been there since the beginning? Here's some fun trivia about early Windows.
CONS No test scores from independent labs Mediocre score for blocking malware downloads No protection against malicious or fraudulent URLs Lacks features found in competing free products. Tough, effective two-way firewall. Bonus features. CONS No antivirus lab test results. Lacks some antivirus features. No protection for malicious or fraudulent websites. Behavioral detection tars good and bad programs in testing. Personal data protection fails in testing. In truth, you can get quite a lot of security protection for your PCs at no cost.
Many major security companies give away antivirus protection to consumers. In return, they get a reputation for generosity and more importantly mindshare. As for the rest of us, well, the best third-party free antivirus utilities beat out the built-in Defender and even outperform products that are far from free. Check our reviews, try a few of the free antivirus utilities, and pick the one that suits your needs. Your antivirus should definitely have the ability to root out existing malware, but its ongoing task is to prevent ransomware, botnets, Trojans, and other types of nasty programs from getting a foothold.
All the antivirus programs in this collection offer real-time malware protection. Some take the fight to the browser, working hard to ensure you never even browse to a malware-hosting site, or get fooled into turning over your credentials to a phishing site.
If free antivirus tools are so great, why should anybody pay? For one thing, quite a few of these products are free only for noncommercial use; if you want to protect your business, you must pony up for the paid edition. At that point, you should probably consider upgrading to a full security suite. After all, it's your business's security on the line. Even for personal use, most for-pay antivirus tools offer more than their free counterparts—sometimes a lot more. For example, the paid editions of Adaware and ZoneAlarm add protection against malicious and fraudulent websites the free versions lack.
And Panda reserves quite a few features for paying customers, among them firewall protection, application control, cross-platform support, and detection of insecure Wi-Fi connections.
In addition, many companies don't offer full-scale tech support for users of the free edition. The first time you need extra help digging a particularly stubborn piece of malware out of your system, you might regret the lack of support. Around the world, researchers at independent antivirus testing labs spend their days putting antivirus tools to the test.
Some of these labs regularly release public reports on their findings. Security companies typically pay for the privilege of being included in testing. In return, the labs supply them with detailed reports that can help improve their products. The number of labs that include a particular vendor serves as a measure of significance. In each case, the lab considered the product important enough to test, and the vendor felt the price was worthwhile. The labs don't necessarily test a vendor's free product, but most vendors pack full protection into the free product, enhancing premium versions with additional features.
In addition to carefully perusing results from the independent labs, we also run our own hands-on malware protection test. We expose each antivirus to a collection of malware samples, including a variety of different malware types, and note its reaction.
Typically, the antivirus will wipe out most of the samples on sight and detect some of the remaining ones when we try to launch them. We derive a malware blocking score from 0 to 10 points based on how thoroughly the antivirus protects the test system from these samples. Since we use the same samples month after month, the malware-blocking test doesn't measure a product's ability to detect brand-new threats.
In a separate test, we attempt to download malware from very new malicious URLs supplied by London-based testing lab MRG-Effitas , typically less than a few days old. We note whether the antivirus blocked all access to the URL, wiped out the malicious payload during download, or did nothing. If you're interested in learning more about our testing techniques, you're welcome to read more about how we test security software.
Ad-Aware is able to detect 62 out of 70 while AVG detected 56 out of 70 only. During the removal process, AVG failed to remove the two malware it has detected while Ad-Aware succeeds in removing all detected malware. Ad-Aware Pro is the clear winner in this comparison for it detected more, removed all, and came packed with useful security tools.
Could they Help to Increase Human Longevity? Page content.
0コメント