Hi
One of my relatives say "BULLGAURD Internet Security 8.7 is a great anti-virus programme". Well, it that true? Can you give your opinions on that, please? Perhaps some test also. I have Windows Vista.
Greetings Fi-Fi
Full Version: BullGuard Internet Security 8.7 informations, please.
You can look here; it doesn't get tested..
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02
Bullguard is "rebranded" product from other vendors(?)
maybe someone else knows more about it.
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/2008/09_02
Bullguard is "rebranded" product from other vendors(?)
maybe someone else knows more about it.
Hi FiFi
and Welcome at Gladiator Security Forum. We hope you'll enjoy our nice, little community like lot ot others before.
FiFi, there is no AV program, which is known as the best. Each program has strengths and weaknesses. Was f.e. release xyz of an AV program doing a good job great, the next release maybe won't.
Which program is to advice then?
Well depends on if you want to spend money or if you prefer freeware products. At the other hand users should look for an AV program which doesn't waste CPU bandwidth, even in times running multi-processor commputers. When an AV program works fine for you, why changing?
Freeware doesn't mean this software is crap. Absolutely not! There are lot of great working AV programs, being free of charge, which can be found at GSF too.
Bullguard products ran the virus engine of BitDefender. So when you want to know about the quailities of an Antivirus program, check out at AV Comparatives for reviews.
Maybe you'll find a product which got tested there and supported here too: Softsphere DefenseWall HIPS review (English and German and Русский)
Another website like Andreas Clementis AV-Comparatives is AV-Test of Andreas Marx. At his website you find a matrix which allows you to compare AV programs.
I hope I could give you few inspirations on your request. If quesitions are still open, ask us. We'll do our best to help you.
Regards
B. Udo
and Welcome at Gladiator Security Forum. We hope you'll enjoy our nice, little community like lot ot others before.
FiFi, there is no AV program, which is known as the best. Each program has strengths and weaknesses. Was f.e. release xyz of an AV program doing a good job great, the next release maybe won't.
Which program is to advice then?
Well depends on if you want to spend money or if you prefer freeware products. At the other hand users should look for an AV program which doesn't waste CPU bandwidth, even in times running multi-processor commputers. When an AV program works fine for you, why changing?
Freeware doesn't mean this software is crap. Absolutely not! There are lot of great working AV programs, being free of charge, which can be found at GSF too.
Bullguard products ran the virus engine of BitDefender. So when you want to know about the quailities of an Antivirus program, check out at AV Comparatives for reviews.
Maybe you'll find a product which got tested there and supported here too: Softsphere DefenseWall HIPS review (English and German and Русский)
Another website like Andreas Clementis AV-Comparatives is AV-Test of Andreas Marx. At his website you find a matrix which allows you to compare AV programs.
I hope I could give you few inspirations on your request. If quesitions are still open, ask us. We'll do our best to help you.
Regards
B. Udo
Hi Chachazz and TheSentimeltel
Thanks for your nice reply.
I have never tried BifDefender.
But Norton. and avg free.
I use avast! Home (free version) right now.
***************************
Some say that avast! Home Free is better then BullGuard paid.
What is your commons on that?
Not that I want to start "a battle".
But is it really so?
Somehow I think it is "funny" if it is correct that the free anti-virus programmes should be better the the one you pay for!
How is it possible?
Hi FiFi
Who's gonna tell that avast! Home is better than Bullguard paid? Can you give us some more details about please? And tell us please your opinion about what makes a bad, good, better and best AV program.
Remember that?
Testresults of 'institutes' like told in our reply are always a first address to sort out the quality of AV programs. Consumers should use these information to choose their product. And they should renew the licences when being happy with that choosen one.
Regards
BU
Who's gonna tell that avast! Home is better than Bullguard paid? Can you give us some more details about please? And tell us please your opinion about what makes a bad, good, better and best AV program.
Remember that?
QUOTE
FiFi, there is no AV program, which is known as the best. Each program has strengths and weaknesses. Was f.e. release xyz of an AV program doing a good job great, the next release maybe won't.
Testresults of 'institutes' like told in our reply are always a first address to sort out the quality of AV programs. Consumers should use these information to choose their product. And they should renew the licences when being happy with that choosen one.
Regards
BU
@FiFi
Main question:
Why should any free AV program be better than the paid version, if it runs the same scan engine like the pay-version? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
BU
QUOTE
...Somehow I think it is "funny" if it is correct that the free anti-virus programmes should be better the the one you pay for!...
Main question:
Why should any free AV program be better than the paid version, if it runs the same scan engine like the pay-version? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
BU
Free antivirus program is not "better" , it is a method of marketing future customer into buying....
Free antivirus programs get same signatures updates, and therefore should have same detection rates as 'paid' but are
always lacking certain modules and additional features....
"you get what you pay for"...as the saying goes.
Free antivirus programs get same signatures updates, and therefore should have same detection rates as 'paid' but are
always lacking certain modules and additional features....
"you get what you pay for"...as the saying goes.
The only think I noticed between a freeware and pay ware is that payware come with an auto protection program that auto block attack"I guess that is why they drain up so much CPU resource." Apart from that I find freeware for example Malwarebytes free version work much better than Norton which I pay for. They both seem to detect the virus, however I leave Norton on for 2 hours to disinfection file "yes it take thayt long, I don't know why." While the free Malwarebytes version delete it in just second. This is just my observation of course, other might have a different experience.
Hello evilguy919
I do agree to your words but not completely. When a freeware Antimalware program is offered it does what it was made for: an appetizer for the consumers to buy the full version! It's a kind of marketing strategy.
You mentioned Malwarebytes ion comparison with Norton, but you're comparing apples with peas. Each of that mentioned programs is good. I bet, if Malwarebytes would offer a full version like Norton or other vendors of their program, it would show up with the same typical manners of a pay-program: being bit slower f.e.
Consumers do always the same mistake: believing that a fast Antimalware program is as good as a paid program. That's wrong. They have to think about the quality of the databases of the signatures, scan strategy and other security elements which are implementated in such a pack. These do differ between the programs.
Lets have an look at the signatures databases for an example. Some vendors believe it's enough to take care of all known and actual signatures, others enhance their databases by adding so called zoo malware.
Vendors, who 'ignores' zoo malware might offer a faster working product, but what if there's an infection based on such an old malware and the finger-print or heuristic elements did fail?
Look, there's no championship for the fastest AV program, but a championship which offers the best compromise between speed, identification of malware and useless gimmicks.
Honestly all arguments, about high CPU compuption, slow scannings are sounding strange in times where computers with powerful multiple-core CPUs, 4 GB RAM less are offered. Tell me please evilguy, does that really play such an important role for a home user? I think no ;)
Have a great day
BU
I do agree to your words but not completely. When a freeware Antimalware program is offered it does what it was made for: an appetizer for the consumers to buy the full version! It's a kind of marketing strategy.
You mentioned Malwarebytes ion comparison with Norton, but you're comparing apples with peas. Each of that mentioned programs is good. I bet, if Malwarebytes would offer a full version like Norton or other vendors of their program, it would show up with the same typical manners of a pay-program: being bit slower f.e.
Consumers do always the same mistake: believing that a fast Antimalware program is as good as a paid program. That's wrong. They have to think about the quality of the databases of the signatures, scan strategy and other security elements which are implementated in such a pack. These do differ between the programs.
Lets have an look at the signatures databases for an example. Some vendors believe it's enough to take care of all known and actual signatures, others enhance their databases by adding so called zoo malware.
Vendors, who 'ignores' zoo malware might offer a faster working product, but what if there's an infection based on such an old malware and the finger-print or heuristic elements did fail?
Look, there's no championship for the fastest AV program, but a championship which offers the best compromise between speed, identification of malware and useless gimmicks.
Honestly all arguments, about high CPU compuption, slow scannings are sounding strange in times where computers with powerful multiple-core CPUs, 4 GB RAM less are offered. Tell me please evilguy, does that really play such an important role for a home user? I think no ;)
Have a great day
BU
Me again
Hmm can you tell me how your statement at top fits together with that? Looks like both programs did fail?!
Greetz
BU
QUOTE (evilguy919 @ Nov 5 2009, 07:01 AM) 
...
Apart from that I find freeware for example Malwarebytes free version work much better than Norton which I pay for. They both seem to detect the virus, however I leave Norton on for 2 hours to disinfection file "yes it take thayt long, I don't know why." While the free Malwarebytes version delete it in just second. This is just my observation of course, other might have a different experience.
Apart from that I find freeware for example Malwarebytes free version work much better than Norton which I pay for. They both seem to detect the virus, however I leave Norton on for 2 hours to disinfection file "yes it take thayt long, I don't know why." While the free Malwarebytes version delete it in just second. This is just my observation of course, other might have a different experience.
Hmm can you tell me how your statement at top fits together with that? Looks like both programs did fail?!
Greetz
BU
Well I know it fail lol. That why I say freeware don't have auto protection, so your chance of getting virus is higher. All I'm argue is base on my own observation is that freeware seem to remove virus and trojan faster than payware. And I no longer have norton btw. Plus there no way for everyone to be totally 100% virus free.
Heya evilguy
Sure there is no guranteed of 100% security, but if users would pay more attention on:
they won't have to report so much about infections.....
Have a great day man :)
BU
Sure there is no guranteed of 100% security, but if users would pay more attention on:
- regularly patching their OS,
- updating the used Antimalware programs regularly,
- paying attention on pop-ups while surfing the web,
- running separate email accounts, one for personal and another one for registration use
- using spam filters for their daily emails
- avoiding running illegal software
- surfing illegal websites
they won't have to report so much about infections.....
Have a great day man :)
BU
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.