Talk:List of antivirus software

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software / Security This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles This redirect is supported by WikiProject Software. This redirect is supported by WikiProject Computer Security. Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: edit history watch purge Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

I don't find any evidence that Bitdefender nor AVG still offer free versions. Avira still does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.107.205 (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check http://free.grisoft.com ALWAYS before posting as such. They still offer Anti-Virus. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free version starting from version 4.0 (and 5.0): http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/

On the list it is only listed as commercial, any reason why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.188.245.229 (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between corporate market and Commercial[...]? --Olivier Debre 07:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference is that Corporate Editions of A/V software has Centralized Management features; sometimes you have to buy two products. First, the client software that is installed on each work station. Second, the Management Software that controllers the client software. Normally, you just buy the Corporate Edition of A/V Management Software and pay a fee for how many clients it is allowed to manage ( and then uses the Management Software to remotely install the client software). TimSSG

Sections "Commercial", "Freeware" should be renamed to "Proprietary Commercial" and "Proprietary Freeware".

There's a clearly defined difference between the two, some of the so called anti-virus software do not actually remove any viruses, simply detect them, this needs to be clearly defined. Also, while some do remove the viruses, they will not do this until the product is fully registered. This is valued information. --Hm2k 21:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is really such a difference, though I agree adding such information is desirable. Aarontay 18:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous programs are available that make claims of infection using a free 'scan' of a user's computer. Many of these provide false positives, i.e. the computer is not really infected (or the software itself causes the infection), but the potential buyer is now in effect extorted into making the purchase. I added a brief paragraph addressing this issue, along with one link to freeware available to remove such recognized 'rogue' software, and I added one link to (one of many) reputable sites that verify viruses and 'rogue' software. 4.228.21.82 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)ddds[reply]

I believe your addition would better fit under Antivirus software rather than under this article. AssistantX 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have only heard of rogue security programs in the context of antispyware not antiviruses. Also see Spyware#Fake_anti-spyware_programs and Rogue_software. Aarontay 18:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fairly comprehensive list of online scanners. Is it too long? Should only the most popular ones be added? As it is, it takes up a lot of the article, so maybe a new page for it? Aarontay 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should adaware be added? 75.36.44.218 21:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's free or at least not any more. I went to its website and only offers trial version. It should be taken off free or open sourse list.--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list should probably be converted into a comparison table, for two reasons:

1. A simple list is redundant with Category:Antivirus software
2. A table with cost and license fields would eliminate the common vagueness in calling software "free" (as in cost) vs "Free" (as in license)

Ham Pastrami 23:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the vagueness in the list by separating freeware from open source software. By the way, this vagueness also exists in Category:Free antivirus software. But I agree with your opinion that the list should probably be converted into a comparison table. Another reason would be that a comparison table would make it much simpler to find the right product for your operating system. --MrWiseGuy 02:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article Comparison of antivirus software. --MrWiseGuy 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the link to bitdefender shows up on the site, the e-mail redirects you to the standard edition which work on a 30-day trial basis. I'm removing it from the freeware list until the free version becomes available.

Afaik there is no linux version. Please link it (discussion page is ok) or I change the table.

Could we make the same overview about antispyware software? Make a new page or add it here?

I was looking at the comparison table located at the bottom of the list and three things eventually struck me as "odd." The first was the Signature Detection Count, which appears to have a cap a little above 1,022,418 (as this is noted as being 99.8%), however there are two flaws to this. First, the 100% is constantly increasing so it is only relevant for the moment that the graph was made. The second is that the 100% figure is disputed because of the way viruses are identified. More specifically, do joke and prank "viruses" actually count as a virus? Some scanners do count these, and some do not. Some count every variant as a unique virus, while others lump them together. Based on these two facts, the % of viruses column, and the color coding do not really represent an accurate measure.

Secondly, the table, at least the left 5 columns, appear to be almost a direct copy of the source material. And while each column does cite the source, a table from a pcmag blog, it does still bear a striking resemblence to the original page, with the exception of converting symbols to actual numbers.

Thirdly, the last column, "Rootkits Missed", seems counter intuitive. Virus detection has always been measured as how many can you catch, not how many can you miss. The number that you can miss can, and will, change in a day when a new one is created. While it is a direct copy of the cited data, it isn't really useful. --KookyMan (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trials and Freeware are two different things. The purpose of trials is to "try the product" and causes the product to lose major functionality once the trial ends. AVG Free Edition is an example of non-trial software. Thus, I think trials should have its own section. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment we have 4 choices: Proprietary, Freeware, Open and Abandonware. Trying to define all the different types under these headings is never going to work. For example, some freeware is also Proprietary, as is Abandonware; Open Source software is free; and some of the listed freeware are actually nagware, trialware/demoware which is shareware, not freeware; some of them are registerware, which isn't technically freeware either, but are proprietary. The only real way to resolve this is to abandon the headings and create a table which details the licenses. Time to bring back a cut down version of the comparisons table... --Hm2k (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a column should be added to show what can do an automatic scan. Or is one of those two (on demand for exa) like that already? If so, Moon Secure should say no, since it does NOT have automatic scanning, and I'm trying to get support, which isn't helping me get anywhere to tell me what exe does a full scan, moonav.exe does a scan, but it always says 100% and DONE when I execute it alone, so I need a switch or something, but I haven't received any replies to my support request at all. So until they do, Moon Secure will be labeled without automatic scanning in my book. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

automatic/realtime scanning is the same as on-access scanning, as in, up on access to a file, the file is scanned automatically, as opposed to on-demand scanning, which implies you must demand or request it to specifically scan something. I don't know enough about Moon Secure to say what features it does, or does not have. You should use reliable sources to cite this issue. --Hm2k (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant scheduled scans; I'm sorry. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any software event can be scheduled, it's a feature of windows, thus, in one way or another, any of the software is able to do this. --Hm2k (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though without knowing what switch to use for moon secure's scanner EXE, we can't set a schedule, the GUI doesn't have the ability to set a schedule either. And executing the EXE alone will cause it to immediately show 100% and DONE for scanning, not scanning anything. Thus, there's a switch that the GUI for Moon Secure knows that we don't. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are talking about is too specific to one particular application and does not apply to this article. --Hm2k (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison table is a much better way to display the information, thus the lists are no longer needed. I propose that the lists are removed from this article, leaving only the table. --Hm2k (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was better to keep both, and maybe split the article, like we have in many other places:

• List of disk cloning software and Comparison of disk cloning software
• List of archive formats and Comparison of archive formats
• List of Linux distributions and Comparison of Linux distributions
• List of operating systems and Comparison of operating systems
• List of Microsoft Windows versions and Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions
• List of file systems and Comparison of file systems
• List of web browsers and Comparison of web browsers
• List of vector graphics editors and Comparison of raster graphics editors
• List of HTML editors and Comparison of HTML editors
• List of wiki software and Comparison of wiki software
• List of spreadsheet software and Comparison of spreadsheet software
• List of word processors and Comparison of word processors
• List of programming languages and Comparison of programming languages
• List of text editors and Comparison of text editors
• List of AMD microprocessors and Comparison of AMD processors
• List of download managers and Comparison of download managers

(and so on...) -SF007 (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that many of them have proposals to merge them together, as they contain the same data. This article has already been merged. It's about time we lead the way and removed the lists already, as they are no longer needed. I've seen this happen before on other articles. It's a much better way to display and maintain the data. --Hm2k (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The comparison contains the list, so the list is now redundant clutter. Also, it appears that users are following the hidden instruction in the article to not add to the list, which means that the list is now incomplete and inaccurate. If someone doesn't delete the list by the time I re-visit this article, maybe I'll "be bold" and do it myself. -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list should now be moved under the comparison table. Anything that is listed in the table should no longer be in the list. This article will then be "a list in the form of a comparison table". Then the rest of the list can be migrated into the table. --Hm2k (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Website columns need to be removed per WP:EL and WP:NOT#LINK. Given that there is no inclusion criteria per WP:LIST, all entries without their own Wikipedia article should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Table Norton Antivirus dosn't have boot time scanning Which it has 2009 version has Boot scanning. --Blueking12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.210.125.2 (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm this and update the table? --Hm2k (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Norton 2009 now includes a feature called "Early Load", which simply loads Norton earlier to scan the boot sectors upon startup. To prove this, there are several people at the Norton forums activily saying that Norton detected a bloodhound.mbr after startup with Aggressive Heuristics and Early Load on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.218.91 (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should really provide reliable sources as "proof". --Hm2k (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, forums and blogs don't count, no matter how high the praise. And please sign your talk page edits with ~~~~. --CliffC (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone wish to add Defender pro to the list of antivirus software? It claims to have over 30 million customers. And its sold at walmart. TechOutsider (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

Please add new sections to the bottom... Try this first: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Hm2k (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AOL Active Virus Shield has been discontinued. http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav/index.adp?. I do not see either TrendMicro or Dr. Web on the list. I haven't looked to closely but the list does not seem very thorough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambit10102 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that Microsoft Security Essentials is missing from this list. SF007 (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it myself SF007 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Jotti's anti-malware scan should be included somewhere on this article. I added it once, and someone who believed me to be spamming removed it. I am not affiliated with Jotti in any way whatsoever, I just think that if an online service scans for viruses, it should be included on a list of anti-virus services... Anybody agree?

Malwarebytes'_Anti-Malware is missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.78.179.52 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's weird. It was removed by an anonymous editor on 18 April 2010. I can't find any discussion of why this seemed like a good idea. It was in a separate section at the bottom, where we used to put antivirus software that hadn't been formatted into the comparison table yet. Does anybody have an objection to putting it back? It seems like a no-brainer to me. ACW (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not weird. Malwarebytes is not an antivirus but something similar to Windows Defender (a program purposely designed to work BESIDES an actual antivirus program). Loginnigol (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Microworld technologies Escan antivirus software is sufficiently notable to be added, av-comparatives.org tests in 2009 have found it to have detection and removal ability similar to other products. gadgetgeez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The License column isn't quite accurate. It lists some packages as "freeware" and others as "Proprietary software." Freeware can be proprietary, and proprietary software can be distributed for free. Also, "proprietary" isn't really even a license and "freeware" can describe any of a number of licenses.

There are a few options:

• List them as "freeware" and "payware," though this really is a cost scheme, not a licensing scheme.
• List them as "Proprietary Software" or "Closed Source" and either
  • Add a cost column
  • Note if it's free with parenthesis:
    • Closed Source (freeware)
    • Closed Source (payware)

Twhoffman (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Freeware" and "Proprietary Software" aren't forms of licenses they are forms of distribution. You can have a proprietary license though that can be open source or closed source, depending on the proprietor's license agreement. Licenses aside, "Freeware" is a subcategory of "Proprietary Software". You may wish to use "Commercial" or "Retail" instead of Proprietary to describe the cost scheme.

I say rename the column to "License / Distribution". Then, Freeware would be displayed as "Proprietary / Freeware", and GPL as "GPL / Free software".

Do you agree?

--Hm2k (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Avast! Free Antivirus 5.0 — Freeware for personal, non-commercial use only." Taken from the wikipedia entry. It's not in this chart or even in the "other". Why not? Winter123 (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Hm2k (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we need a list of the free antivuruses, proprietary license says nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.40.234 (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are a relative new player on the market, but I think it does make the list complete. Tried it myself but unfortunately I was not able to add it myself. More information can be found at the Coranti Website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.184.180 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to remove my Kaspersky, as it makes unasked connections to servers in Washington, Russia and China a.s.o. at any time (I'm not talking about during the updating). Files can be uploaded to their servers for further investigation and also used for secret services and mafia. If so or not, this program is spyware and mallware, as I never wanted it to make those connections (up till 10 a second when you try to bother) and even sabotaging my PC's internet connectivity if I try to block them with Comodo or PeerBlock. It should never-ever do that; period. 189.181.237.214 (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Kaspersky Security Network feature, which is optional and well-documented in both the User Guide and the Advanced Settings "Feedback to Kaspersky Security Network" page in the product itself. The company openly states its policy of not collecting personal data. Other products have the same optional feature. This product demonstrated its class by blocking the "malware" that you introduced to interfere with its functionality, and mitigated further damage by eliminating its exposure to downloads. If you'd bothered to check your options after installing the product, this much larger adventure could have been avoided. Kapunda (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This product no longer exists. Microsoft replaced it with their Security Essentials product. Should it be removed from the list? Devya (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How trustworthy are the external links? Are they truly independent? Are they financed by one/more of the AV software firms? Are they a tool for other firms to attract page views? PCMag and CNet.com might be too corporate for a lot of people's taste, but they have known-level of reliability. The current links in the section seem suspect and should be removed unless they have some sort of seal of approval from known security specialists. 75.36.177.215 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link to AV Comparatives provokes this message from Firefox on Windows 7:

Reported Attack Page! This web page at www.av-comparatives.org has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system. Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.124 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last column of the table, labelled controversy, is only populated by entries that claim that the Symantec (Norton) products whitelist the FBI backdoor. This needs reliable validation. I agree it is valuable information if true but I doubt that Symantec is the lone wolf in this regard.Starranger00 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)StarRanger00[reply]

Reference added. Loginnigol (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]