سلام دوستان كاسپر خيلي قوي هست ولي از لحاظ سرعت اسكن فكرنكنم به گرد پاي nod32 برسه.
سلام دوستان كاسپر خيلي قوي هست ولي از لحاظ سرعت اسكن فكرنكنم به گرد پاي nod32 برسه.
سلام
ارمان
مگه تست کردی بابا ناد اصلا انتی ویروسی نیست که ب خواد با کاسپرسکی مقابله کنه
اینو من نمیگما این رو سایتهای تست انتی ویروسها میگن
بعد هم سرعت اسکن هر دو در یه حد است بعضی مواقع حتی ناد کم هم میاره
قربانت
Adel.p30
بالاخره خفنترين آنتي‌ويروس كومه؟ من كه حسابي گيج شدم! هر كي يه چيزي ميگه! [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
-------------------
دوستان من سيستم نسباتا جديد و بالاس
Pentium 4 , CPU2.40 GHz , RAM 512 , Hard 120
زيادم تو هارم جفنگيات نيست ، با اين اوصاف كدوم بهتره؟!
Kaspersky يا bitdefender [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
آقا فقط کاسپرسکی اونم ورژن6 که دیگه معرکه است و به همه پیشنهاد میدم که یکبار هم که شده از اون استفاده کنید ضرر نداره
نقل قول:
نوشته شده توسط djcrazy
لينك مستقيم دنلود آخرين ورژن از خود سايت كاسپرسكي و يه كرك به درد بخور داري؟! [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
سلام
گلادیاتور
لینک دانلود KIS Build 6.0.1.408 Rc 1 Beta
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
KAV Build 6.0.1.408 Rc 1 Betaنقل قول:
T1JVS-NNMBD-K1QTN-SUBP8
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
قربانتنقل قول:
FHJ4S-R1XEX-5BW3T-JYEKB
Adel.p30
ممنون عادل جان اما ميشه نسخه آخر فاينال ورژن رو بزاري ، نسخه Beta و RC نميخوام [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]نقل قول:
نوشته شده توسط Adel.p30
قربانت [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ] [ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
گلا دیاتور هنوز فاینال نیومده
سلام
سایتی هست که با دلایل منطقی مقایسه کرده همه خوبها رو و علت هر کدام هم گفته .
کسانی که زبان انگلیسی خوبی دارند می توانند / به این سایت معروف بروند و کاملا با دقت بخوانند .
Looking for the Right Antivirus, Part V | Best Antivirus of 2006!
The series has reached the end of the road. I've made my decision about the Best Antivirus Product of 2006.
For those of you coming late to this party, over the last six months or so the newsletter has pursued an ongoing series on alternative antivirus packages. Back in December 2005 I wrote that I'd given up on Norton Antivirus and had been testing alternative antivirus utilities since the summer of 2005.
During the last year of testing, I've examined a wide range of antivirus product, and I've explored the features and options of many others. Products tested during this period include Avast 4.6 free and 4.7 Pro, AVG 7.1 Pro and Network Editions, BitDefender 9 Standard and 10 RC1, CA EZ Antivirus and eTrust Antivirus r8, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 and Internet Security 2006, Kaspersky 5 and 6, Nod32 2.5, Panda Titanium 2006 and Platinum 2006, and ZoneAlarm Antivirus. I've considered the features and specs of at least a dozen other products and rejected them because something didn't meet my ideal antivirus criteria.
These are the stories that comprise the "Looking for the Right Antivirus" series:
Goodbye to Kaspersky and BitDefender
Since the last issue of the newsletter, I've eliminated Kaspersky 6 and BitDefender 10 RC1 from contention.
Kaspersky 6 offers superb antivirus-vanquishing technology. But that's the only thing good I have to say about it.
The Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 package is buggy, has a tendency to conflict with other software, and in particular, its Proactive Defense creates more problems than it solves. With Kaspersky running, some Web pages wouldn't load properly in Firefox. Despite the heavily revamped interface, which looks much more modern than the previous generation, I found things tucked away and not well labeled. There's no context-sensitive help. Many of the more complex functions buried in settings dialogs aren't understandable. I also experienced very long scan times. The first few times it took over 5 hours to scan 35GBs worth of OS, programs, and data, and thereafter it took 4.5 hours.
Of all the antivirus products I've tested over the last year, it was the one I couldn't wait to remove from my computers. It was completely the opposite of my expectation.
When I relayed my experiences to Kaspersky, the company's U.S. representatives insisted on a telephone interview that I retest the product. They were sure it was an anomaly, and they wanted me to send them notes about the specific problems I encountered. I did that, sending a list of seven or eight specific problems I encountered the second time. Kaspersky wasn't able to solve any of them, and basically, they blew off all my issues and suggestions. As a reviewer, let me tell you, that's infuriating because I wasted several additional days re-testing a product, and it was a waste of time.
It's a pity, too. Kaspersky 5.x might have been my final choice in this evaluation. But it's no longer available from Kaspersky. Cross a big one off the list.
If you've read previous installments in this series, you'll recall that I discovered a bug in BitDefender 9 with Eudora email scans. The Softwin folks attributed it to my use of SMTP Authentication and SSL to both send and receive mail on some of my accounts — a feature offered by one of my mail ISPs. On the advice of some readers, I decided to test BitDefender 10 Release Candidate 1 with my Eudora environment. The problem is still there, although it turns out that it's not a problem with SMTP-Auth and SSL. The problem appears to be BitDefender's slow scanning performance.
Every 5 minutes, my Eudora installation scans 18 separate email accounts served by five email ISPs. Apparently, BitDefender just can't handle the load. I normally allow Eudora to run five separate mail connections simultaneously, but there's a setting that lets me turn that down to three concurrent connections. Even so, BitDefender's email scans apparently bog down the email connections to the point that they occasionally disconnect before they finish. Norton AntiVirus 2001 had the same problem, and it was fixed in subsequent versions of that product.
To make sure the problem had nothing to do with the secure mail connections, I reconfigured the secure mail accounts to be standard SMTP/POP3 connections. It didn't help. The tip off to the problem is that it's never the same two or three of the 18 accounts that abruptly disconnect before they finish the send/receive process. And none of my five email ISPs is immune.
For what it's worth I submitted a detailed bug report to BitDefender's makers about this problem. BitDefender has a lot going for it, and if Softwin can fix this problem, the product might be my first choice. But until it does so, my BitDefender testing is done.
AVG, F-Secure, and Nod32
With that, the field should be down to two, AVG and F-Secure. It's laughable, but a product I crossed off the list and nevertheless keep talking about — Eset's Nod32 — has managed to worm its way back into the mix too.
For part of the day on July 12, the antivirus and anti-spyware products on my PC and on the computers of several hundred denizens of the Scot's Newsletter Forums got an inadvertent real-world test. The forum uses bulletin board software called Invision Power Board, or IPB for short. IPB has been under heavy attack around the world by a series of bots that attempt to join as forum members and then, through means that haven't been fully discovered, inject code that inserts an IFrame link on every page of the forums. The hyperlink called a site that pushed out a package containing a long list of nasties.
Even though Scot's Newsletter Forums is fully up to date on security patches, we were vulnerable in a way we weren't aware of. Some 48 hours later, a patch arrived from IPB's makers that would probably have prevented the threat. But it was too late for us. The good news was that, once I was aware of the problem, I was able to locate and delete the offending code in only about 30 minutes. And, thankfully, the minor damage to the forums software was relatively easy to fix too. The big downside was the inundation of malware some SNF members were forced to cope with. And that was bad enough.
My personal experience, and especially the experiences that forum members related about what happened to them, brought several things into focus for me. Firefox users, for example, were virtually immune to the malware. My computer was running F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006, which has an anti-spyware module, and Windows Defender beta 2. Windows Defender never went off. F-Secure met every threat that came down the pipe at me. There were some leave-behinds that I cleaned up later, but I ran several scans from a wide variety of security products after the event, and F-Secure had kept me safe.
Many Scot's Newsletter Forums members were protected by Nod32 2.5, and those people universally reported that Nod32 protected them 100%. Most AVG users said the same thing, although one reported a problem, and a few were forced to clean up things after the fact. One of the things that crystallized in my mind from the attack on Scot's Newsletter Forums is that your antivirus product should either trap spyware as well as viruses and worms, or it should co-exist with the best utilities that do. In my final round of testing, I added Spy Sweeper 4.5 co-existence as an additional test. (Note: All the products tested also co-exist with Windows Defender Beta 2.)
So which is the best antivirus program? Read these mini-reviews of the three contenders to find out.
AVG 7.1: Simplicity at Work
AVG has an outdated interface, and according to many of the independent tests, its protection isn't up to the level of F-Secure or Nod32. And yet AVG users swear by this product. And it's one of the most popular antivirus products around. Scot's Newsletter readers recommend AVG by a landslide over the entire rest of the field. AVG recommendations came in from numerous reviewers, IT managers, and security experts. It's true that the cool security crowd on the Internet is using Nod32 these days, but it's clear that AVG is at the least the alternative AV leader, and it's fast on its way to becoming a mainstream product.
AVG has a very small system-resources footprint. It's also highly compatible with other security products. Although the user interface looks more like last decade than this one, it's mostly easy to understand and configure. It operates silently. It does everything that I want in an AV product.
A Grisoft employee contacted me to argue the case that the published independent tests, including AV-Comparatives.org and AV-Test.org, use old viruses for their tests, and so aren't representative of the real world. And yet, some test reports I've read omitted or didn't test AVG. The latest Checkmark Anti-Virus Level 2 certification doesn't include AVG. Other reviews of the product set it toward the back of the pack on protection. The big caveat here is that I haven't exhaustively and objectively tested AVG or any of these products — we're talking about the core of what an antivirus product does. And any doubt is too much doubt when it comes to security.
I don't like to put too much stock in any test measurement. AV makers clearly build their products to pass tests like Virus Bulletin, which requires 100% pass or the certification isn't award. AVG passed that test. All of the contenders did. My focus is on the collective results of all the tests, my extensive research, my personal experience, and the results of real-world usage of people I trust. In the end, if I were to select only one antivirus product to run on my system, the data tell me AVG is a very good choice, but it's not as protective as the two other contenders. For that reason, AVG comes in third in this evaluation.
The version tested was AVG Network Edition 7.1, which Grisoft provided based on my evaluation criteria. It costs $75 for two licenses for two years. The Professional Single Edition 7.1 sells with one license for two years at $38.95. AVG offers a free version.
Nod32 2.5: Function over Form
Read the Nod32 section of the June 2006 installment of this series to learn about my issues with the product. The short form is that it only performs outbound email scanning with Outlook, it doesn't scan Eudora mailbox files, and as a result its inbound scan didn't find some things in my mailbox that others did. It's also got a horrendous user interface. But if the folks at Eset made Eudora support a priority, Nod32 would have been the winning product in this evaluation.
That's because the Nod32 is the anti-bloatware antivirus product. It's fast, uses few system resources, can be configured to operate silently, and it updates regularly. It coexists superbly with anti-spyware products (tested with Windows Defender and Spy Sweeper 4.5). And it also traps spyware on its own. In short, you can set it and forget it. It doesn't have problems. It doesn't get in your way. And it offers rapid, reliable protection.
If you use Microsoft Outlook (not Outlook Express), or you don't run email on the PC you want to protect, I unequivocally recommend Nod32. There's nothing better for those environments. Because so many people use Outlook, and because of its superb protection, Nod32 is the runner-up in this competition.
If you use Eudora, take a pass on Nod32. Eset claims it's impossible to scan Eudora mailbox files; bull, lots of other AV products do it.
If you use Outlook Express, Thunderbird/Netscape/Mozilla, PocoMail, Pegasus, The Bat!, or any of the scores of other alternative emailers out there, the choice is up to you. You will survive without outbound email scanning. It's not unsafe. I just happen to think that Eset and other companies shouldn't get away with offering full support to only Microsoft Outlook. It's the principle of the thing for me; but you have to make your own decision.
Nod32 2.5's single-user license costs $39 for one year and $58.50 for two years. A one-year renewal costs $27.30, and two years is $40.95. The tested version was 2.51.26. Eset offers a 30-day trial version.
[I]F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 Does It All Well | Best Antivirus Product of 2006!
F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 is the Scot's Newsletter Top Product! and Best Antivirus Product of 2006. F-Secure includes a robust anti-spyware module, so while it doesn't coexist that well with other anti-spyware products, it doesn't need to. (It forces you to uninstall Spy Sweeper during installation, and it will run the uninstall gracefully.) So long as I'm protected, though, this isn't a big problem for me. And I've been in the line of fire with F-Secure, and came through unscathed.
The F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 user interface is excellent, the best of any that I've tried. It's logically laid out and very easy to understand. Eset and Kaspersky could take lessons from F-Secure on this front.
Although it's not quite as low in the system overhead department as Nod32 or AVG, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 comes close — and it operates reliably. I've had no system instability issues. F-Secure loads a lot more separate services in memory than most other antivirus products, but each of those services uses very little memory. You could make the case that this more modular structure is both better designed and potentially more secure.
The big brother to this product, F-Secure Internet Security 2006, has more of a bloatware feel. It packs in a firewall, parental controls, and a bunch of other stuff. Give it a miss.
There's no question that F-Secure's security levels are in the top tier, rubbing elbows with Kaspersky, Nod32, and BitDefender. If you believe as I do that Kaspersky is the top dog at antivirus protection, you might also debate whether F-Secure or Nod32 is next in line. The reality is that the differences between the protection levels among this elite AV group are negligible. They're all good.
F-Secure's scan speed is about average. Faster than Kaspersky, certainly; not as fast as Nod32. Some of the browser security features, which are optional, target Internet Explorer only.
Bottom line: This is the one running on my main PC. F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 offers the best mix of solid protection, usability, full e-mail support, performance, small memory footprint, and reliable operation.
F-Secure Anti-Virus 2006 costs $39.95 for a one-year license; one-year renewals cost $28. The company also offers a fully-functional trial version.
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
سلام به دوستان عزیز
باز یکی دیگر از تستهای انجام شده بر روی آنتی ویروسها را به حضورتان تقدیم میکنم این تست که امروز منتشر شده است
توسط موسسه معتبر av-comparatives.org که هرساله تستهای مختلفی بر روی آنتی ویروسهای مختلف انجام میدهد
انجام شده است. هدف این تست مقایسه هوش مصنوعی یا Heuristic Detection Rate آنتی ویروسهای مختلف است برای
این کار آنها به مدت سه ماه از آپدیت آنتی ویروسها جلوگیری می کنند و بعد آنها را بر روی نمونه های جدیدی از کدهای مخرب
که پس از آن پخش شده اند و در دیتابیس آن آنتی ویروسها وجود ندارند تست می کنند .در این سری میزان موارد مثبت کاذب
(یعنی مواردی که آنتی ویروس یک برنامه بی خطر را به عنوان ویروس می شناسد) و سرعت اسکن آنتی ویروسها هم تست شده اند:
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
[ برای مشاهده لینک ، با نام کاربری خود وارد شوید یا ثبت نام کنید ]
همانطور که می بینید به جز آنتی ویر که نسبت به آزمون قبلی بهتر شده است بقیه آنتی ویروسها دچار افت شده اند
به ویژه کاسپرسکی و F-Secure که از انجاین کاسپرسکی استفاده می کند افت شدید تری داشته اند و در ته جدول ایستاده اند
شرکت کاسپرسکی چنان مشغول طراحی و تکامل نسخه 6 خود شده است که در طول یکسال گذشته این آنتی ویروس
در تمامی آزمونهای به عمل آمده دچار افت شده است ولی همانطور که می دانید شرکت کاسپرسکی هم اکنون بر روی
هوش مصنوعی جدیدی کار می کند که به زودی ( دو یا سه ماه آینده ) منتشر خواهد شد. طبق معمول همیشه
ناد 32 در صدر جدول ایستاده است ولی با این تفاوت که دیگر تنها نیست و آنتی ویر با شایستگی صدر جدول را با ناد 32
شریک شده است .آنتی ویروس آنتی ویر در حال حاضر یکی از پیشرفته ترین انجاینهای (Engine ) مربوط به آنتی ویروسها
را در اختیار دارد و هم در تستهای مربوط به میزان شناسایی ویروسها و هم در آزمون هوش مصنوعی بالاترین رتبه را
در میان آنتی ویروسهای حال حاظر دنیا دارد و با در نظر گرفتن اینکه تاثیر زیادی روی سرعت سیستم ندارد و سرعت
اسکن آن نیز بالا است اعتبار آن بسیار بیشتر می شود آنتی ویر همانطور که می دانید دو نسخه حرفه ای و رایگان دارد
که نسخه رایگان از نظر قدرت شتاسایی ویروس و هوش مصنوعی تفاوتی با نسخه حرفه ای ندارد منتها بعضی مشخصات
نسخه حرفه ای مانند Real Time Protection را ندارد ولی یک گزینه عالی به عنوان آنتی ویروس پشتیبان می باشد
آنتی ویروس آنتی ویر هنوز در حال تکامل است و هر روز بهتر می شود و در آینده از آن بیشتر حواهید شنید. :happy: