I'm disappointed in the applications that you tested and your knowledge of how virus and malware scanners work. I'm also disappointed that you didn't check the Free product "Windows Security Essentials" -- perhaps you are are dissuaded from testing and comparing 'free' alternatives to those solutions that pay your bills, though I would think some of your advertising revenue comes from MS.
I have NO idea if MS's solution would come in faster or slower, so I'm not suggesting that it was left out because it is better -- just that it is free.
But it disturbs me that you thought a multicore processor might yield better results than a single core processor. It is next to impossible that it would. Why? Nearly all of these are 'on-access scanners (besides background scanning and heuristic scanning that CAN make use of multiple processors), but the biggest slow down comes from the 'on-access' scanning that happens *synchronously* -- meaning that it happens in synchronization with the access -- the scan has to come *first*, THEN it comes back with an "ok/not ok" -- which then allows execution to proceed. Since such scanning is purely sequential, it cannot benefit from multi-threading or multiple cores.
I noticed significant (by my definition of 'significant') performance hits from on-access scanners on my 6-core, 24GB processor. So much so, that I went back, to NOT using an 'on-access' malware scanner at all. I am retaining the background, periodic scanning, as well as the ability for me to 'right-click' on any suspect file, and scan it for *known* problems. But that's the crux of any of these snake-ware scanners -- they can only catch things that are known about. Sure, a few have heuristic scanners that try to detect 'weird' behavior, but those are still in the primitive phase and can easily generate as many false positives as real ones.
All the above said, I've been running on the internet since before there was an internet (i.e. since ~89), and have never caught any malware. But then I don't execute random programs and don't execute 'scripts' from foreign sites (no java script, no java, no flash, etc...). No automation is the *default*. From there, I add sites to my permitted list -- some get added to the 'permanent list' -- sites I need to visit frequently and I trust. But others get temporary visa's by default.
IMO, for *smart*, knowledgeable and careful users who know what is risky and what is not, virus and anti-malware stuff is 'snake-oil'. An exception to that is a good firewall, since Windows, especially has historically been configured to be 'too friendly' and 'too open'.
In fact, my local setup has my windows box on an isolated subnet that goes through a linux-based proxy to get to the internet. Until recently, the linux box was behind another hardware-firewall box, but I've realized that with a correcly configured linux-box (with itself set to drop unknown incoming packets), the extra hardware box is more trouble than it's worth.
Running any monolithic app, is unlikely to be affected by virus SW, but anything that does alot of file accessing, will be hurt proportionally. You'll also see a larger 'hurt' the faster your disks and network is -- since the processing time for the virus scanner is a constant amount of CPU, and with a faster disk, that CPU amount will figure more prominently, same goes for network access - the faster the network access, then the more the cpu usage will show up as delays.
It really depends on peoples usage and what they do -- if they download software and execute it alot, then they probably need scanning SW. But if you only download from trusted sources, or only download video/music/pictures, you don't need it.
Let me repeat that last bit -- if all you do is watch videos/ listen to music and look at pictures, you don't need virus scanning. The dangers are very minimal (if there are bugs in your existing programs, which are rare if you keep up to date). A caveat -- stay away and avoid videos that require you to download a special codec or player to play them. Just delete those videos off your system. They are not worth it.
Also something to steer away from -- stay away from 'free virus scans' -- especially any that need to download something to do the scan (which is most of them). As soon as they download something to do the scanning -- that downloaded software has a high probability of ITSELF being a virus or malware.
Free screen savers? Forget them, unless they come from reputable sources that you trust. Always beware of "free software" or websites bearing 'free gifts' -- they are the perfect example of modern day trojan horses. Look for open-source programs where you can look at the source and compile and run it yourself -- that's the best -- but apart from that -- look for trusted websites that offer the source or are verified by other 'trusted' services. Be careful of sites that claim to be 'certified trusted by 'XXXX'. Are they? Check with XXXX and see.... The claim to be trusted/certified may very well be bogus.
Staying smart and aware is the best defense against these things -- that -- and go for the free option -- Microsoft's Home Security Essentials is VERY good. They collect aberrant behavior from all the computers that allow them to collect information -- and MS runs monthly scans on everyone's computers during updates, so they know what is out there and they know what the threats are and probably have one of the best info-bases on malware. Besides, you CAN't beat the price. I don't have their on-access feature turned on for me, but I do for my parents, and my less computer-literate friends. So consider it before you consider a 'for-pay' "protection-racket" SW package -- since malware protection is best done by those who know the OS. Ideally it should be part of the OS from day one -- and one day, maybe it will be.
-Astara
.... BTW thanks very much for this article.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram