I'm kind of scared to jump in here with the IT big leagues, but I feel like
putting my two cents in.
I've used AVG temporarily a couple of years back. I didn't like it very
much. And since then, everything I've read recently says that it's gotten
slow and bloated like Norton used to be.
I would recommend Security Essentials right now. An article in the
fts_free.html) cites a review by AV-Test.org in which MSE detected 98.4% of
the virus/spyware samples it was subjected to. That's right on par with
Norton (and superior to both AVG and NOD32), which is impressive. And what's
more, MSE is supposed to be *very* light on system resources, and a
"set-and-forget" AV that doesn't bother the user unless something's wrong.
As for spyware, my personal belief is that a dedicated program is best.
Windows Defender is decent in this regard, but I highly recommend Ad-Aware
Free. When I installed the new 2010 version and scanned my laptop, it found
spyware that both Windows Defender and Norton 2009 had missed.
Just my personal opinions on the matter.
From: Technology Discussion at UVM [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Bryan Fleming
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ESET License?
>Good or bad experience with AVG Free?
I've used it with a number of family members and clients for some
years... I haven't been very impressed with it, but figured it was
better than nothing.
There are those times where I wonder if telling someone that they are
unprotected and will need to be careful would be better than giving them
AVG or other options and them considering themselves invulnerable. Part
of the problem is really more of the spyware/malware rather than
viruses. Their paid for products may be better, and I suspect that the
free is good against viruses, but viruses are not the kind of malware
that's normally giving me headaches. But then I've had clients with
spyware infections that have been running nod32 so there's nothing
perfect even with paid products.
I've started using Security Essentials with some people, the jury is
still out, but I haven't had one back with infections in the past month
or so since I started with it. Too small a sample size though.
Certainly would love to get other's opinions on them...
Dean Williams wrote:
> It was financially feasible, because of vendor license terms, to
> license Symantec Antivirus for home computers, but that's not the case
> with NOD32; there are a fixed number of licenses. We have not made
> that sufficiently clear.
> Software made available on the software download site is generally
> licensed for use on University-owned computers. Student-owned
> computers are included when it's software students need for academic
> purposes, or, as in the NOD32 case, for the protection of the
> networked community, and when it's financially affordable. (UVM's
> NERCOMP membership has helped us purchase NOD32 for students at a
> lower per-computer cost than for University-owned computers.) When
> vendor licensing terms make it financially and logistically feasible,
> software can be licensed so that no one has to contribute a
> per-computer amount towards the license costs; in other cases, UVM is
> able to negotiate a volume license but people using the software
> contribute to the license cost. Some software is licensed per seat,
> and some per FTE or headcount -- available terms vary, and what how
> broadly software can be made available is most often a function of
> cost (Microsoft Campus Agreement is another example in which a true
> "site" license is cost prohibitive).
> The good news for faculty and staff personally owned computers is that
> AVG has a decent virus protection product that's free (on personally
> owned computers, not on institutionally owned computers). It has a
> good reputation, and provides an upgrade path to their non-free
> advanced products.
> Does anyone have other protection products to recommend for faculty
> and staff personally owned computers? Good or bad experience with AVG
> I've been sidestepping the question about a computer purchased with a
> mix of University and personal funds. Who actually owns it?
> The issue of using personally owned computers for any University
> business is a hot topic, for sure, and there is a bit of a policy
> vacuum in that area right now. Development of that policy will have
> to balance costs, practicality, and some inescapable requirements
> related to security and legal compliance.
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Bryan Fleming wrote:
>> Good clarification, thanks Dean and Andrew. Is that true also of
>> other licensed software such as endnote, ArcGIS and others? I'm
>> looking at the specific of a personal machine for work use, and not
>> using endnote to catalog your DVDs. ;) A gray area for sure though.
>> So just a few thoughts worth considering..
>> 1)With the VPN we can't access local networks while connected, this
>> is to protect campus resources from whatever nastiness is present on
>> your local network. (since many machines will route by default) But
>> the computer that is connecting may have all sorts of nastiness on it
>> which through the VPN can get access to the campus.
>> 2)I know some staff/faculty members that bring their personal laptop
>> on campus to do work. (again with the result of nastiness getting
>> access to campus)
>> 3)For planning for and in the event of a pandemic people are/would be
>> specifically asked to be doing work on their personal machines.
>> There is of course then the concern of sensitive data being used on
>> compromised systems. An expensive and damaging potential problem.
>> I'm not saying that antivirus is any sort of panacea, but it's one
>> more part of the puzzle. Granted with Microsoft's protection now
>> being free this may be less of a point than previously, but many
>> users aren't aware of it as a solution.
>> >From a security standpoint it looks to me like providing some sort
>> of solution to staff & faculty might well be in UVM's best interest.
>> And in fact may be far less expensive than privacy breach remediation
>> and litigation.
>> It seems like we should set some sort of policy with it published
>> very very clearly (probably a link right on the the download for the
>> VPN would be a good idea) for personal machines used for work (and
>> there may be one, but the link on the vpn download still strikes me
>> as a good idea), be it that it has to use protection we provide (if
>> we were to update our license) or to use one of some suggested
>> products ideally including at least one free solution. Perhaps
>> adding them at least as links to the software download site for
>> personal machines. Of course that may leave us needing to support
>> those programs as well.
>> This could be as simple (and inexpensive) as adding a link to the
>> software download site to Microsoft security essentials for personal
>> machines, linking a policy off the VPN download and planning to
>> support security essentials. But for liability and prevention
>> reasons it would seem like a good thing to make as explicit as possible.
> On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Helen Read wrote:
>> At 02:27 PM 11/11/2009, Dean Williams wrote:
>>> The software download site
>>> <https://www.uvm.edu/software/magicscript.php?platform=Windows> now
>>> carries this clarification of the NOD32 license:
>>> Licensed for UVM students on personally-owned computers and for
>>> faculty/staff on UVM-owned computers only.
>> This is news to me. I thought all along that NOD32, and Norton
>> Anti-virus before it, were licensed for home use for all UVM
>> affiliates. Isn't the idea to make it as easy as possible for the UVM
>> community to keep their computers virus-free, so as not to infect the
>> campus network?
>> If the license really does not include faculty/staff personally owned
>> computers, I think we should upgrade the license so that it does.
>> Many/most of us use personally owned computers to do UVM work from
>> home, and there is also a gray area with, say, my laptop that was
>> paid for partly by my department and partly by me. Is that UVM owned,
>> or personally owned?
>> Helen Read
>> Senior Lecturer
>> Department of Mathematics & Statistics
>> University of Vermont