Why this stuff is always problematic? Some time ago Nod32 was fine but then they stopped old version support and so changed to Avira but recently they messed up it aswell. Tried Kaspersky because got official version for multiple PC but it was same as Norton - too much bloatware and complications. Right now Comodo Internet Security is being used but they are also starting to change product to worse step by step..seriously wtf to use then? Other AV have not so pretty reviews..soo maybe we can get some clarity here? Let's see what real life users have to say on this.

P.S.Even Linux needs AV - for windows related files and purposes.

I've never used AV on Linux http://gufw.org/ and don't use microcoughed any more since 7 but if I need to fix family's: http://www.clamav.net/lang/en/ ...

Saying "they messed up", "complications" or "starting to change product to worse" without explaining what exactly does not help us help you. And sure, stopping old version support could make sense from a marketing or revenue perspective but OTOH, if the upgrade brings a better virus engine, better heuristics (I don't mean a snazzy GUI or anything featuring "Community" or "Cloud" buzzwords) should you really choose to run stale software? I've ran quite a few AV over the years (we're talking Windows machines here, OK) and I haven't encountered any commercial AV (sure, there were TBAV, KAV and a few others but that was in the previous millennium) that's as highly rated, fast and tweakable as NOD32. That said I don't see AV as a one stop solution: sane software and browsing habits should go first and a filtering proxy, access restrictions and a firewall are basic measures one can implement regardless of the OS.


*BTW: This thread is more suitable in the General Forum (not a Linux Security issue) and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

All my choices go back to 2005 and win98, not much use to you now. but if I was to pick now, a up to date Host file and probably Malwarebytes + Avast.
Not allowing JavaScript everywhere and Safe Hex will help as well.

I second that, haven't actually used Trinity\Clam in over a year or so.

I just can not understand why, with all that we can use these days, people still maintain blocking IP addresses is "good enough" when every simple test shows it just is not: https://www.linuxquestions.org/quest....php?p=3585760, also see dont_use_a_hosts_file.

I use AVG Free on Windows and Linux. It has worked quite well for me. The most recent ratings of free Windows AVs that I've seen rated Avast a little higher, but these things go back and forth. Note that I've not picked up a virus on Linux and don't expect to, but I'm not going to leave the door open; that's just me.

Malwarebytes gets very good reviews in Windows-world. I also use Spybot on Windows computers, if nothing else because it is a long-standing and reputable program; it's very good at what it does, but it is specialized and cannot be depended on as a stand-alone line of defense.

Anyone remember HijackThis? Sure don't miss microcoughed!

I use the free edition of Avira on my Windows installation for years now, never had a problem with that. I used Avast before that, but since it let me infect a whole bunch of systems, unable to detect a virus for weeks, I changed to Avira. Something like that never happened again.
But to be fair, nowadays I rarely boot into Windows and if I do it is to start a game that does not run under Linux.

I use clamav because my die-hard linux ONLY desktop is on the same subnet of two other windows desktops.

Second, since linux IS now a popular alternative to windows and macs, hackers are now starting to write malware for linux operating systems.

It isn't "good enough", but if you're using win98, or something newer from M$ I suspect, it was just an extra layer between you and the crap you probably didn't want to stumble into. The only Host file I used was the one from http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/ which at the time I don't think had anything to do with Ubuntu. Not clicking on every "free naked bimbo of the week" link and not accepting cookies from eveyone or allowing J$ everwhere worked better.
Does a Host file slow you down, I don't doubt it, but how much depends on your connection and what you consider slow.

Haven't used a Host file since the later half of 2005 (when I quit using M$ entirely) since I no longer need to worry about 0 Day exploits or critical updates.

Yeah, that's the one that still gets advertised the most.


It's not about slowing down but effectivity.
Plus a hosts file would never have given any protection against 0-days as it didn't address any causes.

It's good to see you don't rely on it anymore though.