150000 gmail account disable??

Imagine if Google one day up and decided to call it quits, turning off its servers and getting out of the online game altogether. Kind of a scary thought when you consider just how dependent we've become on Google's services, from search to word processing, and especially to Gmail. We don't foresee the fat cats at Google ever making such a drastic decision, but it is pause for thought for around 150,000 Gmail account holders who woke up this morning to find that their email, attachments, and Google Chat logs had vanished. What the Gmail happened? We're not sure, and neither is Google. According to Google's Apps Status Dashboard, the search giant first noticed the glitch late afternoon Sunday. By 4:20 PM, Google was reporting that "the issue affects less than 0.29 percent of the Google Mail users," a number that was reduced to 0.08 percent by 10:40 PM. A day later and Google still doesn't seem to know exactly what's going on, or at least isn't willing to share just yet.
"Our team is continuing to investigate this issue. We will provide an update by February 28, 2011 10:10:00 AM UTC-5 with more information about this problem. Thank you for your patience," the latest entry in Google's Apps Status Dashboard reads. The same message has been repeated four times this morning, with only the time of the next update being changed.
Is the glitch affecting your Gmail account?    source

what is New Backdoor Trojan which Targets Windows and Mac OS X?

Security firm Sophos has discovered a modified variant of the well known darkComet Remote Access Trojan (RAT) that not only affects Windows PCs, but the Mac OS X platform too. Interestingly enough, the nefarious Trojan readily admits it's not yet finished, which could be indicative of more underground programmers finally taking notice of Mac's increased market share. In its current form, Sophos senior security adviser, Chester Wisniewski, describes the Trojan as "very basic" in nature with a mix of English and German in the UI.
Infected Macs display the grammatically challenged message:
"I am a Trojan Horse, so i have infected your Mac Computer. I know, most people thnk Macs can't be infected, but look, you ARE Infected! I have full control over your Computer and i can do everything I want, and you can do nothing to prevent it. So, I'm a very new Virus, under Development, so there will be much more functions when im finished."
Functions of this specific Trojan include the ability to place text files on the desktop; send a restart, shutdown, or sleep command; run arbitrary shell commands; place a full screen window with a message that only allows you to click reboot; send URLs to the client to open a website; and pop up a fake 'Administrator Password' window to phish the target, Sophos says.
Wisniewski notes that Trojans like BlackHole RAT are often distributed through pirated software downloads and torrent sites.    source

AVG Anti-Virus Free Edition 2011 10.0.1204 Reviews

The bottom line: Although AVG has flagged a little in the past few years, AVG Anti-Virus Free 2011 breathes some new life into one of the most popular security programs around with a shorter install, better usability, and faster scans.
Review:
The never-ending mantra chanted by security suite vendors sounds a lot like "faster scans, easier to use, better performance," and AVG has released a new version that it says accomplishes all three. Certainly, the scans are faster, it does install more quickly, and some tweaks to the interface have made it easier to use. However, changes to the engine that powers the detection and removal of threats has made it hard to come to a conclusion until independent labs return their efficacy results later this year. 
Installation
The new AVG Free has sped up its installation process, although it's not as zippy as the minute-long installations that some of AVG's paid competitors offer. We found that the program can go from completed download to ready to use in about 5 minutes. Gains might have been made elsewhere, but a big contributing factor to that is that AVG has cut down the number of install screens users
AVG's toolbar is still an opt-out feature. It also will commandeer your default search engine for Yahoo, so if you don't want it to do that, you'll want to uncheck the box that changes your search engine, too. Also unchanged is registration, which is a free process and can be completed from within the AVG interface. 


Interface
The changes to AVG's interface in the 2011 version are minor but actually improve usability quite a bit. The top and left navigation sections have been redecorated with light text on a dark background, although the main controls in the center of the window retain their standard black text on a white background. The safety status icon at the top of the interface has been simplified and made larger.
Read More

Avast! Free Antivirus Reviews

is also an excellent free antivirus that is very popular. The antivirus detection rates is on par with AntiVir and Microsoft Security Essentials. Avast has the most features, with full real-time capabilities, including web, e-mail, IM, P2P and network shields, boot-time scanning, and a behavioural blocker. Avast is also light on resources.
These free antivirus programs are excellent software that provide a real alternative to the major commerical antivirus products.
You can increase your protection if you run on-demand scans with another antivirus. On-demand scans can be run regularly to check for viruses, trojans, worms, spyware, adware, keyloggers, rootkits and other malware that may have been missed by your main antivirus scanner. If you have a good preventive security strategy in place, however, the extra protection an on-demand antivirus scanner offers is minimal. Source techsupportalert.com

What is Microsoft Security Essentials??

is my personal favorite; with good detection rates, particularly for rootkits. Even more impressive is that Security Essentials has very few false positives, is light on resources and is good at removal of existing malware.
Microsoft Security Essentials is the best choice for average users because of the minimal user interaction required. It automatically updates and removes threats. No registration is needed, apart from a quick validating of Windows, and there are no nag screens or advertisements.
The main downsides are the slow scan speeds and the lengthy amount of time it takes to quarantine malware. MSE also is not available in certain countries so users there will have to look elsewhere. Note that Microsoft Security Essentials requires a genuine copy of Windows to install.

Avira AntiVir Personal Edition Good and Bad

is my top pick for the best free antivirus software if you're looking for the best protection against virus, spyware and rootkit threats. AntiVir is very light on resources and the detection rate of malware is outstanding, better than almost every other antivirus according to tests. However, there are some minor reservations.
First, AntiVir does not include web or e-mail scanning capabilities; this is only available in the paid version. The lack of an e-mail scanner is not really a disadvantage, it just means that AntiVir won't warn you of infected emails before you open them. But should you open an infected email, AntiVir will still spring into action, so it doesn't mean that you're not protected from email-based infections. Although AntiVir had signature updating problems in the past, this issue seems to be fixed now. techsupportalert.com

why Avast Pro Antivirus 5? Good and Bad

Avast Pro Antivirus 5 ($40 for a single-PC, one-year license as of 11/23/2010) ranks third in our roundup of 2011 paid antivirus products. When PCWorld last looked at Avast's paid antivirus offering, our reviewer wasn't particularly impressed with either its interface or its malware detection capabilities. Avast Antivirus Pro 5, however, is a definite improvement, thanks to a slick new interface and some useful additional features. But middling detection capabilities relative to other paid antivirus software keep it from claiming a higher ranking.
Avast's installation process is quick and painless, and I had to click through only a couple of screens before it started installing. The main interface is also quite good, though not perfect. The main screen has four main tabs running along the left edge--one each for the summary screen, scans, real-time shields, and maintenance tools. I found the main screen to be attractive and well laid out overall, but the scan results screen needs a little work: When malware is detected, it doesn't tell you what the malware does, or why it's dangerous.
The settings screens were good, but not outstanding; for one thing, you'll see a lot of settings for you to change, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your view. Even so, you'll find some limitations--no option to choose what happens to malware when it's detected, for example, and little description of what the individual settings do.
Avast Pro Antivirus 5 did a reasonable job at detecting and removing malware overall, but it did have some weak points. In traditional scanner-based malware detection tests, Pro Antivirus 5 detected 94.8 percent of samples--somewhat below average for this test (96.2 percent) and behind the top scorers, which detected over 99 percent of samples. These tests rely heavily on malware signature files, so it's a good indicator of how well a product can detect known malware.
In tests that judge how well antivirus products can detect and stop brand-new malware, Avast Pro Antivirus was successful in completely blocking malware attacks 80 percent of the time, which is about average, and it partially blocked an additional 4 percent of attacks. No product we tested was able to block every attack, but the top scorer in this test fully blocked 96 percent of attacks.
Avast's middling performance held true in tests measuring how well antivirus software detects and removes malware infections: It detected all infections--as did all other products we tested--and removed active components in 70 percent of the cases. This places Avast right around average in this test, though most products score in the 70 percent to 80 percent range. It was able to remove all components of 30 percent of the infections, which places it below average (the top performer in this test removed all traces of infections 70 percent of the time).
One feature I particularly liked was Avast's boot scanner, a tool that will scan your PC for malware upon startup--before Windows even loads. The logic behind this is that it will catch malware on your system before anything runs. According to Avast, the program will let you scan and clean an infected PC before the malware does any damage.
Avast Pro Antivirus is speedy as well: It had the fastest scan speeds of every paid antivirus product we looked at, and its impact on overall system performance was relatively low. It completed an on-demand scan of 4.5GB of data in 90 seconds--tying as the fastest finisher in this test. It also lead the way in on-access scans, which kick off when files are opened or saved to disk: It completed the test in 3 minutes, 40 seconds--20 seconds ahead of its closest competitor.Source pcworld.com

Is Kaspersky Mobile Software Now Covers Android, BlackBerry?

Russian security vendor Kaspersky Lab has released new versions of its security software for mobile devices to cover Android and the BlackBerry OS.
The Android and BlackBerry versions released at Mobile World Congress on Tuesday have fewer features than the existing versions for Symbian and Windows Mobile, according to the technical data.
The Android and BlackBerry versions can both remotely disable a lost or stolen device and delete its data upon receipt of an SMS (Short Message Service) code.
The two versions also a have call and SMS filters, which allow users to screen which calls or messages they want to receive or set up a whitelist that defines which communication will be accepted from specific contacts.
Those are the only two features of Mobile Security 9 for the BlackBerry. Those devices already have good encryption, so Kaspersky decided to only add features it felt the platform needed, said Victor Dronov , senior product manager for mobile solutions. The BlackBerry version also lacks Kaspersky's antivirus since there is very little malware that has targeted the platform, Dronov said.
Microsoft's latest Windows Phone 7 is not covered by Mobile Security 9 since Dronov said that access to many of the low-level operating system functions are already blocked. However, Kaspersky will continue to look at the platform.
Apple's iOS 4 operating system for the iPhone is still off limits due to restrictions by the company. "When Steve Jobs wants you to have high-end security on the iPhone, we will do that," said Eugene Kaspersky, the company's founder.
Android has a few more features than are also available on the Windows and Symbian versions in Mobile Security 9. It has Kaspersky's "privacy protection" feature, which allows phonebook entries, SMSes and call logs to be hidden on the phone. Android also support Kaspersky's antivirus functions.
The Windows and Symbian versions also support encryption and parental control features. Kaspersky's software covers Symbian^3 or Series 60 devices running Symbian 9.1 through 9.4. Windows Mobile devices covered are version 5.0 through 6.5. Kaspersky's Mobile Security 9 covers Android versions 1.6 through 2.2, and BlackBerry 4.5 through 6.0.

Eset Nod32 Antivirus 4? Good and Bad

Eset NOD32 Antivirus ($72 for 1 year, 3 PCs as of 12/22/2010) finishes ninth in our roundup of 2011 antivirus software. It does a reasonable job at blocking brand new attacks and it's fast, but it has trouble detecting known malware and cleaning up infections, which makes it tough to recommend.
NOD32's main interface isn't too badly designed, but it's limited in what it displays--even in "advanced mode." Where things get messy, though, is in the settings interface. Here, you'll have access to a limited set of features to adjust--unless you turn on Advanced Mode. In Advanced Mode, the settings box turns into a dizzying array of checkboxes and drop-downs, all in a less-than-optimally-designed window.
Things weren't much better when it came to detection: NOD32 detected 89.2 percent of known malware samples, which is the lowest, by far, of the products we looked at. By comparison, the average for antivirus software that we looked at was 96.2 percent, and top performers achieved over-99-percent detection ratings. Eset also lagged behind in cleaning up infections: It was able to detect all infections on our test PC, but it was able to remove all active components only 60 percent of the time, and it removed all traces of malware only 10 percent of the time. Both scores were the lowest in this test, and well behind the pack.
That said, Eset did an acceptable job at blocking brand new malware--it fully blocked 84 percent of brand new malware attacks in our "real world" testing--a decent showing, but not outstanding. Eset also had up a low false-positive rate--it flagged only one good file as suspicious.
Eset shined in system speed tests. When we triggered a scan, Eset was the fastest among the products we tested--it tore through 4.5GB of files in a mere 90 seconds. Its on-access scanner--which kicks in when files are opened or saved to disk--was also very fast, completing a scan of 4.5GB of files in 4 minutes even, an above-average result. And its overall impact on system performance was the smallest among the antivirus packages we tested.
That speed is good, but all the speed in the world doesn't mean much if a security product doesn't effectively stop malware. And given NOD32's struggles, we can't give it our recommendation. Source PCWORLD.COM

what is GFI Vipre Antivirus 2011? Good and bad

GFI (formerly Sunbelt) Vipre Antivirus 2011 ($30 for one year, one PC, as of 12/18/2010) finishes tenth in our roundup of 2011 paid antivirus software. Vipre is the epitome of the expression "mixed bag." It detected known malware well, cleaned up after infections competently, and it's reasonably speedy. But its design is cluttered, and it struggled mightily at stopping brand new malware.
Installing Vipre Antivirus 2011 is reasonably straightforward, but it does require you to restart as part of the installation process--a slight annoyance . Vipre's main interface is generally clean, but some important information gets lost. The scan button, for example, seems to blend in with everything else on the screen. The overview pane provides a decent overview of your PC's protection status.
The settings window feels cluttered, and it's hard to understand at a glance. Some of the copywriting needs work--the wording may be unfriendly and overcomplicated for some users. But on the positive side, each tab has descriptive text describing what the settings are for.
Vipre Antivirus is an inconsistent defender: It did perform reasonably well in detecting known malware, finding 97.9 percent of samples. This is a good score, but behind the top performers, which managed detection rates of over 99 percent. Vipre also did a serviceable job at disinfection: it removed all active components 70 percent of the time, and removed all malware components -- active and inactive -- 40 percent of the time. These, again, are good scores, but not quite up to what top performers managed (top-scoring products removed active components 80 percent of the time).
It didn't fare as well, however, in "real-world" detection tests that show how well an antivirus product can block brand new malware. It fully blocked only 60 percent of malware attacks, and partially blocked an additional 16 percent. This was well behind the average full-blocking rate of 83 percent, and placed it at the back of the pack in this test. No product we tested fully blocked all samples, but Norton Antivirus 2011 managed to fully block 96 percent of attacks.
Vipre also had some minor false positive issues, flagging six good files as potentially malicious, but the overall rate as a percentage of the files Vipre evaluated was still quite low.
GFI claims that Vipre won't slow down your PC, and in this case it delivers: It had one of the fastest manual "on-demand" scan speeds among the products we looked at for this roundup (1 minute, 41 seconds to scan 4.5GB), and it was reasonably fast in on-access tests that judge how quickly it can scan files as they're opened or saved, scanning 4.5GB of files in 4 minutes, 20 seconds. And its impact on overall PC performance was quite low, completing most of the speed tests we put it through with faster-than-average times.
If GFI can improve Vipre's blocking of brand new malware, and put some more effort into the interface, it could become a contender. But as it stands now, though, we can't recommend Vipre Antivirus 2011.   Source pcworld.com

Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 Application Control in Action

In its default configuration Kaspersky does all it can to handle application control without bothering the user. For example, I didn't have any trouble running a never-before-seen browser utility I wrote myself – the firewall granted Internet access but marked the program "low restricted."
When I tried a collection of leak tests (programs designed to subvert program control) it was a different story. Kaspersky categorized some as untrusted, so they didn't run at all. The others fell in to the low or high restricted category, and restrictions prevented them from breaking through program control. That's impressive!
A rootkit detection utility I rely on uses rootkit-like technology to get a handle on the actual rootkits. This naturally caused Kaspersky to flag it as dangerous, but that's reasonable. I chose to allow the action and, the utility worked fine.
Next I installed twenty PCMag utilities, most chosen because they reach deeply into the OS and might mistakenly be considered dangerous. Before doing so I turned off "select action automatically," so I could see what happened. Most of them installed and ran without incident. Five got a popup warning; in each case I chose to restrict the program's actions. One just didn't work with restrictions in place and another couldn't set itself to run at startup. But all the rest worked fine and loosening the restrictions allowed the others to work.
The application control system seems good at hindering actual bad programs and leaving good programs alone. If you find that one of your programs doesn't seem to work quite right, check its status in the application control list and, if necessary, lift some restrictions.—Next: Malware Protection Helped by Firewall
source pcmag.com

Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 Brainy Firewall

You should have no worries about attacks from outside with Kaspersky's firewall on the job. In testing, it blocked all port scan tests and other Web-based tests I threw at it. It was also unusually effective at blocking attempts to exploit vulnerabilities in the browser and OS. I hit it with two dozen attacks using the Core Impact penetration tool; none compromised the test system's security. Better still, Kaspersky clearly reported that it blocked specific exploits. I like that—if a website attacks my system, I want to know about it even if the attack fails.
The bad guys won't crack your protection by taking down the firewall, either. I tried to disable it by changing Registry settings, but it wouldn't let me. Killing its processes with Task Manager just got "access denied." Sometimes I've succeeded at setting a product's essential service to Disabled and then crashing the system, but Kaspersky wouldn't let me change anything about its services. It's tough!          The very best thing about Kaspersky's firewall, however is its application control. The earliest personal firewalls popped up queries whenever a new program attempted to access the Internet or network, making the user decide what to do. Kaspersky completely handles that confusing decision itself, and does so very intelligently.
The application control system assigns programs categories: trusted, low restricted, high restricted, and untrusted. Known good programs and those digitally signed by trusted vendors are trusted—they're free to access the Internet and sensitive system areas. Untrusted programs can't even launch. Restricted programs have limited access; in some cases, Kaspersky may pop up an intelligent query that specifies the program's restricted status and reports what it's trying to do. When these popups appear, they're significant—unlike the deluge of popups from simple-minded firewalls.
Each application control category has specific rules. If the rules cause problems for a particular program, you can change its different category or edit its rules. In particular, the rules control whether a program can access your "digital identity"—user files, browser settings, and other personal data. These items get additional protection, and you're free to expand on definition of digital identity.  source pcmag.com

Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 good and bad

What's the hottest-selling software brand in U.S. retail stores? Microsoft? Adobe? Electronic Arts? This past June, that honor belonged to Kaspersky Lab, according to one independent market-watching group. The same group reports that Kaspersky's overall sales more than tripled for the first half of 2010 versus the first half of 2009. Solid security software like Kaspersky Internet Security 2011 ($79.95 for 3 licenses direct) should mean a good second half, too.
Kaspersky's security powerhouse does its job without pestering you. The firewall makes decisions rather than asking you what to do. By default, the antivirus components makes its own decisions about low-risk and "potentially unwanted" items. Those prefer can switch interactive protection out of automatic mode, however. source pcmag.com

Nasdaq systems can hacked again??

IDG News Service - Federal authorities are investigating a computer intrusion at the company that runs the Nasdaq stock exchange, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

According to the report, which cites anonymous sources, Nasdaq OMX Group computers were compromised sometime over the past year, but the company's trading platform was unaffected. "So far, [the perpetrators] appear to have just been looking around," the Journal quotes one source as saying.
Nasdaq OMX Group runs a number of stock exchanges, including the U.S. Nasdaq, and exchanges that trade in Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, and the Baltic region. The investigation is being conducted by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service, the report states.
Nasdaq representatives could not be reached immediately for comment.
Hacking incidents like this are becoming increasingly common, as widespread e-mail and Web-based computer attacks continue to overwhelm workers in corporations and in government. In some cases, hacking into a low-level employee's desktop can be the first step for a more sophisticated attack, but often the cybercriminals go no further into the network. source computerworld.com/

Stuxnet struck five targets in Iran, say researchers

Computerworld - Researchers at Symantec today said that the notorious Stuxnet worm targeted five separate organizations, and that attacks against those objectives -- all with a presence in Iran -- started in June 2009, more than a year before independent experts raised the alarm.

In a post on Symantec's security blog, the company said that further analysis of Stuxnet samples showed that the worm was aimed at five different organizations. "All targeted organizations have a presence in Iran," said Ben Nahorney, a senior information developer with the U.S.-based security company.
Speculation on Stuxnet's targets has centered on a pair of Iranian locations crucial to its nuclear program: the underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz in the central part of the country, and the nuclear reactor at Bushehr, in southern Iran.
Both Natanz and Bushehr have been under the scrutiny of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations' nuclear watchdog.
According to Nahorney, the first Stuxnet attack was launched in June 2009, with another following that July. Additional attacks were conducted in March, April and May 2010.
Although experts had previously traced the worm's development roots as far back as June 2009, there was little proof that actual attacks had begun at that time.
The worm was first publicly reported in June 2010 by VirusBlokAda, a little-known security firm based in Belarus, but only garnered attention a month later when Microsoft and Siemens -- the German electronics firm sells widely-used SCADA hardware and software -- said the worm was actively targeting Windows PCs that managed large-scale industrial-control systems in manufacturing and utility firms.
SCADA, for "supervisory control and data acquisition," are systems that run everything from power plants and factory machinery to oil pipelines and military installations.
Researchers have called Stuxnet "groundbreaking" for its sophistication, use of multiple Windows zero-day vulnerabilities and reconnaissance and testing requirements.
"Three organizations were targeted once, one was targeted twice, and another was targeted three times," said Nahorney today. Symantec has not identified the organizations or disclosed information on which of the five -- the one struck three times -- was attacked most aggressively.
Based on Symantec's earlier analysis -- and that of other experts, including Ralph Langner of Langner Communications GmbH -- most researchers have concluded that Stuxnet was crafted by a nation-backed team, and designed to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
Iran has confirmed that the worm infected at least 30,000 PCs in the country, and has admitted that Stuxnet affected the operation of some of the centrifuges used to enrich uranium. The country has blamed Israel and the U.S. for the attacks.
Last month the New York Times, citing confidential sources, said that the worm was a joint American-Israeli project, and had been tested on Iranian-style centrifuges at the latter's Dimona covert nuclear facility.
Symantec mapped Stuxnet's targets and timeline by analyzing more than 3,200 samples of the worm that had caused approximately 12,000 infections in the five organizations that had been attacked.
The company will publish an updated version of its "W32.Stuxnet Dossier" report on its Web site later today.

how to delete ravmon virus from computer??

Is your right click context menu showing some Chinese scripts ? Is your show hidden files and folders not working ? Is your command prompt , Registry Editor and task manager disabled ??

If all these things are happening to your Computer , the reason is that it has got infected by a virus named " RAVMON " .What can this Virus do ??

• Disables task manager , Registry Editor and Command prompt .
• Right click menu shows some Chinese scripts as shown in the figure.
• Computer shutdown automatically and slogs a lot.
• Folder Options disappear
• Show hidden files and folders Option won't work.

With all these things not working , I can understand what can go with you !! I saw this thing on my friends PC . Then only I decided to write the solution for this.So how are you going to remove this ?

how to fix "STOP" Error Message At Shutdown

Some users have gotten an error message similar to the following when attempting either to shutdown or restart Win XP:

STOP 0000009F, DRIVER_POWER_STATE_FAILURE
STOP 0x0000001E: KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED
STOP 0x000000D1: DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

TechNet and the Microsoft Knowledge Base have numerous articles discussing this type of error condition; for example, these. As a review of these articles will show, these are commonly device driver problems, but may also be caused by troublesome software (such as the notorious CrashGuard), or a problem in a system service. MSKB article Q262575 discusses a shutdown problem of this type, known to exist in Windows 2000 due to a resource (IRQ) conflict, if you have PACE Interlok anti-piracy software installed. This problem may occur in Windows XP as well.
Microsoft advises the following as one approach to these problems: Restart the computer. Press F8 during the restart and select “Last Known Good Configuration.” If you catch the problem when it first occurs (meaning you likely have installed only one or two drivers or new service), this will return you to a previous working condition. (Would System Restore accomplish the same thing? I don’t know, and don’t have a broken system to test it on.)

Microsoft reported similarly that these STOP code error message occur when Windows XP is trying to shut down devices. He says that he has seen this twice: once with Logitech Quickcam installed (with an unsupported driver), and once with a USB DSL modem that would hang if it wasn’t disconnected before shutdown.

How to delete Virus from USB Drives

One of the ways by which a virus can infect your PC is through USB/Pen drives. Common viruses such as ’Ravmon’ , ‘New Folder.exe’, ‘Orkut is banned’ etc are spreading through USB drives. Most anti virus programs are unable to detect them and even if they do, in most cases they are unable to delete the file, only quarantine it. Here are the things which you can do if you want to remove such viruses from your USB Drive               

Don’t click on Ok , just choose ‘Cancel’. Open the Command Prompt by typing ‘cmd‘ in the run box. In the command prompt type the drive letter: and press enter . Now type dir /w/a and press enter.

This will display a list of the files in the pen drive. Check whether the following files are there or not

• Autorun.inf
• Ravmon.exe
• New Folder.exe
• svchost.exe
• Heap41a
• or any other exe file which may be suspicious.

If any of the above files are there, then probably the USB drive is infected. In command prompt type attrib -r -a -s -h *.* and press enter. This will remove the Read Only, Archive, System and hidden file attribute from all the files. Now just delete the files using the command del filename. example del Ravmon.exe. Delete all the files that are suspicious. To be on a safer side, just scan the USB drive with an anti virus program to check whether it is free of virus or not. Now remove the drive and plug it again. In most of the cases, the real culprit turns out to be the “Autorun.inf” file which mostly gets executed when someone clicks Ok in the dialog window which appears above. Thus the infections can spread

Security Tip

Disable the Autoplay feature of USB drives. If you disable the Autoplay feature of USB drives, then there are lesser chances of the virus spreading. A tool which can perform such a function is Tweak UI. Download it from here install it.

Trick Vruses by Renaming Your Anti-Virus Program to Explorer.exe

There are a lot of viruses out there, but many of them follow the same pattern: they lock you out of your system and only let you visit their site, pretending to be anti-virus software. Here's a trick to squash them.
There's more than one way to kill a virus, but if something's locking you out of computer, the How-To Geek has a great way to trick it into letting your Anti-Malware tool run a scan:         

Since most of the fake anti-virus malware needs you to be able to slightly use your PC, the one executable that it won't ever block is "explorer.exe", since they want you to be able to get online and go to their site and pay them-not so easy if you have no Start Menu.              
So just rename your favorite anti-malware application to explorer.exe, and you should be able to use it.                  They recommend using the free, portable SUPERAntiSpyware to sneak in there and destroy that nasy virus

BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 good and bad

BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 ($40 for a one-year, three-PC license as of 11/23/2010) ranks second in our roundup of 2011 paid antivirus software. In our tests, it did a good job at detecting malware, and was the top performer at removing infections from a PC, which pushed it up the leaderboard, but it had some trouble blocking live malware attacks, preventing it from climbing any higher.
BitDefender's installation process is a bit longer than that for most of the antivirus products we looked at, as it takes you though not just installation, but various setup options as well. BitDefender comes with three interface "tiers"--a Basic interface, an Intermediate one, and an Expert one. The idea is that you can use an interface that fits your expertise level; the higher up you go, the more options you'll have access to.
I have mixed feelings on this approach: I like the basic interface for its simplicity and directness, and the Intermediate interface isn't bad either, but the Advanced interface is a convoluted mess of tabs running across the top and along the side of the window. If you're looking for set-it-and-forget-it simplicity, stick with the Basic mode. If you like toggling knobs and buttons and aren't intimidated by lots of tabs and controls, give the Intermediate and Advanced modes a try.
While BitDefender wasn't the all-around winner in malware detection and removal tests, it still put up some very good scores. When detecting malware using scanner-based detection methods, BitDefender Antivirus Pro detected 97.5 percent of samples--a solid score, although the top performers in this test detected over 99 percent of samples. This particular test mainly determines how well a product can detect known malware.
BitDefender has an Achilles' heel, though: Antivirus Pro didn't do a great job at blocking actual, live malware attacks. It fully blocked 68 percent of attacks, and partially blocked an additional 20 percent of attacks. BitDefender wasn't the worst performer in this test, but it was definitely below average; most other paid antivirus products we looked at fully blocked at least 80 percent of attacks. This indicates that it may have some difficulty catching brand-new malware for which a signature file doesn't yet exist.
On the other hand, Antivirus Pro was one of the best performers at cleaning up an infection once it gets into a PC; it detected all infections on a test PC, removed all active components of infections in 80 percent of the cases, and fully removed infections 70 percent of the time--the best score among the products we looked at. In addition, it was one of the few paid antivirus products we reviewed that didn't flag a "safe" file as possible malware.
Malware scan speeds were around average: It scanned 4.5GB of files in 2 minutes, 6 seconds using the on-demand scanner that kicks in when you manually initiate a malware scan. The on-access scanner that checks files for malware as they're opened or saved to disk was somewhat slower than average; it scanned 4.5GB of files in 5 minutes, 27 seconds.
Antivirus Pro had a moderate effect on PC performance in our tests. The test PC booted in 46.4 seconds with BitDefender Antivirus Pro installed, versus 40.1 seconds with no antivirus software installed. But this is around average when compared to the other paid antivirus products we looked at. This trend continued in other tests that show how antivirus software impacts overall PC performance--BitDefender scored either a little above or slightly below average for products we looked at in most of the PC speed tests.
Every product has its strengths and weaknesses. BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 is a pretty solid package, with a healthy set of features. But while it did a very good job in most malware detection and removal tests, you should bear in mind that it may not block brand-new malware attacks very well.

AVG Internet Security 2011 review

AVG Internet Security 2011 is aimed at those looking for a do-it-all piece of software, offering antivirus, anti-spyware, a rootkit detector and killer, firewall, link scanner, online shield, email scanner, identity protection, spam killer and more.
A one-year subscription for a single computer sells for £37.99, a two-year subscription for £60 and there are also discounts for up to 10 computers. It uses a "just-the-facts-ma'am" main interface for accessing all of those modules, in which a single screen displays a black-and-white icon for each. Each active module of AVG Internet Security 2011 has a green check next to it, so that you know it's turned on and working properly. Most of the time, however, you won't see the main interface, because the modules do their work in the background. You'll only need to access it to change a setting.
But although the interface of AVG Internet Security 2011 itself is straightforward, the software uses wording that may confuse you. To turn off a module, for example, you right click its icon and choose “Ignore the state of this component”.
Similarly, when you delve into the software's advanced settings, you'll find yourself occasionally scratching your head. What does it mean to "certify" incoming and outgoing mail for example and how does that differ from merely checking incoming and outgoing email for viruses and other threats? The program and its help file offer no guidance.
On the plus side however, those who like to configure their own security settings will find a wealth of options to tweak, all available from a single straightforward advanced settings screen.

G-Data AntiVirus 2011 good and bad

G-Data AntiVirus 2011 ($30 for a single-PC, one-year license as of 11/23/2010) placed fourth--albeit a close fourth--in our roundup of 2011 antivirus products. G-Data continues its recent trend of strong malware detection, blocking, and removal in 2011, and couples it with a good interface.
G-Data AntiVirus is generally easy to use. Its installation process took a few more steps than I would have liked, but it was reasonably straightforward. The main interface clearly indicates your PC's protection status, though it does lack a "master" everything's-protected-and configured-correctly status indicator that's present in many antivirus products. The scan screen isn't as simple as it is in some other products, but is still well laid out. G-Data is a German import, and I found that some of the language in alerts and other parts of the interface may not have been translated as well as it could have been.
Despite these minor issues with its interface, G-Data has muscle where it counts most: stopping malware. It detected 99.4 percent of malware samples in tests that scan for known malware--the second best score in this test. And it had a good showing in tests for blocking brand-new malware: G-Data completely blocked 84 percent of such malware in AV-Test's "real-world" detection tests--an above-average, but not quite a top-notch, score. It partially blocked an additional 4 percent of attacks.
What if malware does make it onto your PC? G-Data was one of the better performers at cleaning up malware: it detected all infections on our test PC, and disinfected active malware components in 80 percent of the cases, which tied it with several other products for the top score in this test. And it removed all traces of malware infections 60 percent of the time--again, a very good showing.
In addition, G-Data AntiVirus was one of the few antivirus packages we tested that didn't flag a single "safe" file as potentially dangerous.
Scan speed results were mixed. G-Data performed well in the on-demand scan tests, which determine how quickly it can run a manually initiated scan. It completed the on-demand scan of 4.5GB of data in 1 minute, 51 seconds--the third-best score in this test. On the other hand, its on-access scan times lagged. (The on-access test is a good way to see how long it will take a product to scan files as they're opened or saved to disk.) It finished this test--scanning 4.5GB of files--in 5 minutes, 36 seconds, a below-average showing.
G-Data AntiVirus had a moderate impact on overall PC performance. It added less than a second to startup time versus a PC with no antivirus software installed--a negligible difference. In most other tests, its impact on performance was slightly lower than average relative to other antivirus software we tested.
Although it has some minor issues, G-Data AntiVirus 2011 is a very strong package overall, and is worthy of your consideration.

BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 good and bad

BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 ($40 for a one-year, three-PC license as of 11/23/2010) ranks second in our roundup of 2011 paid antivirus software. In our tests, it did a good job at detecting malware, and was the top performer at removing infections from a PC, which pushed it up the leaderboard, but it had some trouble blocking live malware attacks, preventing it from climbing any higher.
BitDefender's installation process is a bit longer than that for most of the antivirus products we looked at, as it takes you though not just installation, but various setup options as well. BitDefender comes with three interface "tiers"--a Basic interface, an Intermediate one, and an Expert one. The idea is that you can use an interface that fits your expertise level; the higher up you go, the more options you'll have access to.
I have mixed feelings on this approach: I like the basic interface for its simplicity and directness, and the Intermediate interface isn't bad either, but the Advanced interface is a convoluted mess of tabs running across the top and along the side of the window. If you're looking for set-it-and-forget-it simplicity, stick with the Basic mode. If you like toggling knobs and buttons and aren't intimidated by lots of tabs and controls, give the Intermediate and Advanced modes a try.
While BitDefender wasn't the all-around winner in malware detection and removal tests, it still put up some very good scores. When detecting malware using scanner-based detection methods, BitDefender Antivirus Pro detected 97.5 percent of samples--a solid score, although the top performers in this test detected over 99 percent of samples. This particular test mainly determines how well a product can detect known malware.
BitDefender has an Achilles' heel, though: Antivirus Pro didn't do a great job at blocking actual, live malware attacks. It fully blocked 68 percent of attacks, and partially blocked an additional 20 percent of attacks. BitDefender wasn't the worst performer in this test, but it was definitely below average; most other paid antivirus products we looked at fully blocked at least 80 percent of attacks. This indicates that it may have some difficulty catching brand-new malware for which a signature file doesn't yet exist.
On the other hand, Antivirus Pro was one of the best performers at cleaning up an infection once it gets into a PC; it detected all infections on a test PC, removed all active components of infections in 80 percent of the cases, and fully removed infections 70 percent of the time--the best score among the products we looked at. In addition, it was one of the few paid antivirus products we reviewed that didn't flag a "safe" file as possible malware.
Malware scan speeds were around average: It scanned 4.5GB of files in 2 minutes, 6 seconds using the on-demand scanner that kicks in when you manually initiate a malware scan. The on-access scanner that checks files for malware as they're opened or saved to disk was somewhat slower than average; it scanned 4.5GB of files in 5 minutes, 27 seconds.
Antivirus Pro had a moderate effect on PC performance in our tests. The test PC booted in 46.4 seconds with BitDefender Antivirus Pro installed, versus 40.1 seconds with no antivirus software installed. But this is around average when compared to the other paid antivirus products we looked at. This trend continued in other tests that show how antivirus software impacts overall PC performance--BitDefender scored either a little above or slightly below average for products we looked at in most of the PC speed tests.
Every product has its strengths and weaknesses. BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011 is a pretty solid package, with a healthy set of features. But while it did a very good job in most malware detection and removal tests, you should bear in mind that it may not block brand-new malware attacks very well.  pcmag

BitDefender Uneven Malware Removal

As noted, the preinstall scan found threats on all but one of my thirteen malware-infested test systems. It found and cleaned traces of over half the malware samples. The product installed without incident on all the systems, and I launched full scans. In a couple cases, BitDefender reported that the full scan alone couldn't complete its cleanup and suggested that I run the BitDefender Rescue CD. I downloaded and burned the Rescue CD, then used it to boot the problem systems. The attractive boot-time scanner did its job quickly; afterward a full scan ran to completion.
By default, BitDefender runs a full scan as soon as installation is complete. The first full scan on my standard clean test system took 30 minutes, slightly longer than average. However, BitDefender's ability to avoid redundant scanning of known safe files brought the time for subsequent scans down to just over five minutes. It automatically runs a full scan any time the system has been idle for half an hour. You can also launch a fast cloud-based quickscan any time you suspect the possibility of active malware—this is the same scan that runs during installation.

BitDefender Antivirus Pro 2011

BitDefender offers three very different views for its user interface: basic, intermediate, and expert. Those who just want unobtrusive protection can choose the basic view. Intermediate view gives access to more features and settings, while expert view exposes every detail of the program's operation. In any of the views, you can choose which features will show up in the easy-access list of tools on the main dashboard page. 
Customization starts during installation; you choose your initial view and make selections for your set of tools. During installation you'll register the product, create an online account, and optionally perform initial configuration for the product's network-based remote management. It takes a little time and attention, but, when installation is complete, the product is personalized to your taste and ready to spring into action.
In testing last year's BitDefender suite, I had tons of trouble installing on malware-infested systems. The company successfully addressed that problem with a quick scan for active malware at the beginning of installation. On all but one of my infested test systems the preinstall scan found and removed threats. After a required reboot, installation continued automatically. 

How We Test Anti-Malware

Testing how well antivirus software and security suites block and remove malware—that is, viruses, trojans, spyware, spam, worms, and other security threats—is a key part of our security testing. We score the antivirus and security suites against compare products against other recently tested products. The best and worst scores in each category are highlighted in our anti-malware results tables. Here's how I derive those scores.
To test a product's ability to remove malware, I install it on a dozen or more virtual machine test systems, each of which is infested with three or four malware samples. The samples include adware, spyware, worms, viruses, Trojans, rootkits, and scareware (rogue security software). I manually run an update to make sure the product has the latest signatures. Using all default configuration settings, I then launch the most comprehensive scan offered. Once the process is finished I use proprietary tools to measure how effectively it cleaned up each threat.
If the product didn't even detect the threat it gets zero points. If it attempted removal but left executable files behind I grant it half credit—five points. That gets knocked down to three points if any executable file is still running. A product that detected a threat and eliminated all executable files has done a good job. If it also cleaned up the non-executable junk files and Registry debris, it's done a great job. A product that removed all the executable elements and left behind less than 20 percent of the junk gets the full ten points. If it left 20 to 80 percent of the junk, that's worth nine points. Over 80 percent of junk left behind still merits eight points; it did remove all the executables, after all. To arrive at the malware removal score, I simply average all the individual scores.
Malware Blocking
I also test the product's ability to prevent malware from installing on a clean system. To start, I open a folder containing that same collection of malware samples. Many anti-malware products immediately start deleting known threats. I also single-click each item in turn, as that minimal access triggers a real-time scan by some products. Finally I attempt to launch each threat that wasn't deleted on sight.
I score this test in much the same way as I do the removal test. If the product doesn't even notice malware installing, it gets zero points. If it tries to block installation but the malware manages to run, three points. If the malware isn't running but it did install executable files on the system, it gets five points. After that, it gets eight, nine, or ten points depending on how much non-executable junk got installed.
I run parallel tests replacing the malware samples with commercial keyloggers. Some anti-malware vendors choose not to deal with commercial keyloggers, which is a reasonable position. Others try to handle them and fail. Thus the scores are of some interest, but get much less weight in deriving the product's overall rating.
Starting in May of 2010 I've added columns showing each product's success against rootkits and scareware. Scareware is a subset of the overall malware score while rootkits are found in both the malware and keylogger collections. I also added columns showing the product's detection rate in each scoring category. Anomalies like a high detection rate with low success in protection can affect a product's overall rating, as can factors not measured by these tests.

PC Tools Spyware Doctor with AntiVirus 2011

• Pros
  New built-in tools for removing resistant malware now integrated. Scans multiple times if needed for full cleanup. Especially good against rootkits. Browser Defender toolbar identifies dangerous sites.
  
  
  • Cons Malware able to block installation in testing. New built-in tools failed to remove malware. Browser Defender poor at phishing detection.
    
    
    
• Bottom Line
  Spyware Doctor is good at cleaning up malware-infested systems, as long as the malware doesn't derail its installation. It's a very good choice for protection against viruses and all types of malware, if you can get it installed.
  While some security vendors thoroughly remodeled their products for 2011, PC Tools took a more subtle approach. Yes, there are a few differences in layout and appearance for PC Tools Spyware Doctor with AntiVirus 2011 ($39.95 direct for three licenses), but most of the enhancements this year are invisible.
  The 2011 edition extends its collection of real-time protection modules with a new download guard, checking all downloaded files for malware, and it integrates several tools designed for aggressive cleanup of the worst malware. The slightest Internet interruption would force previous editions to restart the lengthy update download. This version's download manager lets it restart where it left off. Instead of a simple statistics list, the product now offers an informative report card showing just what it has done to protect your system. And PC Tools promises faster scanning and more effective protection. 
  Lab Ratings Mostly High
  Not all of the independent testing labs include Spyware Doctor in their evaluations, but those that do give it good marks. Both ICSA Labs and West Coast Labs certify it for virus detection; ICSA Labs also certifies it for virus cleanup. Virus Bulletin has only been testing this product since spring of 2009, and it failed several tests at first. However it has achieved VB100% in the three most recent tests.
  AV-Comparatives.org runs regular tests evaluating twenty popular antivirus products on their on-demand cleanup ability and their proactive ability to detect new threats. Spyware Doctor scored ADVANCED+, the highest score, in the latest on-demand test but only got STANDARD, the lowest passing score, in the proactive test. 
• 
  

The Best Antivirus Software in 2011

The Best Protection
I torture-tested all of these products, challenging them to clean up 13 malware-infested systems and to block malware from attacking a clean system. Interestingly, the most effective antivirus products in my tests were not those that bulked up with added features. Webroot and Ad-Aware Pro offered the best protection overall, especially against rootkits and scareware. Spyware Doctor with AntiVirus 2011 also scored very well in my tests. Ad-Aware Pro joined Webroot to become our shared Editors' Choice for standalone antivirus. For full details on how I test antivirus products see How We Test Anti-malware.

How We Test Anti-Malware

Testing how well antivirus software and security suites block and remove malware—that is, viruses, trojans, spyware, spam, worms, and other security threats—is a key part of our security testing. We score the antivirus and security suites against compare products against other recently tested products. The best and worst scores in each category are highlighted in our anti-malware results tables. Here's how I derive those scores.
To test a product's ability to remove malware, I install it on a dozen or more virtual machine test systems, each of which is infested with three or four malware samples. The samples include adware, spyware, worms, viruses, Trojans, rootkits, and scareware (rogue security software). I manually run an update to make sure the product has the latest signatures. Using all default configuration settings, I then launch the most comprehensive scan offered. Once the process is finished I use proprietary tools to measure how effectively it cleaned up each threat.
If the product didn't even detect the threat it gets zero points. If it attempted removal but left executable files behind I grant it half credit—five points. That gets knocked down to three points if any executable file is still running. A product that detected a threat and eliminated all executable files has done a good job. If it also cleaned up the non-executable junk files and Registry debris, it's done a great job. A product that removed all the executable elements and left behind less than 20 percent of the junk gets the full ten points. If it left 20 to 80 percent of the junk, that's worth nine points. Over 80 percent of junk left behind still merits eight points; it did remove all the executables, after all. To arrive at the malware removal score, I simply average all the individual scores.
Malware Blocking
I also test the product's ability to prevent malware from installing on a clean system. To start, I open a folder containing that same collection of malware samples. Many anti-malware products immediately start deleting known threats. I also single-click each item in turn, as that minimal access triggers a real-time scan by some products. Finally I attempt to launch each threat that wasn't deleted on sight.
I score this test in much the same way as I do the removal test. If the product doesn't even notice malware installing, it gets zero points. If it tries to block installation but the malware manages to run, three points. If the malware isn't running but it did install executable files on the system, it gets five points. After that, it gets eight, nine, or ten points depending on how much non-executable junk got installed.
I run parallel tests replacing the malware samples with commercial keyloggers. Some anti-malware vendors choose not to deal with commercial keyloggers, which is a reasonable position. Others try to handle them and fail. Thus the scores are of some interest, but get much less weight in deriving the product's overall rating.
Starting in May of 2010 I've added columns showing each product's success against rootkits and scareware. Scareware is a subset of the overall malware score while rootkits are found in both the malware and keylogger collections. I also added columns showing the product's detection rate in each scoring category. Anomalies like a high detection rate with low success in protection can affect a product's overall rating, as can factors not measured by these tests.

pcmag

Could Malware Render Your PC Unbootable?

A lot of people see a PC that won't boot, and assume that it's infected. That's the least likely cause.
I'm not answering a particular reader question this time around, although a recent forum discussion inspired me to write this post.
I hear a lot from people with unbootable computers. Maybe they get a Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) with every boot. Or the PC shuts down before Windows finishes loading. Sometimes an error message tells them that there's no operating system on their hard drive, or no hard drive at all. A great many of these users assume that a "virus" is to blame.  This belief is a cultural leftover from the 1990s, when viruses like Leonardo might render your PC unbootable and your data inaccessible. If your PC was infected by Leonardo (which spread via floppy disks), booting on March 6 appeared to wipe everything off of your hard drive (although someone with reasonable technical skills could retrieve most of it).
Back then, writing malware was a cruel hobby. Today, it's an evil profession. The perpetrators want to use your computer to send out spam, take part in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks, practice extortion, and infect other computers. And as long as they secretly control your PC, they might as well steal your passwords and credit card numbers, too.
If your PC can't boot, it's useless to them. Therefore, no one writes malware that intentionally causes a catastrophic failure.
And that's not just my opinion. Before writing this post, I checked with author and security expert Bruce Schneier (whose newsletter, by the way, is a must for all sorts of security issues). I also asked my contacts at Symantec, Trend Micro, and SUPERAntiSpyware.com. They all told me basically the same thing: The people writing today's malware aren't interested in crashing your computer.
According to David Perry, Trend Micro's Global Director of Education, "The work of today's malware is invisible, silent, and far more sinister than anything you could see. If a computer repairman claims that you needed a repair or replacement due to virus damage, they are either incompetent or defrauding you."
Which isn't to say that today's malware will never crash your computer; just that it probably won't do it intentionally. Early this year, a Microsoft kernel patch rendered PCs infected with the Backdoor.Tidserv Trojan unbootable. Trying to boot, even into safe mode, resulted in a BSoD. You can read more about the conflict here.
But that was an exception--and one that did nothing to benefit the criminals who spread Backdoor.Tidserv.
source pcworld.com

ESET Nod32 Antivirus Review by anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com

Eset Nod32 Antivirus is a great desktop security solution, complete with effective protection and advanced features. Eset Nod32 is particularly useful for home users looking for a simple “down-to-earth” security software that they can simply install and let the software do the work for them. Eset has proven to be one of the best overall performing antivirus software, and continues the trend with their most recent installment, Eset Nod32 Antivirus 4.

Scope of Protection:

Eset Nod32 Antivirus certainly isn’t as far-reaching as the upgraded Smart Security, but the scope is definitely on par with other leading antivirus competitors. Eset Nod32 is equipped with all the essential technologies and features to keep your PC protected from traditional threats (viruses, worms, Trojans, spyware, and even rootkits), but is also fully armed to completely protect you while you’re online. Eset works behind the scenes to deliver protection from dialers, adware, and keyloggers.

Eset Nod32 integrates email protection to scan email (inbound and outbound) for viruses and other malware. The antivirus software also protects users from auto-running external media (like USB jump drives) by scanning files when the external medium is plugged in.

Effectiveness:

While Eset Nod32 isn’t the most effective, the software is consistently near the top in independent antivirus tests. Eset certainly holds its own with competitors for efficacy and efficiency. In the recent test from Virus Bulletin, Eset performed right on par with most of the competitors for overall reactive and proactive antivirus scanning, and came away without any false positives.

The recent evaluation from AV Comparatives showed some false positives (12), but Eset still scored at the top of the class for overall detection rates (with an impressive 97.2%), and garnered an overall A+ (Advanced Plus), the highest rating from AV Comparatives.

Ease of Installation:

Antivirus from Eset Nod32 is certainly easy to install and implement. The software is ready to run from the get-go. Setting up manual scans and scheduling specific scans is straightforward, or you can simply let Eset work in the background and take care of itself (and your computer) automatically.

Eset Nod32 Antivirus is equipped with the ability to create a bootable disc (or USB drive) in case of emergency. Working with the Microsoft Windows Automated Installation Kit, users will then be able to clean an infected or otherwise un-start-able computer.

Ease of Use:

Eset Nod32 Antivirus is one of the easiest antivirus programs to use. The whole program is designed to accommodate beginners, and doesn’t require a lot of tweaking and/or manual maintenance to keep running properly.

The user interface is simple, but completely straightforward. Users will have no problem navigating the program with the simple graphic user interface and logical setup. The default setup is for beginners, and the advanced mode adds some functionality without completely alienating standard home users.
Scheduling, report logging, and adjusting settings are all easy tasks. For the most part, Eset works on its own and doesn’t require much intervention from you the user. You can even set Eset Nod32 to not ask for your input, and automatically take care of most security issues. Furthermore, Eset has implemented some new keyboard shortcuts for easy navigation.
Eset Nod32 Antivirus is engineered for speed, and the software didn’t disappoint. Eset has traditionally been one of the few companies that mastered the most advanced scanning technologies but didn’t take a serious performance hit. Eset Nod32 Antivirus maintains utmost security and advanced protection, but not at the expense of your speed or processing power.
In fact, Eset Nod32 has incorporated a specific mode that can be turned on for laptops to optimize performance. This “energy-sipping battery mode” delivers top-notch protection without draining your laptop battery.

Features:

Part of Eset’s strength is found in their comprehensive feature set. Eset Nod32 Antivirus has all the right features (but they haven’t tacked on useless bells and whistles). The features are specifically designed to enhance protection and ease of use.

Current top of the line antivirus software providers like Eset Nod32 have implemented heuristic technology to help catch viruses that are so new traditional signatures haven’t been developed yet. Eset’s refined ThreatSense technology provides proactive protection from malware, protecting you from viruses that would otherwise sneak past solely signature-based solutions.
Eset Nod32 Antivirus is equipped to scan files in real-time, or “on-access” as they are opened or executed. And while this ensures malicious files don’t cause any problems, it doesn’t mean you have to wait around and wait for Eset before opening a file. The real-time scan happens almost instantaneously, and happens in the background, so you won’t even know it’s happening.
Another innovative approach that the best security software companies are using is to take advantage of their large community of users and find strength in numbers. Eset’s ThreatSense network gives users quicker protection by having each (participating) user serve as a “watch guard” for other users. When a virus is detected on one PC, Eset is notified immediately to help get protection out to everyone.

Updates:

Eset doesn’t rely solely on virus signatures, but it’s still an essential part of the multi-layered security approach. As such, they have regular updates set to run automatically to keep the signature database current. These updates occur in the background for the most part, because they are often enough and small enough.

Help & Support:

Eset stands by their products with additional help and support as needed. The software is complete with a fairly in-depth product manual, and in-program links to additional support resources. Online you can find answers to questions by searching the product-specific knowledgebase, or from the forum. We also liked that the product manual was available online.

Specific questions can be requested by submitting an issue with their online form, which will be responded to over email or the phone.

Summary:

Overall, Eset Nod32 may not be the most popular antivirus software, but their antivirus software is certainly among the best. Eset Nod32 Antivirus 4 delivers comprehensive antivirus protection, with an impressive track record for speed and effectiveness. There are a few better antivirus solutions out there, but you really can’t go wrong with Eset Nod32; a refreshingly simple approach to antivirus.

Eset Nod32 Antivirus 4 review, Pc world Review

Eset NOD32 Antivirus ($72 for 1 year, 3 PCs as of 12/22/2010) finishes ninth in our roundup of 2011 antivirus software. It does a reasonable job at blocking brand new attacks and it's fast, but it has trouble detecting known malware and cleaning up infections, which makes it tough to recommend.
NOD32's main interface isn't too badly designed, but it's limited in what it displays--even in "advanced mode." Where things get messy, though, is in the settings interface. Here, you'll have access to a limited set of features to adjust--unless you turn on Advanced Mode. In Advanced Mode, the settings box turns into a dizzying array of checkboxes and drop-downs, all in a less-than-optimally-designed window.
Things weren't much better when it came to detection: NOD32 detected 89.2 percent of known malware samples, which is the lowest, by far, of the products we looked at. By comparison, the average for antivirus software that we looked at was 96.2 percent, and top performers achieved over-99-percent detection ratings. Eset also lagged behind in cleaning up infections: It was able to detect all infections on our test PC, but it was able to remove all active components only 60 percent of the time, and it removed all traces of malware only 10 percent of the time. Both scores were the lowest in this test, and well behind the pack.
That said, Eset did an acceptable job at blocking brand new malware--it fully blocked 84 percent of brand new malware attacks in our "real world" testing--a decent showing, but not outstanding. Eset also had up a low false-positive rate--it flagged only one good file as suspicious.
Eset shined in system speed tests. When we triggered a scan, Eset was the fastest among the products we tested--it tore through 4.5GB of files in a mere 90 seconds. Its on-access scanner--which kicks in when files are opened or saved to disk--was also very fast, completing a scan of 4.5GB of files in 4 minutes even, an above-average result. And its overall impact on system performance was the smallest among the antivirus packages we tested.
That speed is good, but all the speed in the world doesn't mean much if a security product doesn't effectively stop malware. And given NOD32's struggles, we can't give it our recommendation.

Eset Nod32 Antivirus 4 review

NOD32 lagged behind every other program we tested when it came to detecting known malware with signatures. Against AVTest.org's huge store of known Trojans, spyware, and other malware, its block rate of 94.8 percent was decent, but strong performance from the majority of the apps we tested has raised the bar.

The Slovakian-based program also fared poorly in adware detection tests. Only Trend Micro Antivirus + Antispyware did worse than Nod32's 88.7 percent detection rate in the category of annoying, but generally not harmful, software.

NOD32 performed better in heuristic tests designed to measure how well security programs can detect newer malware threats. With two week old databases, ESET's program detected 63.6 percent of newer malware, earning a middle-of-the-road sixth place. But when it came to behavioural detection tests, which measure how well a security app can identify bad stuff based solely on how it acts on a PC, NOD32 put up some warnings but ultimately didn't block any of the brand-new test samples.

The malware hunter was able to identify and block all ten rootkits, which are a type of malware used to hide other threats on a PC. But three other apps, Norton Antivirus, McAfee Antivirus Plus and Kaspersky Anti-Virus, were able to match that performance. For other types of malware infections, NOD32 failed to disable one out of 10 test infections. Again, not terrible, but most of the apps neutered all the test infections.

NOD32 does include some nice extras, such as a new ability to scan HTTPS traffic for threats before they reach your hard drive, and a SysInspector tool that evaluates running programs, Registry entries, files, and other elements of your system for potential risk. SysInspector is meant for techies, but it can provide a wealth of information about what's going on in the depths of your PC (ESET also offers the tool as a free download).

The program's user interface is generally smooth, but it has some definite annoyances. NOD32 splits settings and tasks between a standard mode and advanced mode, and hides some important elements like the quarantine function and scan scheduler behind the advanced mode. Also, if the program finds any threats during a scan you schedule or run yourself, it won't tell you up front what it found. To see anything more than the number of discovered items, like the file's name and location, you'll need to dig into the quarantine or scan log.

Finally, unlike most standalone security programs, ESET says its application will conflict with firewall software available from Webroot and ZoneAlarm, unless you turn off HTTP filtering. SOURCE review.techworld.com

Review - F-prot Anti-Virus free anti virus

F-prot Anti-Virus for DOS was one of the first antivirus programs on the market, - and it's still a great companion. This is a DOS scanner, so don't (!) expect any fancy Windows interface.
What's great about F-prot Anti-Virus is that it's both s free and has an excellent virus detection record. Since it's DOS-based, F-prot doesn't support email or web surfing or any other Windows-based activity. It doesn't monitor your files to alert you if they contain a virus. And F-prot Anti-Virus doesn't run or update itself automatically. You have to start it manually (or use Windows Scheduler) and you have to manually download new virus definition files.
F-prot Anti-Virus is your second shield in the never-ending antivirus war. You should use it ONLY as an additional security measure together with your regular antivirus software. Whenever your antivirus program of choice has found a virus and you're unsure of if it's gone, or you find computer behaving strangely but you can't detect any viruses, then you start F-prot Anti-Virus to double-check your system. That's what F-prot is for and that's how you should use it. Never use it as your only antivirus program.
Can be used on Windows 95/98. Not recommend for Windows 2000 or XP.

Review - McAfee AntiVirus

VirusScan Online is an online subscription service which protects against viruses, worms, trojan horses, malicious scripts, and hybrid attacks. This means you don't actually buy the program, you only buy a subscription service. The software itself is free. The new version also supports offline scanning and you can now use VirusScan Online without a connection to the Internet. (Previous versions required you to be connected to the website).
The user interface is excellent, and requires little user attention. Virus detection is also good, however McAfee VirusScanOnline should have included support for additional archive formats.
VirusScan Online are not upgrades from McAfee VirusScan v4.x, 5.x, or 6.x. If you have McAfee VirusScan on your computer, you must remove it for VirusScan Online to run flawlessly.
Both Norton Anti-Virus and McAfee VirusScan Online checks for new updates by default every fourth hour. However, while Norton usually only updates their virus definition files weekly, McAfee VirusScan Online does so more frequently. VirusScan Online uses more than 8,000 Akamai servers worldwide to ensure you have the latest updates and upgrades, even during virus outbreaks
Our verdict: Simple, reliable, and easy to use. Once again it is proven that less is more. But be aware, you are not as protected using McAfee VirusScan Online as you would be using some of the other programs on our recommended list
software-antivirus.com

Review - NOD32 Anti-Virus

NOD32 Anti-Virus is highly regarded among users worldwide, but have received mixed response amongst reviewers who has been quick to point out that NOD32 Anti-Virus fails to detect many simulated viruses. In its defence, the maker of NOD 32, ESET, has referred to the wildly recognized Wildlist results, where NOD32 Anti-Virus has earned a 100% score more often than any other program.
Overall, it is our opinion that NOD32 Anti-Virus is a very good program, having one of the better detection records as well as some features rarely found in other antivirus software, for instance network support and password protection of settings. Unfortunately NOD32 Anti-Virus also lacks several basic features. We are especially disappointed in several options having to be configured manually. e.g. you have to configure NOD32 Anti-Virus every time you add an email account. Also, NOD32 doesn't yet protect against viruses in all common formats for compressed files.
The user interface is a bit clumsy and this software may be preferred by users who likes to fiddle with settings.
However, while ease of use is important, virus detection is the most important part of an antivirus program. As a virus detector NOD32 performs extremely well, and for that we put NOD32 on our recommended list.

Review - Command Anti-Virus

Command Anti-Virus is very powerful with several useful features. Unlike most other programs which offers no network support, network administrators will enjoy support for central management, network messaging, and more.
Virus detection rate is great. It's not 100%, but Command Anti-Virus definitely performs better than most other programs. Command Anti-Virus has support for all common archive formats except CAB-files (windows installation files) and WinAce self-extracting files. The only area which Command Anti-Virus performs poorly is scanning ActiveX components.
The lowest aspect of Command Anti-Virus is the limited support for email monitoring. Command includes an Outlook plugin, but Outlook Express is not supported, nor is any other email clients. The Outlook plugin is not installed by default, you have to select Custom Install after you start the installation program, and then select the plugin option to install it.
Command Anti-Virus is lacking a lot when it comes to ease of use, and the program is regularly demanding the attention of the user. Command Anti-Virus do have the capability to automatically monitor and disinfect infected files, but every disinfection task is followed by a popup alert which you cannot turn off. Updating virus definition files is not automated, you have to manually initiate the update process. During this process you have to manually select a download site, and then supply a password to access those files. This should be unnecessary and we can only hope that the next release would be more streamlined.
Despite of our minor objections, Command Anti-Virus is a program you can trust. If you can live with limited email support and a slightly complicated interface, then Command Anti-Virus should be well worth your consideration.
source software-antivirus.com

Panda Anti-Virus Titanium & Platinum

Panda Anti-Virus might be the coming king in the antivirus war. While not regarded as highly as Norton and McAfee amongst reviewers, Panda Anti-Virus usually beats both Norton and McAfee when users themselves reviews their antivirus software, based on their own personal experiences.
Panda Anti-Virus has an excellent virus detection record, with support for every common archive format. The vendor even updates the virus definition files on a daily bases, leaving you fully protected at all times. Panda Anti-Virus is also the only antivirus program monitoring your web downloads for viruses.
Often when we are reviewing antivirus software we find one or more major flaws or annoyances. Panda Anti-Virus stands out as having none of that. It has every feature we want, and finishes as one of the best in every important category.
Panda Anti-Virus is available in two version, the Platinum edition, with plenty of configuration options, and the Titanium edition, which works silently in the background without any need of user intervention. Since being fully automated, Titanium would also be an option for businesses and organizations. In addition, Panda has a range of corporate products. See the website for more information.
Our verdict: Trustworthy and one of the best. 
source software-antivirus.com

Review - AVG Antivirus

AVG Antivirus is fairly popular due to its reputation as a "free" antivirus program. The truth is there is no such ting as a free ride.
AVG Antivirus is a poor performer in detecting and removing viruses, in fact it stands out as one of the worst of the more popular programs. Furthermore, AVG Antivirus gets paid by inserting an ad for itself at the bottom of all outgoing email messages. If you don't want ads in your email, but you still want to use AVG Antivirus, your option is the AVG Antivirus Professional edition, currently sold at $39.95, or a different program. Beware that some features in the Pro version is not available in the adware version. Those are: - Basic user Interface only (Pro version has Advanced user Interface) - Disabled Advanced Scheduling of Tests (Pro version has Advanced Scheduling) - Disabled Creating of Your Own Tests
NOTE: The adware edition is not available for most users from European countries. AVG checks which country you're from before you're allowed to download the software. You can bypass this by using a proxy server based in America.
AVG Antivirus doesn't scan several of the most common archive formats, whether those files are single level, nested or self-extracting archives. We are also worried by the fact that if AVG Antivirus detects an infected file, it doesn't continue to check the rest of the file for any additional viruses.
A final warning about AVG Antivirus:
According to the vendors website the free edition is only updated once a month! You might think this is good enough. Think again. Every month hundreds of new viruses emerges, flooding the internet. Those viruses are known as ITW-viruses (in the wild/commonly spread viruses). Users who don't have the opportunity to update their antivirus software at least on a weekly bases, are left completely unprotected from all those viruses, - until an update is available.
It's important to be aware of the fact that antivirus software has a very limited ability to detect new and unknown viruses, they usually detects between 15% and 50%. Testing has put AVG Antivirus in the lower range, with only a 15%-20% detection rate.
AVG Antivirus is the only decent free antivirus program available, but unfortunately it's far from good enough. Our advice: Don't listen to friends or fellow net users praising AVG Antivirus. Stay away if you're serious about staying protected. 
source software-antivirus.com 

Cons - AVG Antivirus

• Comes only with a basic (automated) interface without the possibility to adjust any settings
• Doesn't check for double infected files
• Some users have had freezes and other major stability issues on Windows 2000 and XP
• Slows down your computer considerably
• Inserts ads in your email messages.
• You need to use DOS commands for some advanced operations.
• Log file displays limited info
• You can't see anything in systray, so you don't know if it's running or not

Disadvantages of AVG Anti virus

• Terrible virus detection rate
• Doesn't update their virus definition files very often (monthly intervals, should be twice a week)
• Deletes infected files without warning. This is especially bad if the file didn't contain a virus after all (a false positive).
• Very low on scripts, backdoors and trojans.

Why to Buy Norton 360

1.) Blocks viruses, spyware, Trojans, worms, bots, and rootkits
Norton offers award-winning protection against viruses, Trojans, worms, spyware, bots, rootkits, and other digital dangers.
2.) Prevents hackers from taking control of your PC
By blocking access to your private information, Norton 360 stops hackers from using your PC to launch cyber-attacks on other PCs.
3.) Uses online intelligence technology for faster, more accurate scans
Quickly and accurately scans your PC for threats using the industry-leading online intelligence system.
4.) Analyzes new files and applications for threats before you run or install them
When downloading programs or applications, Norton 360 alerts you to potential dangers before you install or run them on your PC.
5.) Performs automated backup of your crucial files
You can set up Norton to automatically backup your files, photos and other important documents and easily retrieve and restore them in case of loss.
6.) Identifies unsafe websites and suspicious online sellers
Surf and shop with confidence knowing you won’t accidentally provide your information to a cyber-criminal. This software detects suspicious online sellers before you give out your credit card or banking information.
7.) Keeps your PC running at peak performance
Removes unnecessary Internet clutter and temporary files, cleans and repairs the registry, de-fragments your hard drive, and optimizes your PC to keep running smooth and fast!
8.) Includes no charge technical support 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
Unlimited 24/7 email, chat, and phone support for one year from initial installation of your product.
9.)Protects your identity when you buy, bank, and browse online
Validates authentic websites and alerts you when you come upon fraudulent ones so you can safely surf, shop, and bank online.   Source Computersmash.com