iInspector wrote:
I see the logic that MS will know their holes pretty well, as long as they keep up on the latest and greatest villians out there. As opposed to a company whose whole purpose is to do just that.
This is going to sound like a counter to what Csound1 has proposed, but thats not what I mean it to be.
Every year Consumer Reports evaluates "Security software" and last year they looked at four free anti-malware offerings for Windows. Avira was #1 and their only recommendation in this catagory while MS Security Essentials was number four behind AVG and Avast. I'd hasten to point out that the scores ranged from 56-62 so all were very close.
Predictably the four Pay Security Suites they recommend all scored higher than any of the free ones, but they all do more than just look for known malware and almost certainly would slow down processing for you.
I trust CR because they don't take advertising or money from vendors in the rating process, which almost all other rating services I've run across seem to do, to some extent.
On the Mac side they had this to say:
"Apple computers experience far fewer attacks than PCs. Apple's firewall and other security features offer sufficient protection. But Mac users may want to install an anti-malware program to avoid passing on Windows malware to others."
That was all a year ago, so we'll see if they hold to all that in about a month.
If you still feel you need something on the OS X side, I'd encourage you to read what Thomas Reed has written about OS X malware in general and his product tests in particular: http://www.thesafemac.com/mmg.
