tomazyk
join:2006-12-04
| reply to mod_wastrel
Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus
said by mod_wastrel  :said by DownTheShore :... "mine is best and yours is crap" ... This is pretty much my interpretation of David Hall's statement (generalized & exaggerated sure, still...). For others to respond in kind should be expected. +1
My interpretation is the same.
If one would ask me I would say that with free AV average user has 50:50 chance of getting infected but with payed suite you get 55:45 (numbers should not be taken literally). So are you ready to pay some bucks to get that extra 5%? |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
| reply to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore :Please everyone, whether you like Norton or not, get it into your heads that the current version of is is not the same bloated or slow versions of the past. It is a completely new beast. If you're going to complain about it, at least complain about the actual product, not your memory of it. Get off your pet horses and actually try it out, THEN complain about what you don't like about it. I'm just tired of sweeping generalizations being made about products that haven't been used in a decade.  Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest?  Nicely said. 
Those who claim "Symantec products are..." whatever can't be taken seriously because you can't generalize like that. Symantec has had good products and bad, effective AV's and crappy ones, bloated software and efficient software. It's all a question of what version of what product.
IMO, the Symantec guy's comments are self-serving but for most people there's at least some truth to it. I agree with those who point out that while there's a lot of free products out there, you need to know what they are, how to put them together and use them, and what their limitations are. Whereas paid products can provide an integrated suite, or at the very least a comprehensive AV with well supported updates.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher
|
|
Rebirth
join:2009-06-18
33333
| reply to Doctor Four
tomazyk
(numbers should not be taken literally)
Absolutely !
Just because somethings free, or MUCH lower $ doesn't mean you won't be better protected. One such AV immediately springs to mind which repeatedly beats Symantec and most if not ALL others. |
|
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| reply to Hangetsu
said by Hangetsu :Most users don't necessarily have access to best practices unfortunately, nor know where to get them online. For those that do, how do you tell someone to download X, Y, and Z when plenty of other people say the best way to avoid viruses is to not download things from the web? That's easy. I listen, ask questions and tell them what I think is best for their environment based on their feedback, and why I feel it's best. My friends and customers trust me, and I believe I have built some credibility with my successes (and even failures) over the years.
said by Hangetsu :But back to the original topic, I don't think the statement was complete FUD, just VERY biased - There is a large segment of the population who is not tech-savvy and going the free route would be more difficult and risky (unless they had the products installed by someone who knew how to configure them). I'll continue to disagree with his implication that paid suites are always a better solution than "free" or included software. That's why I frequent the Security Forum and contribute to other venues in both a volunteer and a paid capacity - to educate users and system owners, and provide useful information to the IT and user community on solutions that will meet their needs.
Does that mean I've covered the entire user community? No, hardly  But I *have* done my part. For those we here haven't reached, well - they "pays their money and takes their chances".
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| reply to DownTheShore
said by DownTheShore :Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? Maybe I'm confused, but isn't that what the Symantec guy said?
To put it in more childish terms, he started it! |
|
Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Mullica Hill, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to urbanriot
said by urbanriot :We use ClamAV on our corporate proxies and intermediary mail gateways, and it doesn't catch nearly as much as our corporate Symantec products catch. Of course, that's on the corporate end of the spectrum and the engines are considerably more comprehensive than the home offerings. I have no experience with Avira. I'll give it a shot... AVG is pants though. thats because ClamAV is like the worst Av on the planet.
Avira uses the most advanced and proven malware engine on the planet and has a free version that doesnt really do Spyware.
Avast is also a very solid AV that uses a decent amt of resources and CPU time, but still uses a better engine than symantec.
Avira is the single most powerful Av in existance and it's free...if u want a full security package i'd go with their premium or better packages.
NOD32 and Kaspersky have very mature and effective engines comparable to Avira in most ways but do not offer free versions. Avira AV is more effective than Norton, MacAfee, Panda, etc.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r
The Stolen Eye TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~ |
|
munky99999
Munky
join:2004-04-10
canada
clubs:
| reply to Doctor Four
Open source ALWAYS trumps closed source. It's simply a matter of time.
Closed source starts with 100 programmers
open source starts with 1-2
closed source gets a ton of headway in the first era. Then open source gets enough people and takes off.
Norton's guys are feeling the heat.
Not only that... they have to share their work or they are going to have such significantly higher problems down the road.
How do they prevent their inevitable destruction? Go opensource. |
|
DownTheShore
Maddie Knows Poopie
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
| reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer :said by DownTheShore :Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? Maybe I'm confused, but isn't that what the Symantec guy said? To put it in more childish terms, he started it! You folks know what I was talking about. 
Instead of debating why he might be wrong, and why free AV's and the like can be as good or better than paid versions - and which ones are and give examples of EXACTLY why, which would be most helpful to others - these type of threads always devolve into the "Norton/McAfee is crap/bloated/resource-hog and I'm smarter than the rest because I'm using a freeware AV/FW/whatever" smug responses. Those add nothing to the discussion except to point out the rigidity of some mindsets who are unwilling to let go of out-moded beliefs, even when others WHO ACTUALLY USE THOSE PRODUCTS have given first-person testimonials that prove otherwise.
I will concede that SOME freeware versions can be equal to or better than paid versions, but conversely there are more freeware versions out there that are worse - just because it's easy to offer a freeware AV in order to entice others to buy other products. and those who are not security-wise wouldn't know the difference. And let's call a spade a spade here, some of you are just plain cheap  and wouldn't pay for software even if God Himself guaranteed that it was the most perfect, useful, and efficient software ever in existence, because it's become a matter of personal pride not to pay for software.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
Bush & Co. didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happend on their watch! |
|
dean corso
join:2007-09-07 | reply to Doctor Four
He's looking out for his wallet, not the cyber safety of those running free AV. |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
| reply to Doctor Four
said by munky99999 :Open source ALWAYS trumps closed source. It's simply a matter of time. With all respect, that's the most preposterous generalization I've ever heard, that verges on the totally ludicrous. You can declare anything to be "simply a matter of time" including the end of civilization as we know it. That's not a useful IT policy.
said by Somnambul33t :NOD32 and Kaspersky have very mature and effective engines comparable to Avira in most ways but do not offer free versions. Avira AV is more effective than Norton, MacAfee, Panda, etc. Never used NOD32. From my limited experience the other comparisons really have to be defined by specific products and specific expectations. Kaspersky is mature and effective, yes, and a good example of a high-value paid product -- but I'm put off by its intrusiveness and propensity to slow down unpredictable classes of applications regardless of whether they're put into the trusted zone or not. Whereas, as a counter example, Symantec End Point 11.x series is both efficient highly effective, whereas 10.x had significant vulnerabilities. I'm guessing (I don't know this for a fact) that the highly regarded and efficient Norton 2009 shares the same or similar basic scan engine with Symantec 11.x.
It's complicated, and the situation changes year to year. Those spouting broad generalities don't have a lot of credibility in my book, but credible product-specific information is always something that all of us should be looking for and appreciate when we get it.
I'm not in any way an expert in virus protection or security. But I've been around IT a long, long time.
--
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" -- a corollary of Murphy's Law
"A dog is like a child who never grows old ... always there to love and be loved" -- Aaron Katcher
|
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t :Avira uses the most advanced and proven malware engine on the planet and has a free version that doesnt really do Spyware. That was true through version 8. Ver 9 which went gold in March covers spyware in the free version. The reason Avira added it was because of Microsoft's new free AV. Avira personal free will also have the ProActive module. The only things that the free version now "lacks" is mailguard and webguard in the Premium version and the not very good software firewall in the Suite. I put "lacks" in quotation marks because I don't think Mailguard is needed - especially if you have Road Runner as all mail is scanned at the gateways and when sending. Webguard I think is redundant, unnecessary module there only to compete with other vendors who have it and ignorant users think they need it.
There is one thing bad about Avira free and that is the server situation which has gotten a lot worse since ver 9 was released. It appears to have to do with ver 9 Updater trying repeatedly to connect to IPv6 addresses even on XP when IPv6 has not been installed and even when the user's ISP does not support IPv6. Plus, there is still the ongoing problem when there is a large update and you can't get it. At least a manual update is not difficult. Ver 9 free takes up to 20 times longer to update a simple VDF than ver 8 (which appears to have to do with the IPv6 connection attempts). I have reverted to ver 8 on my XP virtual computer. (On my host XP Pro computer, I never tried ver 9 and do not intend to do so). Ver 9, for me, has less problems on Vista but others seem to have problems with it on Vista as well on XP where ver 8 seems to work a lot better for me at least.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
| Thanks for an informative post. As a matter of my own information, when you say "The only things that the free version now 'lacks' is ... the not very good software firewall in the Suite" do you mean the free version has no firewall, or that it has a "not very good one"? From my other thread, I'm beginning to conclude that a decent outbound firewall is a pretty good thing to have! |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| The free version has never had a firewall. Personal Premium which is the cheaper of the two paid versions does not have a firewall. The Suite has a firewall and it is adequate but lacks features and is not as easy to set up as some like ZA. I'm using ZAPro (I got it free for year on ZA's 10th Anniversary last November) with Avira free ver 9 on Vista and they work well together. On my host XP computer I use a router and classic HIPS and no software firewall.
I got a software firewall when most folks didn't even know what that was...even some technically inclined folks. I got Zone Alarm when it was brand new, and still in beta, back in 1999 for a dialup connection. So, I am used to having something to control outbound but when I discovered Process Guard, I moved to it instead. It doesn't work on Vista so I got ZA.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
1 edit | reply to DownTheShore
The concept of purchasing any signature based AV that requires constant update for a hit or miss level of protection from in-the-wild bad boys is one of the most impractical concept imaginable in the Security of an Operating System. They are a liability..not an asset and this has been proven too many times over the year.
There are many ways to lockdown your browser and protect the OS.
AV companies were late to the game from day one adressing malware.. if it was not a virus they could not handle it..for years they could not even spell trojan. So here we are in 2009 and they have their famous SUITES by buying up firewall companies and anything else to make their 'bundled package' and stay in business. Many of the paid versions have more holes than your OS.
Free works even for Symantec..
»pcworld.about.com/od/antivirus1/···offe.htm
»english.peopledaily.com.cn/20070···548.html
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
|
|
Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium
join:2002-12-05
Mullica Hill, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Doctor Four
awesome didnt know Avira 9 Personal now had malware protection...that's awesome.
Avira AntiVir is not perfect; i'm annoyed everytime it scans one of my torrents folder and picks up clean keygens as trojans, which is understood, but that doesnt honor the "ignore" option and constantly rescans that file forever. plus with its great network scanning i often have to add exceptions for that folder/specific files to my 2nd PC which shares that directory. no biggie but whatever.
--
Somnambulator - t3h 5133pw41k3r
The Stolen Eye TF2 Server
~Choosy moms choose Jif~ |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Huh??? Avira for home users (all versions) doesn't do network scanning. That is the one thing I want from it, but I would have to buy Avira Professional (the corporate version) to get network scanning.
Perhaps, you are confusing Avira with Avast which does do network scanning?
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to Name Game
I'm a little confused here. What do those two links have to do with your claim that Symantec offers a free version of Norton?
You must have been bitten really bad at some time to be so vitrolic regarding antivirus programs. Gee.
You wanna cripple your computer with various lockdowns fine. But just bear in mind that not everyone wants to do that. Some prefer to use a layered approach as I was taught right here in this very forum many years ago. It worked then and it still works now. Sorry, that it didn't work for you but that doesn't mean it won't work for others.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| reply to Doctor Four
avast Home(free) on all machines.
*NEVER* been infected.
No! I am not a security guru, and *YES* I do download "stuff".
I also click on nearly anything I think might be interesting.
I have even purposely installed known badware to see/show people what would remove it.
Symantec? Not on a bet! No fucking way!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20 :I'm a little confused here. What do those two links have to do with your claim that Symantec offers a free version of Norton? You must have been bitten really bad at some time to be so vitrolic regarding antivirus programs. Gee. You wanna cripple your computer with various lockdowns fine. But just bear in mind that not everyone wants to do that. Some prefer to use a layered approach as I was taught right here in this very forum many years ago. It worked then and it still works now. Sorry, that it didn't work for you but that doesn't mean it won't work for others. Never been bitten.. never been crippled..just the opposite and certainly have a full rich web experience..even those SWF you shun. An AV is not a layered approach..HIPS would be.
An AV is a liability proven over and over again at DSLR forums.
Symantec was hooking into the OS on winXP opening their own hole and choked on it with Vista.
So far in 2009 they still play down every hole they open. You can have that "layer"..I have better things to do with my time... and when a user wants to rid themselves of the AV..they need a special cleanup tool to uninstall all the bits and crumbs left on the plate. That's bad programming.
Security Advisories Relating to Symantec Products
»searchg.symantec.com/search?site···&start=0
Symantec Security Advisory SYM09-009, Specifically Crafted Archive Files can Bypass Initial Scans
June 12, 2009
»www.symantec.com/business/securi···90612_00
What all should know is that..
Symantec nonetheless categorises the severity of the problem as low and in its security advisory merely provides tips for possible workarounds, rather than releasing an update. Administrators should, for example, change their gateway settings so that damaged archives are discarded. The evaluation of such vulnerabilities is a major point of distinction between different anti-virus product vendors. Last year, F-Secure evaluated the risk from such a vulnerability as high.
»msmvps.com/blogs/donna/archive/2···ans.aspx
--
Gladiator Security Forum
»www.gladiator-antivirus.com/
|
|
dds78
@comcast.net
| reply to Doctor Four
Why do people claim I've used xxx av product and never been infected, so therefore my av is great? How do you know that you've never been infected? Because the av never warned you? What if the av didn't detect the silent rootkit install while you were surfing your favorite pr0n site? |
|
