Topic 'Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus' in forum 'Security' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22653456 en Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:37:31 EDT Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:37:31 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22667045 hog issues at all. In reality a good AV (free or pay), and safe hex is going to make you as safe as you are going to be. Noting that safe hex may include other tools and should include a limited user account as well as the stuff here: »Security »How to Secure (and Keep Secure) My (New) Computer(s): A Layered Approach:
--
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22667045 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:08:10 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22666199 said by MarkAW:

said by dds78 :

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?
May be because these same people don't only depend on their AV they also use online scans and other tools. :uhh:
KAV online, Housecall, various RK scanners - none of them ever find anything.
Can't begin to imagine why... huh?

Several AS/AM scanners - cookies! ONOES!!1
It has come down to me scanning my machines for entertainment. Nothing of any importance is ever found.

Maybe my machines *ARE* protected after all. :o

:D
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22666199 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:05:09 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22665592
Click for full size
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22665592 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:00:43 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22665516 said by Name Game:

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
So Symanec hooked the kernel in XP. So did McAfee and many others. ProcessGuard (HIPS) hooks the kernel and that is why it won't work on Vista and that pisses me off. I certainly don't think Vista is more secure because it blocks me from using PG on it.

As for malformed archives posing a serious security problem, I disagree. As Symantec points out their real time scanner will catch it. Avira can't do 7zip and many other archives. I rely solely on Guard. Guard is the core of Avira. The on demand scanner is weak. What does it matter (other than ....gee, that cut it close feeling if left to Guard/Symantec's real time scanner) if Symantec can't detect within the malformed archive files until the user tries to execute them? What matters is that Symantec detects the baddie at the moment of execution. If it doesn't do that then I would be upset but other than the "Whew! That was close" feeling of letting it get down to the nitty=gritty before detection occurs - I don't see a problem.
--
"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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22665516 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:07:55 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22661897 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22661897 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:05:28 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22661396 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. :uhh:

Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? :hmm:
Well, I can't speak to the Norton products, but IME the SEP 11 MR4 isn't anywhere near a step forward in resource use, and still has the random - I've stopped working, so reinstall windows to fix me problems.
--
Opera 9.62(Build 10467); Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Antivir Personal; Comodo Firewall Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2008beta,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22661396 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:44:20 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660854 said by dds78 :

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?
May be because these same people don't only depend on their AV they also use online scans and other tools. :uhh:
--
The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continuously fearing you will make one.

Next to knowing when to seize an opportunity, the most important thing in life is knowing when to forego an advantage.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660854 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:05:39 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660584 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660584 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:20:35 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660255 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.. :D 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/
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660255 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:10:46 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660118 *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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660118 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:41:29 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660102
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660102 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:38:41 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660062
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22660062 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:29:53 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659959
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~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659959 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 09:02:39 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659774 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/
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659774 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:40:43 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659215
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. :D 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659215 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:11:01 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659176 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659176 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:57:14 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659147 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22659147 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:50:01 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658980 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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658980 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:49:14 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658969 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658969 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:45:29 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658713 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? :hmm:
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. :p

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. :D
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

Bush & Co. didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happend on their watch!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658713 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:41:20 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658678
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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658678 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:32:12 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658616 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~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658616 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:14:55 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658574 said by DownTheShore:

Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? :hmm:
Maybe I'm confused, but isn't that what the Symantec guy said?

To put it in more childish terms, he started it!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658574 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:05:39 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658551 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 :D 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658551 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:01:08 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658023
(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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22658023 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:16:14 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657632 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. :uhh:

Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? :hmm:
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
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657632 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:24:50 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657600 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%?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657600 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:15:25 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657554 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657554 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:59:21 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657475
Why does every discussion about AV's have to turn into a "mine is best and your's is crap" fest? :hmm:
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals

Bush & Co. didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happend on their watch!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657475 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:39:03 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657450 said by EGeezer:

I agree with the practice of setting up a security implementation that's consistent with the user's environment, practices and abilities. However, as you read in my previous post, the point I responded to and disagree with is the article writer's assertion that free products can't do the job for a home(or any other) user.

I've provided many non-technical users with a list of complementary and free self-updating products that cost the user nothing and are easy to install. I combine that with education on basic good practices (IMO the most important single non-default layer) and a list of settings for the OS and browser. Those users have an effective multi-layered technical solution and a set of rules that have through time and experience shown to be very effective for them.

Also, I always recommend at least an El Cheapo router, even if there's only one PC. It does wonders eliminating all the internet noise and scary "You are being attacked" messages issued from PC based security suites and PC based firewalls. We often see the results of these messages when distressed users post here asserting that they are being targeted by hackers or the government when in fact it's nothing more than the usual internet noise or a lagging connection.

I note with a smile that Googling on "El Cheapo Router" returns Link Logger See Profile's world-famous topic at the top of the list. :D
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?

Just to clarify, I don't think the free products are ineffective; I don't think they necessarily have the latest technology behind them, but that's a double-edged sword (many of us don't want those bells and whistles that slow down our rigs).

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).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657450 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:30:49 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657142 --
It's all fun and games in a Team Fortress 2 battle until your sentry gun is sapped by the Spycrab!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657142 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:45:27 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657004 said by Hangetsu:

... the regular user at home would not be protected properly with a free product.

... But for the regular user who just knows how to turn the PC on, hits the web on their browser (IE, since they'd have no idea about getting another one, much less that there IS another one!), opens emails with the web-based birthday cards, etc., more layers of protection that is as EASY to use as it is effective is important.

The free products don't offer that in a one-stop offering. As was mentioned above, you could roll your own with free products, but again that regular user isn't going to have a clue - And in fact, would be more likely to download a copy of AntiVirus 2009 and infect their PC in that process.


I agree with the practice of setting up a security implementation that's consistent with the user's environment, practices and abilities. However, as you read in my previous post, the point I responded to and disagree with is the article writer's assertion that free products can't do the job for a home(or any other) user.

I've provided many non-technical users with a list of complementary and free self-updating products that cost the user nothing and are easy to install. I combine that with education on basic good practices (IMO the most important single non-default layer) and a list of settings for the OS and browser. Those users have an effective multi-layered technical solution and a set of rules that have through time and experience shown to be very effective for them.

Also, I always recommend at least an El Cheapo router, even if there's only one PC. It does wonders eliminating all the internet noise and scary "You are being attacked" messages issued from PC based security suites and PC based firewalls. We often see the results of these messages when distressed users post here asserting that they are being targeted by hackers or the government when in fact it's nothing more than the usual internet noise or a lagging connection.

I note with a smile that Googling on "El Cheapo Router" returns Link Logger See Profile's world-famous topic at the top of the list. :D
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22657004 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:55:14 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656892
1. I use Pfsense, a rock solid firewall...i control what ports i allow to dial out...I am sitting behind a enterprise grade firewall...Windows firewalls are useless...I have yet to find one that is not easily bypassed...incoming traffic is #1 priorty...if outbound matters so much, then simply deny outgoing via rules in PfSense and only allow what you need IE http, https, etc.

2. I use Snort, the De Facto Standard for Intrustion Prevention....Sites that break the rules get their IPbanned...this includes embedded iframes, ads, etc....Snort has saved me so many headaches and makes Windows Based HIPS Obsolete.

Snort bans Ads that break the rules, while allowing non-malicious ones though.

3. I use Avira Free which rarely goes off because "see Below"

4. My Pfsense Box runs HAVP(Http Antivirus Proxy) running ClamAV..the FreshClam Daemon automatically checks for updates once every hour...it has had a great track record in stopping stuff before it ever reaches my computer.

I disagree with blocking Ads. Ads are not malicious in themselves, and in actual fact blocking all ads is what will lead to:

1. Higher ISP Prices
2. Web Sites moving to subscription based model

People give stuff oout on the web for free in return for either:

Donations
Ad supported

You take away Ads, and these companies have no choice but to turn a profit.

I do not want to pay 19.99 a month to view DSL Reports...do you? well keep blocking ads and that is what will happen...it will be this way for ALL web sites

so you will pay 40 bucks a month for broadband PLUS 19,99 per month PER website you wish to view....i don't want that, neither does anyone else.

ANYONE who understands the law of economics knows that when SUPPLY DECREASES(Ads) and DEMAND INCREASES(users) that the curve shifts and PRICE INCREASES

Everyone who blocks all Ads is killing the free internet....yes your killing it, justify it however you like, but we live in a capitalist soceity, these are hard facts, nothing is free...i would rather deal with a few ads then pay a subscription feee to a web site...I will even click on ads for sites I use and enjoy to support them

Blocking all ads is in fact disingenious....it hurts the very nature of the free internet......I use Ads on my site, I could careless if anyone clicks on them or even blocks them, I only make enough to cover my hosting costs and the renewal on my domain per year, i turn no profit...I am not a multi-million hit page per month, that wasn't my goal, my goal was just to share knowledge.

But you can't expect sites like CBS, NBC, Fox, NFL, MLB, etc that get millions of page views per month to be able to offer what they do for free when all people block ads...its not going to continue indefinitly the laws of economics prove my point. If push comes to shove, even Google will move to a subscription model...10 cents per search...billed directly to your account via you ISP....keep blocking ad and this is the future.

I have clicked many ads in the last 10 years and have yet to be infected, blocking ads as protection is the biggest myth i have ever heard.

its downright ridiclious, so what a ad advertises a fake av program, that don't mean you have to click on it....As for popups, if your using IE only sites you trust should be in your Trusted Sites Zone that is set to the "Medium-High" security level, and Internet Zone set to High. Firefox can achieve the same with NoScript....

But speaking of HIPS, I will rely on Snort...less headaches and it works...

Symantec is spitting straight snake-oil here.I will give Symantec kudos for emoving the Ad blocking feature of their product though, that was snake oil at its finest.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656892 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:15:04 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656835
It is currently installed on my parents desktop and 2 notebooks and does its job well which in other words requires limited user interaction.

Mele20 claimed one does not need an AV in which case why does she use Avira then? That is saying one thing and doing the opposite.

Edit* Added "have" after and. Also added original question.
--
"Facts not FUD!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656835 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:59:37 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656667
Norton had a good product at one time (DOS days) it's a real shame that the name and reputation has been degraded by poor products in more recent times. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656667 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:06:37 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656464 quote:
I disagree. An AV is not needed even.


If an AV is not needed why do you have Avira installed?? :huh:
--
"Facts not FUD!"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656464 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:59:05 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656412 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656412 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:45:54 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656372
There are excellent free AV programs, software firewalls, HIPS, rootkit protection, system hardening software, antispyware, and so forth. And of course many folks supplement all this with hardware firewalls.

I used to use Symantec when I was young and ignorant.

Then I realized how bloated all Symantec software was.

Moreover, I had a machine trashed years ago by a very old virus called datacrime. Even when it happened, the virus was several years old, but Symantec's Norton AV did not protect me. I had to reformat.

What STILL pisses me off was the response from Norton tech support when this happened. They basically said it was impossible and must have been my imagination!

Symantec should rot in hell.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656372 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:04:41 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656226
Most "average" users I know do quite well with a free AV like Avast and with a basic set it and forget it firewall, Online Armor free works quite well out of the box and are generally behind a router as well. Symantec, as usual, is just trying to drum up more revenue - which is what a business does.
--
"The best proof there is intelligent life in outer space is the fact it hasn't come here." Arthur C. Clark 1917-2008
Team Discovery
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656226 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:10:37 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656183 said by Smokey Bear:

said by lhamp:

Smart computing will win every time.
I have to disagree, today such is not valid anymore. Thread landscape evolve(d) incredible fast, smart computing and a simple AV is not enough (anymore) for adequate protection.
I disagree. An AV is not needed even. Only thing really useful besides practicing safe hex is a classic HIPS and an ad blocker. I say BESIDES practicing safe hex because a classic HIPS is only as good as the user. Practicing safe hex is still the one most important thing you can do. Second most important is to block all ads.

As for Suites being better than free AV that cannot be true. I state frequently in the Avira forum that I think it makes no sense to pay for Avira Premium or Suite unless you want the Anti-spam module and the firewall. I say this because particularly with Avira, Guard is THE workhorse and it will catch any baddie that tries to execute on your computer provided that either there is a signature for that baddie, a heuristic detection or also for zero day nasties when ProActive module is released. Luke Filewalker (on demand scanner) is weak. You'd be nuts to depend on it. Webguard isn't needed as Guard will catch it. Webguard is a "feelgood" module that isn't needed. So is Luke.

What may be really important is to not do what those Enterprise McAfee users did and not keep the engine updated. In other words, unless you have a lot of problems with it, you should always use the current version of your AV as newer engines and newer heuristic ability is important. It is not just keeping up with the signature updates that matters.
--
"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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656183 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 06:05:43 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656163 "SHIT"
I down loaded it from the school i work at.. Windows version was 355mb's i believe. It slowed both my desktop and laptop down. I tried to take it off and it hosed both of them. The desktop was un-recoverable .. Avira from now on..
--

'rocking the awakening mind'!

]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656163 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:31:33 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656065 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656065 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:41:29 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656050
Under this scenario, anti-virus software is only useful in detecting obsolete malware. Why would I pay for something that isn't going to prevent my details being stolen?

No, the best solution is, and always has been and always will be common sense. Unfortunately its not all that common ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656050 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:25:42 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656045
I personally think Avast is one of the more well rounded free AV, not a ton of false positives, actually does real time scanning, and automatically updates with the system account so the users never have to run as an admin to update it. It's also not completely neutered like some of the other free av.

Symantec is just crying like a little girl now that Microsoft is offering a free av which users might use over Norton instead of renewing that trial subscription on their computer, which is a good majority of their sales. They want to get the FUD out there now before it's too late, and hopefully people start to believe it.
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
$125 per hour if you called tech support, and didn't fix the issue while making things worse]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656045 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:20:27 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656029 said by Smokey Bear:

Current threats demand sophisticated AV security products to defend yourself in an acceptable way, and it is true that free antivirus software isn’t able to keep up with full-price suites. Damn, better tell Avast then, they update 10x as often as Norton. Better tell them they can't keep up.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656029 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:08:37 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656027 --
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22656027 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:07:14 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655949 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655949 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:25:23 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655927 said by La Luna:

There's been more than one time that a "paid" AV has screwed up.
And just as many times as a free one has screwed up as well.
--
Team Discovery
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655927 Sun, 05 Jul 2009 02:08:15 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655435 said by VikingBob:

From the article:
Speaking to BLORGE, David Hall, Symantec’s Product Manager Asia-Pacific Consumer Products and Solutions said that free antivirus software isn’t able to keep up with full-price suites like those offered by Symantec.
The one and only person here who gets it! :D

Of course no single AV will be as effective an entire security suite. Not even Symantec's AV can be as effective as an entire suite.

Notice they didn't put their product up against the other suites? Yes there is a very good reason they skewed the facts. ;)
--
"I like to refer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondek]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655435 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:18:50 EDT Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655339
Then she said later on it was slow to a crawl, so i eventually put in Avast back in, and staying with Avast on every single PC in the House, Now tell me why would i use Norton/Symantc/Mcafee product for 6 PC's? Unless Norton can offer a Great deal for protecting up to 7 Pc's, then i say no thanks, i'll stick with Avast]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-Symantec-executive-dangerous-to-run-free-antivirus-22655339 Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:49:08 EDT