Is it worth buying Virus Software??

Fibonacci

The subscription to Symantec Norton Anti-virus that came free with my computer has just expired, and I want get people’s views of whether it is worth:

1) Renewing the subscription to Symantec?
2) Upgrading to a “Complete Internet Suite” package with spyware and ad-blockers?
3) Changing to different Virus Software?
4) Just using AVG anti-virus (Free)?

While I’m not delighted paying $35 for the subscription, my main requirement is simplicity, and I don’t mind paying if its hassle free and means that I don’t have to worry about viruses and stuff….

Has any one got any views on this??

bringitdown

AVG + Spybot Search and Destroy + ZoneAlarm + common sense should do.

aidan_walsh

Use either AVG or Anti-Vir. There is nothing wrong with paying for the software if you prefer, but if you get the same coverage from a free package, why bother...

Nick_oliveri

3) Changing to different Virus Software?

http://www.f-prot.com/

My current memory usage: 1,132 K

Nuff said.

GoneShootin

"bringitdown" is correct with that list (bar S&D for Adaware ) - but you may want to check out ZoneAlarm with inbuilt AntiVirus.

Optikus

Don't listen to me..

GoneShootin

:eek:

Creamy Goodness

surely that's illegal?

also a combo of spy bot and adaware is the best i find anyways

test999

I would suggest kerio personal firewall over the latest zonealarm.
Everyone I know who has gotten a virus had Symantec Norton Anti-virus installed.

Optikus

Cremo wrote:

surely that's illegal?

also a combo of spy bot and adaware is the best i find anyways

Hardly prosecutable though.. its there own fault..

Fibonacci

Optikus wrote:

OK this is the coolest thing to do when your Symantec runs out.. go to controll panel/ time date/ and set it back a year or to , .

I don't believe it. It works.

I'm now worried buying software from anyone that stupid.

Chalk

http://www.extendia.com/eXtendiaAntiVirusPro.htm

best antivirus ive ever found
recommended it to plenty of people and not a single virus yet

Optikus

GoneShootin wrote:

:eek:

LOL.... ok i deleted the post.. although i was not linking to warez or even discussing them ... i know its still wrong and probably technically against the rules..

ishnid

Optikus wrote:

Hardly prosecutable though.. its there own fault..

Of course it's prosecutable. It's exactly the same as having a copy you obtained illegally in the first place. In both cases, you're using the software without a licence.

Whether or not it's actually worth their while to prosecute is an entirely different matter of course.

Optikus

ishnid wrote:

Of course it's prosecutable. It's exactly the same as having a copy you obtained illegally in the first place. In both cases, you're using the software without a licence.

Whether or not it's actually worth their while to prosecute is an entirely different matter of course.

Understood.

Mutant_Fruit

If you think the product deserves the money, and is a head and shoulders above the competition, then go ahead and buy it! But i think AVG does at least as good a job as norton, and its free aswell. Personally, i'd be more inclined to use a free one.

Capt'n Midnight

No to mention all the virus avoidance stuff.

all stable service packs / services releases / patches
disable vbscripting if you can live without it
use open office instead of microsoft office (macros !)
use almost anything instead of IE - don't forget firefox and co are still vunerable to phishing attacks but are more resistant to direct attack.
analogx do an active scripting tool too.

firewall is more important than AV if you are connected to broadband

Good backups - so you can just restore back if something nasty happens

RicardoSmith

Norton in my experince cause's a lot of issues on PC. Use to be good 5+ years ago. These days its junk in my opinion. I use the following.

AVG
Zone Alarm
XCleaner
SpywareBlaster
Spybot - Search & Destroy
Ad-aware 6

All free versions, and some catch things that the other don't. In fact their so good I'll probably buy them, when I have the cash.

mneylon

A lot depends on what you are doing with your PC and whether you have broadband or not.
If you are relying heavily on the data on your PC then get a license for a commercial AV.
If you are using broadband you NEED protection.

RicardoSmith

blacknight wrote:

.....If you are relying heavily on the data on your PC then get a license for a commercial AV...

Why does the importance of the data determine that commerical AV is superior than free software? That doesn't make sense to me. Either its better or it isn't. What it costs or not is irrelevent, as is what the data is.

mneylon

I wouldn't rely on a free AV for business use. What's so hard to understand about that?

Paddy20

I use Zonealarm Pro with their firewall, and Norton Antivirus as well. I have broadband UTV Clicksilver and before getting my computer security, I really suffered pure damn hell.

The free stuff is good, but you get what you pay for in this world.

Not a problem since installation of the above 2 systems, and worth every cent Imho

Good luck.

P.

bonkey

I use ZA-Pro as well - decided the free prod was so good they deserved my hard-earned beer-tokens for the upgrade. I run Anti-Vir alongside that, updating daily. Nothing has ever gotten through that combination on my machine, although I will confess to two other "helps", those being an alternate browser to IE, and an alternate mail client to Outlook Express.

Oh, and as someone else pointed out as well...a healthy dose of common sense doesn't go astray either.

As for Norton...it came with my new laptop...and I deleted it uninstalled. No thanks.

jc

RicardoSmith

blacknight wrote:

I wouldn't rely on a free AV for business use. What's so hard to understand about that?

You've explained nothing. Going by what you've stated thus far, you wouldn't use a free OS for business use then, because its free?

Mutant_Fruit

blacknight wrote:

I wouldn't rely on a free AV for business use. What's so hard to understand about that?

So what your saying is that if it costs money, it has to be good. And if its free, it has to be inferior.

MP3 costs money to license, its ok. Ogg costs nothing to license, and a deaf mouse could tell that ogg is a far superior audio codec to MP3. Free does not equal crap.

Linux is solid as a rock. One of the more stable OS's out there, and its free. I could go on about the virtues of free software, but instead i'll go search my backlog of PC lives for their virus scanner article, and type in the relevant details (assuming i can find it, or something similar online).

If i remember correctly though, the good programs such as norton, AVG and the other big names all caught about 98% of the virus's. The question is, do you want to pay to catch 98% or do you want to get a free program that catches 98%... (also, i believe norton failed miserably when it had old virus definitions, it failed much worse than some of the free competitors).

MrPinK

Paddy20 wrote:

The free stuff is good, but you get what you pay for in this world.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of examples of free software that is regarded as being superior than any of it's commercial counterparts, Apache is the most obvious example. I've used Norton and McAfee in the past, but I think AVG is better. I wouldn't go back to the others even if I could get them for free. Good software is good software, whether it has a price tag or not doesn't make it perform any better or worse.

mneylon

RicardoSmith wrote:

You've explained nothing. Going by what you've stated thus far, you wouldn't use a free OS for business use then, because its free?

There is no such thing as a free OS. There is open source which is a totally different matter

With regard to AV software I would recommend people to buy a commercial license if you are using it to protect anything of value because at least that way you have some level of guarantee with regard to new virus definitions etc.
AVG is a fine product, but if you are using it in a business environment you have to pay for it.

mneylon

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

So what your saying is that if it costs money, it has to be good. And if its free, it has to be inferior.

No I'm not.

Mutant_Fruit wrote:

Linux is solid as a rock. One of the more stable OS's out there, and its free. I could go on about the virtues of free software, but instead i'll go search my backlog of PC lives for their virus scanner article, and type in the relevant details (assuming i can find it, or something similar online).

Linux is not free. It's open source.
There is a subtle but important difference.

RicardoSmith

Stay on topic can't ye? I didn't ask about...

software for a business,
the diff between licensing models,

Your making a qualitive judgement on something based on its cost. I'm asking you to explain that logic. I'm interested in your reasoning on this.

Also what guarantee with regard to new virus definitions do you get with a paid for product vs one you don't pay for? (lets not use free since you are going to argue over semantics and avoid answering the question)

In my experience, I have found AVG to find virus and have less issues (especially with support) than many major AV packages that I've had experience off. I have also seen the major packages miss virus'es that AVG has caught.

By saying a paid product more suitable, that runs counter to my experince so I'd like to hear more about your experience.

bonkey

blacknight wrote:

Linux is not free. It's open source.
There is a subtle but important difference.

By that token - cost of ownsership - there is no such thing as free AV software either...which would kinda knock the rest of your argument on the head.

Its all irrelevant though...

RicardoSmith wrote:

lso what guarantee with regard to new virus definitions do you get with a paid for product vs one you don't pay for?

Arguably, you might get more warning of a major payware player going bankrupt and/or discontinuing a service. Arguably.

Its like a discussion I saw recently about Steam vs "traditional distribution" on CD. One guy preferred steam because he could never scratch/lose his cd. The other guy preferred cds cause he knew how to take care of them, and wasn't reliant on Valve/Steam not going out of business.

its swings and roundabouts.

Ultimately, if you're looking at a solution for a business, making a decision on something based on nothing more than licensing costs is about as dumb an idea as I can imagine. There are so many other factors which should come first.

(Then again, making a business decision based on what you've read on a BBS would rank pretty-much alongside that for "stupid things to do to your company" )

In my experience, I have found AVG to find virus and have less issues (especially with support) than many major AV packages that I've had experience off.

I'd go further. I've inly ever had problems with payware AV software. I've had software which couldn't handle fast-user-switching in XP (it tried starting a second scanner for the second log in and got confused). I've had payware AV software screw up a machine to the point that the software didn't work, couldn't be uninstalled, and caused hell if a second AV was put in parallel with it, resulting in a reinstall.

Maybe I'm just unlucky with payware...like Ricardo...but I'm also lucky like him in that I've never had a problem with the free software.

jc

dingbat

The one thing I don't mind paying for is anti-virus software. To those who would use AVG, they also have a pay version. If I really, really wanted to use AVG I'd use the pay version. Why? Because it's better. If you're trying to protect your pc, why use anything that's not as good as it can be?

My recommendation is to use Kaspersky or NOD32. If you're a gamer, NOD32 is excellent because it uses only a very small amount of system resources. By all means use the free version of AVG as well, but use it as your backup scanner, not your resident one.

As for spyware, the combination of Ad-Aware, Spybot, SpywareGuard and SpywareBlaster pretty much does the trick.

RicardoSmith

dingbat wrote:

...I'd use the pay version. Why? Because it's better....

Better? More features you mean?

The whole point about the freeware AVG is that is good enough. Thats all anyone needs.

Capt'n Midnight

blacknight wrote:

I wouldn't rely on a free AV for business use. What's so hard to understand about that?

Business systems are usually on a network and have more services and ports open than a stand alone home system and then there is the risk of something multiplied by the damage it would do if it happened, which tends to be a lot higher on a company network than a stand alone PC. Also businesses can afford it - even with AV software a business can still get hit by viruses, the AV software allows recovery and hopefully will limit the spread - it should not be considered a total solution in and of itself. Woundn't touch Network Associates with a bargepole, they kept upping thier price without fixing the network management software..

Have a look at previous threads on free AV's to see what is out there.
Again reduce the risk by avoiding viruses and malware. File and print sharing running on a windows machine without a strong password/validation by domain controller is not recommended.

Yes you can get viruses with Linux / Mac, but the number of them written for windows means that you do need AV software, which adds to the Total Cost of Ownership for Windows.

As an aside companies that use Sophos and use an equilivant number of licenses for home machines. That said the update routine is a bit fiddly for home users.

Also no OLD AV will detect new viruses.

MrPinK

dingbat wrote:

The one thing I don't mind paying for is anti-virus software. To those who would use AVG, they also have a pay version. If I really, really wanted to use AVG I'd use the pay version. Why? Because it's better. If you're trying to protect your pc, why use anything that's not as good as it can be?

Have you looked at what you are paying extra for? Extra language support, tech support, extra scheduling options for updates and faster dowloads these new definitions (although my 512K maxes out and it's a small file anyway), that sort of thing. All are nice to have, but it doesn't make your computer any more protected. The actual virus scanner is exactly the same. If you don't need these extras then why pay extra for them?

dingbat

There are independent groups out there that carry out tests on the latest virus checkers and Kaspersky consistently finishes very highly. By all means go with AVG as it's a) certainly better than nothing, b) the best of the free programs and c) it's better than a lot of pay anti-virus stuff. However, as I said, as a personal choice I feel it's better to get the best when it comes to keeping one's pc secure.

RicardoSmith

dingbat - whats the best then? and how does AVG compare with Kaspersky and where does it fall down in comparision with it.

maxheadroom

This is really an aside, but anyway...

blacknight wrote:

There is no such thing as a free OS. There is open source which is a totally different matter
...
Linux is not free. It's open source.

RMS would disagree. And, anything GPL is by definition "free software". There are of course other "free software" licences.

By that token, debian is a "free OS"

And finally, I can acquire linux (the kernel)for no monetary cost. I can also acquire several "linux" distros legally for no monetary cost.

dingbat

RicardoSmith wrote:

dingbat - whats the best then? and how does AVG compare with Kaspersky and where does it fall down in comparision with it.

I'm not professing to be an expert in the area, however I did some anti-virus research a few months back and, to the best of my recollection, AVG mainly fell down on trojan detection (they're not viruses per se but are just as dangerous) and heuristics. Anecdotally, AVG has also been found to be letting things through in the past year, most notably a fairly standard variant of MyDoom. Updates were released however the crime was letting it happen in the first place. Other advantages of Kaspersky include their response time to new outbreaks which is typically in a matter of hours.

There is no perfect anti-virus software, no "best". However, I hate the idea of using something when there's a better one out there. I would have no problem recommending Kaspersky, NOD32, F-Secure and PC-Cillin. Norton is a severe system hog and I've heard of McAfee causing system trouble more than a few times. Panda is relatively new and promising but for me it doesn't have that much of a track record as yet.

Getting back to free anti-virus tools, there is another solution. Install AVG as your resident scanner and perform regular scans using some of the free online scanners out there. Many people do this and are happy, however I prefer not to get infected in the first place. But, it's another option.

Finally, the best way to stop oneself getting infected is to be sensible. That's the one thing a software program can't do for you!

Syth

blacknight wrote:

Linux is not free. It's open source.
There is a subtle but important difference.

There is an ambiguity in the word 'free' in the free software/open source world free is frequently taken to mean 'free as in freedom'. There are 2 types of freedom: free as in free beer and free as in free speech.

But then again nowadays you can get nearlly all open source stuff for €0. nYou can still chrage money for it. RMS used to sell emacs for $$$$s.

Capt'n Midnight

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-983108.html

Sapphire worm, widely known as SQL Slammer, infected more than 90 percent of vulnerable computers within 10 minutes, opening a new era of fast-spreading viruses on the Internet,
....
This rapidity puts Slammer into the realm of what is known as a Warhol worm, or one that could infect the entire Internet in 15 minutes

Ok it only infected Unpatched machines running MSSQL ,
BUT no AV can update that fast. So AV alone is NOT the solution, free or otherwise, it's only part of the solution. In many cases AV can block suspicious behaviour, but there are always new ways of infecting machines, eg: can't even trust BMP's or JPEG's anymore.

Also despite many attempts in the past to produce an integrated security solution, most IT professionals still mix and match firewalls, AV etc from different vendors. Another way of looking at it if both products only recognise 99% of threats then there is a small chance it not the same 99%.

Re: Linux free, if you want you can get totally free versions, or you can get totally un-free versions (lindows?) or anywhere in between, you'll also find that a lot of standalone security products are based on a BSD or other *NIX core and you are paying for the configuration and reporting tools and support. Again if you are in a company, by definition an entity must pay it's way, then you can afford security tools, because you can't afford not to.

Microsoft are right to talk about TCO, total cost of ownership, regardless of which procuct you get, you should spend time configuring it and updating it. I for one am totally hacked off with AV products that DON'T remove viruses by default - having to turn on the "Delete/Move/Rename without confirmation" button - Has anyone out there ever had an anti-virus program cause problems by being over-zealous and deleting stuff it shouldn't have... (I've had many incidents with multiple vendors where the AV only REPORTS viruses found and does nothing about it)

RicardoSmith

dingbat wrote:

I'm not professing to be an expert in the area...

Thanks for the reply. Expert or not, you put forward some good points. On doing some more research myself, Kaspersky and McAfee seem to be better than AVG in some areas. However AVG seems to well ahead of Norton. Norton doing surprisingly badly.

So if you want to pay for a product then, there are better AV products than AVG, Kaspersky and McAfee being two of them. However in reference to the original post, the free version of AVG seems to better than Norton. So I still don't agree that ALL non free products are better than freeware. However I'll concide that there is better than AVG if you want to pay for it.

That said, for freeware AVG is very good. If you combine it with other products to scan for spyware and trojans and have a decent firewall you should be well protected.

test999

dingbat wrote:

I'm not professing to be an expert in the area, however I did some anti-virus research a few months back and, to the best of my recollection, AVG mainly fell down on trojan detection (they're not viruses per se but are just as dangerous) and heuristics. Anecdotally, AVG has also been found to be letting things through in the past year, most notably a fairly standard variant of MyDoom. Updates were released however the crime was letting it happen in the first place. Other advantages of Kaspersky include their response time to new outbreaks which is typically in a matter of hours.

There is no perfect anti-virus software, no "best". However, I hate the idea of using something when there's a better one out there. I would have no problem recommending Kaspersky, NOD32, F-Secure and PC-Cillin. Norton is a severe system hog and I've heard of McAfee causing system trouble more than a few times. Panda is relatively new and promising but for me it doesn't have that much of a track record as yet.

Getting back to free anti-virus tools, there is another solution. Install AVG as your resident scanner and perform regular scans using some of the free online scanners out there. Many people do this and are happy, however I prefer not to get infected in the first place. But, it's another option.

Finally, the best way to stop oneself getting infected is to be sensible. That's the one thing a software program can't do for you!

Dingbat, I completely agree with you. I've been working in the field of antivirus technologies for 6 years. I think you'll find the following information interesting.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
in particular
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_02zz.php

It has been my experience that *no* single av product is 100% effective.
A combination of 2 or 3 products is required to cover all the bases, e.g. AVG, sophos, f-prot; and of course a firewall.
Norton was a great product five years ago, but not anymore.

Fenster

And to get back on topic, I'm suprised no one has mentioned Clamscan, although in fairness, its commandline interface might scare away a lot of Windows users.