Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Symantec's Hall says free antivirus is for chumps
"People tell me, 'oh well look I use free antivirus because it is free and it protects me from everything in those areas,' but when you compare that with what's really going on in the threat landscape, there is a very, very big gap between what antivirus does and the threats that are being delivered today."
He later continues, "[...] attackers are not necessarily only targeting the web browser. Think about all the plug-ins you have installed on your machine – RealPlayer, Flash, QuickTime – all of these have vulnerabilities too."
Yes, the threats we face on the Internet have changed over the years and In some respects, Hall is correct.
Like many of you, I no longer rely only on AV software. It's a starting point in keeping my systems protected. I also use a firewall, OpenDNS or a hosts file blocker, and browser addons like NoScript and NoFlash. For added protection, I'll use Sandboxie (and sometimes Windows SteadyState). All of these tools are totally free, and they've been doing the job quite nicely on my home systems.
Hall's quotes do help explain why I've seen several machines on my workbench running only Symantec's own Norton Antivirus that have fallen victim to drive-by attacks. Yes, Symantec, even users running your AV protection aren't totally safe. And it's not free. They paid for it.
In fact, they're still paying for it.
See what I did there?
Comments
36
Subscribe to commentsSaint SeminoleJul 4th 2009 11:52AM
And we could add that paying for anti-virus is for chumps too. As you pointed out, people with paid-AV apps still get hosed sometimes.
What's startling to me is the number of people who have *NO* anti-virus software at all. I'm constantly running into people who say, "Oh yeah, I let that expire; I hardly ever use it."
Interestingly enough, when I was using paid AV apps (both Norton and McAfee), my computer crashed several times *because* those apps took all the CPU resources. It's never happened since switching to Avast! (or even AVGFree).
playstation_1987Jul 4th 2009 12:26PM
Avast or Anti-Vir (my fave) are good antivirus programs but AVG is not. The detection rates for AVG are not nearly as high as the other two. AVG can slow down your computer too. Every "slow running" computer I've had to fix has had AVG or Norton or both on it.
That is true that most threats come from zero day attacks is correct. One should have windows update set to automatic just to make sure that you get windows updated. However most Anti-Virus programs have heuristics to detect threats it doesn't know about. The use of Anti-Virus is essential if you use P2P or bittorrent. Any computer should have real time Anti-Virus and real time Anti-Spyware programs installed, running, and updated.
matyJul 6th 2009 7:03AM
When I used to run McAfee (years ago, version 7-ish), that fell victim to a McAfee-targetted virus that disabled it and prevented any mcafee searches or webpages from loading. It seems its not just RealPlayer and Quicktime that have vulnerabilities...
Avast! is my program of choice now. Never had any issues with it, never been infected and I reccomend it.
Like the article said, no program offers complete protection, they're mearly starting points to fight off the bulk of attacks. You need an array of programs to create a nice barrier but you're never completely safe, whether you pay for it or not.
I see what you did there!
wattssr60Jul 4th 2009 8:06PM
I was running Norton when I got a trogan and then I contacted them and they wanted $100.00 to help me remove it. I think I got hosed when I paid for it and I will not get hosed to get shed of the problem.
Richard FrischJul 4th 2009 12:05PM
I have used Avast! Home, AVG Free and Avira free anti-virus for several years on my machines and lots of clients, with no issues.
Symantec/Norton and McAfee have been troubling for many reasons. Expensive, slows machines, i.e. heavy footprint, incompatibilities, hard-to-uninstall issues…
I am now testing Microsoft Security Essentials on several machines, Window 7 64-bit, Windows 7 32-bit, Vista 32-bit, and XP Pro. My experience with MSE so far is that if it continues working the way it has to date, this will become what I recommend and use universally.
Symantec needs to be very worried.
mobyJul 7th 2009 2:42AM
For the record, I've used Symantec, Mcafee and now Avast for years. Avast home (free) edition runs with a much smaller memory (RAM) footprint than the "big boys" and performs just as well, IMHO. And lets face it, on PC/laptops running 32bit versions of Vista you need all the spare RAM you can get.
While I always say common sense goes along way, its stupid not to have an anti-virus program. While Avast does sometimes catch a few more false positives (in email), it is very user friendly and you don't spend hours trying to reconfigure it to run properly. I sold two PCs and a laptop all running Avast free edition. Two of the new owners wanted paid apps and on install scans didn't find a single infection.
What this tool's comment really says is Symantec (and Mcafee) are scared because people are discovering better alternatives to their overpriced, shoddy, bloated software.
blogwardJul 4th 2009 12:07PM
David's "concerns over the popularity of free antivirus programs" have more to do with David's loss of market share than him losing sleep over poor PC users having their passwords ripped or bootsectors shredded, no?
If, like my wife, you only ever use GMail and the occasional shoe shopping site, I would suggest that common sense and a couple of free AV/system preservation apps are more than adequate. Norton AV is the first thing I would install on my worst enemy's computer.
BronzeJul 4th 2009 12:14PM
If you do your homework, you can find FREE software tools to build your own solid layered protection system (Antivirus, Anti-spyware, Firewall, HIPS, Sandbox). There are so many great options out there.
Save the $$ - and take yourself and sweetheart out for dinner instead.
AndyJul 4th 2009 12:40PM
Perhaps he should pay for pc's to be repaired that have been attacked while supposedly being protected by NAV.
However, you would have thought someone in his position would understand just how good some of the free AV software out there is. Personally I have used Avast for several years and it's what I always recommend and install on people's machines.
kriscolumbusJul 4th 2009 12:47PM
Yeah, and the company's charging for antivirus are making their money in the same way that hijackers are: people's vulnerabilities. I'm just glad that Linux does everything I need it to do.
kriscolumbusJul 4th 2009 12:48PM
companies, even
KeegdnaBJul 4th 2009 12:52PM
Even the best Anit-Virus is no match for the most powerful malware of all....human stupidity!
Don't be a retard when you surf and you don't need anything more than free, if that.
der_tuxmanJul 4th 2009 1:17PM
Yep, an On-Demand virus scanner is all you'll ever need as "security software" if you know how to use your brain.
der_tuxmanJul 4th 2009 1:13PM
That's why I use NOD32.
superhpmanJul 4th 2009 1:54PM
Sadly, the new school that I am going to this fall requires us to run Symantec Anti-Virus + Cisco Clean Access if we want to access the campus Reznet.
I dunno how much a site or cooperate license is (I am sure that deals are cut), but providing these to over 27,000 student + over 1,000 faculty and staff probably cost a nice chunk of change.
---
Kind of sad that this is forced on me, I have been using free alternatives for the past 6 years. The only time that I have gotten a virus was some testing that I was doing in a virtual environment a while back. Ironically enough, this was when I changed from AVG to Avast.
I am currently using my schools Symantec Anti-Virus in a virtual environment. Can't say that I anything has impressed me yet, it seems to get the job done. Haven't really tested it yet beyond simple browsing.
mark whiteJul 4th 2009 3:22PM
wow you people are ignorant, have any of you used norton 2009 its the best out of all of them, plus people who use AVG,avast and most of the free anti-virus programs usually get infected, not saying that people with paid av's dont get infected
Lee MathewsJul 4th 2009 3:07PM
I'm sure there's plenty of statistical data to back up your statements, right, Mark?
On the customer machines I service, I'd say it's a 60-40 split, with the 60 belonging to systems running McAfee and Norton (they're pretty much the only two paid AV apps I see on customer systems).
My experience: less savvy (and generally less careful) users seem to rely on a PAID app and assume it's all they need. It came in a fancy box, so it must be good, right?
Dave A.Jul 4th 2009 4:13PM
BAHAHAHAHA... hahahe... oh, that David Hall. Has he thought about making a career in comedy? That was an absolute gas!
I, too, thought at one point, "Oh, it's free. How good could it possibly be?" Surprisingly, the free AV/firewall/anti-malware programs are very good.
There's no reason to spend ~$70 annually for protection when it can still fail. If you spend nothing on that same protection and it fails, you don't feel as cheated. The headache of trying to get your computer back from an infection still applies, but it will feel considerably lighter. The Symantecs and McAfees of the world, IMO, are mostly about bilking customers over the fundamental right of computer users to surf safely. Yes, I consider safe surfing a right.
FrancisJul 5th 2009 6:08PM
"Yes, I consider safe surfing a right."
Go and tell that to the people who create the viruses...
Dave A.Jul 5th 2009 8:38PM
They've already done wrong by using their knowledge to attack computers instead of helping them along, so the black hats get no sympathy from me when they get caught.