Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus Page 4

Author	All Replies
PrntRhd join:2004-11-03 Fairfield, CA	reply to Owlbet Re: Symantec executive: dangerous to run free antivirus Sure, but the ones using the free AV still had some cash in their pockets.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 02:25:23 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to Doctor Four FUD isn't the word. I used to run Norton, it was crappy and slowed down the machine massively. I run Avast now, and it's been great. -- "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 03:07:14 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to Smokey Bear 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 03:08:37 ·
BlitzenZeus Burnt Out Cynic Premium,MVM join:2000-01-13 Beaverton, OR ·Verizon FIOS ·Verizon Online DSL	After using, and seeing Norton, along with McCrappy on many package machine I quickly realized that what they did wasn't worth paying for usually. As stated previous, they sometimes slowed the system down so much that they were not usable for what you wanted to do, which was possible without the av installed. 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 03:20:27 ·
Khaine join:2003-03-03 Australia	reply to Doctor Four Well, he has proven how much of an idiot he is. Current malware is designed to last 24-48 hours. Its designed to exploit as many people as possible, to steal as many logins, bank details and SSN's before its detected by anti-virus software. After its detected its modified to be detection. 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 03:25:42 ·
Loco Premium join:2002-11-09 So Cal	reply to Doctor Four Symantec 10 Corp. is all i use for Anti-Virus protection.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 03:41:29 ·
Rungel Run A Mile Live Awhile GT2110's Premium join:2001-12-05 Ya I'm Here	reply to Doctor Four I didn't read through this whole thread, but i can say one thing about Corporate 10.01 or what ever numbered version it is.. "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'!
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 05:31:33 ·
Mele20 Premium join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI	reply to Smokey Bear 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 06:05:43 ·
mers2 Premium,MVM join:2004-03-20 USA clubs: ·AT&T U-Verse	reply to Doctor Four Personally, I don't care for all in one suites. Too much of a risk of the whole thing going down. Or in Symantec's case - when their Suite goes down your internet usage becomes a nightmare until you uninstall it. 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
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 07:10:37 ·
PX Eliezer Premium join:2008-08-09 New Jersey ·Callcentric ·Optimum Voice ·callwithus ·voip.ms	reply to Doctor Four Symantec's comments are a bunch of crap. 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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 09:04:41 ·
44402812 Hack The Planet Premium join:2006-08-28 Plattsburgh, NY	reply to Doctor Four FUD
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 09:45:54 ·
Grail Knight Who Dares Wins Premium join:2003-05-31 ·Verizon Online DSL	reply to Mele20 quote: I disagree. An AV is not needed even. If an AV is not needed why do you have Avira installed?? -- "Facts not FUD!"
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 09:59:05 ·
chuckkk join:2001-11-10 Warner Robins, GA ·Cox HSI	I routinely remove any norton/symantec software included with new P/C's and install layered alternatives. 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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 11:06:37 ·
Grail Knight Who Dares Wins Premium join:2003-05-31 ·Verizon Online DSL 1 edit	I had heard and have seen that NIS 09 is getting back to the glory days. 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!"
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 11:59:37 ·
Woody79_00 join:2004-07-08 united state	reply to Mele20 I see things like this, a Good firewall, a good Av, and a good IPS is all that is needed. 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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 12:15:04 ·
EGeezer Go Bobcats Premium join:2002-08-04 Country! ·Callcentric ·RoadRunner Cable ·AT&T CallVantage	reply to Hangetsu 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 's world-famous topic at the top of the list. -- The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 12:55:14 ·
Smith6612 Premium join:2008-02-01 united state ·Dish Network ·Verizon Online DSL ·FrontierNet Intern..	reply to Doctor Four I don't see the problem with using Free Anti-Virus here. Using Avast! with Spybot, Windows Defender, MalwareBytes and UAC, with Firefox 3.5 (Adblock Plus and NoScript), I'm pretty much covered. I've seen many cases myself of these drive-by downloads coming in via ads, from either JavaScript files or Flash/Java files. -- It's all fun and games in a Team Fortress 2 battle until your sentry gun is sapped by the Spycrab!
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 13:45:27 ·
Hangetsu join:2007-12-22 West Chester, PA	reply to EGeezer 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 's world-famous topic at the top of the list. 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).
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 15:30:49 ·
DownTheShore Maddie Knows Poopie Premium join:2003-12-02 Beautiful NJ clubs:	reply to Doctor Four 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? -- Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals Bush & Co. didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happend on their watch!
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 15:39:03 ·
mod_wastrel join:2008-03-28 ·magicjack.com	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.
	to forum · permalink · · 2009-07-05 15:59:21 ·


Saturday, 28-Nov 09:25:22	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com. republican-creole page compression OFF