ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

Does free antivirus offer a false feeling of security?

By | July 14, 2009, 2:08am PDT

Summary: Earlier this month, Symantec’s product manager David Hall dismissed free security software as equal alternative to the paid versions, and also described  Microsoft’s free “Microsoft Security Essentials” as “a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from retail shelves“. Needless to  say that such statements from a competing vendor often come as a direct [...]

Earlier this month, Symantec’s product manager David Hall dismissed free security software as equal alternative to the paid versions, and also described  Microsoft’s free “Microsoft Security Essentials” as “a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from retail shelves“.

Needless to  say that such statements from a competing vendor often come as a direct frontal attack against the alternative solution, however, they also fuel the debate on whether or not free antivirus offers a false feeling of security.

The answer? Let the data, and a bit of a common sense speak for itself.

Antivirus software is not the solution, antivirus software is part of the (defense in-depth) solution

Consider the results from the latest Anti-Virus comparative review for May 2009 against new malware, indicating that Microsoft’s OneCare achieved an Advanced+ rating (60% detection), putting it on the second position, with Symantec achieving a mere 35% detection rate — ironically a huge percentage of AV-Comparative’s visitors are running free antivirus software according to their voting poll.

Moreover, similar results can be seen in Virus Bulletin’s comparative review for April, 2009 (subscribers only), where OneCare once again outperforms Symantec.

Does this mean that free antivirus is in fact outperforming commercial applications? Given the dynamic nature of today’s threats, what’s true for a particular moment in time can become totally irrelevant at a future date. For instance, some real-time time statistics on antivirus rankings have the potential to offer an entirely different comparative view — free antivirus scanners again rank pretty well — which shouldn’t be considered as the primary benchmark when attempting to answer whether or not free antivirus offers a false feeling of security.

Both, commercial and free stand-alone antivirus scanners suffer from a similar weakness - they’re over-positioned in the mind of the average Internet user. This over-positioning results in higher expectations which on the other hand results in lack of security awareness on what an antivirus scanner can, and cannot protect against (Secunia: popular security suites failing to block exploits).

Cybercriminals have been tricking signature based scanning engines for years, and their quality assurance practices are becoming even more professional and automated through the user of underground versions of popular community services such as VirusTotal, or by using multiple offline virus scanning engines before a campaign is launched. Similar services attempting to verify whether or not their malware sample will bypass popular personal firewalls are also known to be available on demand.

Therefore, fighting the battle on the signature scanning front isn’t exactly the wisest choice. This is where the stand-alone antivirus, a free or commercial version of it, becomes part of the defense in-depth solution.

Through a combination of a fully patched operating system running the latest versions of the software installed (Secunia: Average insecure program per PC rate remains high), least privilege accounts (Report: 92% of critical Microsoft vulnerabilities mitigated by Least Privilege accounts) and a well-configured personal firewall (Matousec’s Proactive Security Challenge), a huge percentage of the malware pushed through client-side exploits may in fact never reach the antivirus scanner.

That’s of course only if you exclude the fact that “there’s no patch for human stupidity” in the sense that social engineering in the form of fake codecs/videos and poisoned search results continue tricking users into on purposely disabling the security solutions that they had at the first place.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, malware and cybercrime incident response.

Disclosure

Dancho Danchev

More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile.

Biography

Dancho Danchev

Dancho Danchev is an independent security consultant and cyber threats analyst, with extensive experience in open source intelligence gathering, and cybercrime incident response. He's been an active security blogger since 2007, and maintains a popular security blog sharing real-time threats intelligence data with the rest of the community on a daily basis. More details on Dancho Danchev's current and past professional affiliations, can be found in his LinkedIn profile. You can also follow him on Twitter

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
57
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Does free antivirus offer a false feeling of security?
birumut Updated - 2nd May 2011
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat
0 Votes
+ -
No it does not...
NoThomas 14th Jul 2009
"Does free antivirus offer a false feeling of security?" No it does not, not anymore then commercial does. The real question is does all antivirus software offer a false feeling of security? I am undecided but leaning towards Yes in some cases.

"Earlier this month, Symantec?s product manager David Hall dismissed free security software as equal alternative to the paid versions, and also described Microsoft?s free ?Microsoft Security Essentials? as ?a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from retail shelves?. This is funny coming from Symantec, while I love and use their End Point protection I think their comsumer antivirus programs are incredibly heavy and piggish with the computers resources. Atleast they were I havent used their consumer antiviruses in a couple of years.

"That?s of course only if you exclude the fact that ?there?s no patch for human stupidity? in the sense that social engineering in the form of fake codecs/videos and poisoned search results continue tricking users into on purposely disabling the security solutions that they had at the first place." Thats the Gods honest truth right there. I always say the computer is only as smart as its user, if the user says its ok to download fake codecs and disables the computers antivirus then that is what the computer does, it afterall is just following instructions.


0 Votes
+ -
No it does not...
neverhome 15th Jul 2009
Good points. I use the latest Norton Internet Security - it's easier on the resources, at least with a dual core.

The biggest problems I see are:
A. Failure to keep security software updated
B. Careless surfing
C. Actually opening messages and clicking links in the SPAM folder (duh!)

A little common sense goes a long way.

0 Votes
+ -
I've even been able to run...
JCitizen 7th Nov 2009
NIS 2010 on single core PCs! As long as it is a P4 with at least 1Gb of RAM, everything seems to run swimmingly.

The newer version 2008,9,10 seem to actually catch and/or prevent viruses, unlike it's predecessors.
0 Votes
+ -
Signature-based AV products are ineffective these days. All you need to do to see this in action is do a search on VirusTotal.com and check the detection rates for specific malware. VirusTotal.com takes malware and runs it by the top 38 AV products, and then publishes the results as to which AV products detected it as malware and which didn't. When only 2 or 3 AV products out of 38 are detecting malware threats, and no AV product is consistently on the 'detected' side of those stats, you know you're in trouble.

Should you still run AV? Absolutely - it's better than having nothing (in most cases). Are you safe with just an AV product in place? Absolutely not. You need many different security pieces in place to address this; security in depth, as many have been preaching, is a must.
0 Votes
+ -
Most definitely...
JCitizen 25th Nov 2009
Many would do well to heed your advice!!
0 Votes
+ -
That list looks familiar.
ye 14th Jul 2009
Through a combination of a fully patched operating system running the latest versions of the software installed (Secunia: Average insecure program per PC rate remains high), least privilege accounts (Report: 92% of critical Microsoft vulnerabilities mitigated by Least Privilege accounts) and a well-configured personal firewall (Matousec?s Proactive Security Challenge), a huge percentage of the malware pushed through client-side exploits may in fact never reach the antivirus scanner.

It's the same list I've posted on these talkbacks for quite some time.
This David Hall guy, all he is doing is trying to sell product. Why does he care about the user and their security. Ive heard his blabber before.
0 Votes
+ -
Remember this comes from Symantec...
Joe_Raby 14th Jul 2009
The company that led the fray to have Microsoft undo 64-bit Kernel PatchGuard in Vista SP1 - just so they could dig their own teeth deeper into Windows, while allowing others to do the same.
0 Votes
+ -
That really chaps my...
JCitizen 25th Nov 2009
butt too!! Now, how is anyone going to be able to say Microsoft did it right, when every crime cracker is going to be looking for the same back door!
0 Votes
+ -
It doesn't for me. Even with a scanner installed, and a firewall up and running, I'm still paranoid about what I will allow on my system.

And Symantec's rant is just sour grapes. They lost the battle years ago to be the top dog in AV software, and now they can't catch up..or don't want to. They'd rather whine about the 'good ol' days'.
0 Votes
+ -
To Who(m)?
vermonter Updated - 6th Nov 2009
Just wondering - exactly who did Symantec lose this battle to? I'm no Symantec fan, at all - I use it a work, but use different tools at home - but who is bigger?
Relying on one method to prevent your system from being infected is not recommended. Anti-virus of any type (paid, open source or free) should be coupled with firewall, and other security measures to prevent your system from being compromised.
However, Microsoft OneCare is not a total solution for anti-virus since I read the reviews and done my limited test that it didn't catch as many virus/malware as other programs.
0 Votes
+ -
You should read recent reviews
Joe_Raby 14th Jul 2009
May 2009, AV Comparatives scored it 2nd place in detections, with the lowest number of false positives.

The previous favourite, NOD32 has been steadily dropping. AVG is the worst of the free AV softwares, with Avast close, and Antivir further ahead. Norton scored better than McAfee but was middle of the road.

Kaspersky was up there, but the number of false positives was high.

Overall, I'd say that the median score for OneCare puts it "first". OneCare's engine and definitions are the same as Forefront Client Security and Microsoft Security Essentials. Defender is practically the same, but omits the antivirus definitions.
0 Votes
+ -
Until OneCare, AV was expensive and rampantly taking over computer resources, to the point of almost being worse than what it was supposedly defending us against.

OneCare offered an integrated package for multiple computers at half the price of one of the then current AV products.

Basically, MS told them, 'you're crippling the computers and charging too much for the priviledge'. Until OneCare changed the playing field, it was expensive for a family to 'protect' all their computers.
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
Joe_Raby 15th Jul 2009
Now Windows Vista (and Windows 7) includes 95% of what OneCare is/was offering. Windows Vista just has the stuff in disjointed places (Backup & Restore Center, Auto-defrag is already setup, Disk Cleanup needs to be scheduled, etc.).

Windows 7's Action Center is basically OneCare again, but integrated into the OS. A user only needs to choose a decent anti-malware engine to run alongside it as the other security and non-security PC health features are already there. I recommend Microsoft Security Essentials, since it has the same engine as OneCare, and that scanning engine scored nearly top of the list on May's AV-Comparatives review. Nobody needs a full security suite anymore because Windows already has a two-way firewall (it's had one since Windows XP SP2), and parental controls are built into the OS. Every email program has a spam filter now too, even webmail.

So if you take a program like Norton 360 and break it down into its sub-components, the only thing you need out of it is the antimalware engine.

The question is, why would anybody pay $90+/yr for a "complete" security suite like Norton 360 when Windows includes everything except for the antimalware engine, and Microsoft has a better (read: rated better, not just my opinion) antimalware engine for free?

Symantec and the rest of the security market are just committing to fraudulent scare tactics to get people to pay for something they don't need to. They need to change their business model and cater primarily to business security management. They've lost the consumer game.
0 Votes
+ -
Very true!....
JCitizen Updated - 1st Aug 2009
The bloated suites tangled up the CPU so much that light weight malware was able to take over or obfuscate it's presence.

Freeware is mostly the opposite, with lightning fast reflexes and some free AV even have superior hueristics. The list of really affective ones is really only about 20 in number though. A good read on CNET's user ratings, pretty well sums up what is going to work, and what isn't.

I must admit NIS 2009 works pretty well even though it still has a huge RAM presense. I can't attest how well it works on 32 bit systems though. As soon as mine expires, I'm probably going back to NOD32 or perhaps even the paid edition of AVAST.
0 Votes
+ -
I run a computer service shop, and...
cryptikonline 14th Jul 2009
...we drop Avast on ALL computers that come in, while simultaneously telling every single customer that it will do nothing to prevent them from brand new threats...and neither will anything else on the market today! Quoting myself, "viruses are a cat-and-mouse game, and antivirus vendors are always the cat doing the chasing." Software firewalls are also junk, because any virus that does take root can easily bypass such a program. In reality, the only two things that are needed to keep a secure network are (A) a hardware firewall between you and the Internet and (B) well-educated, cautious, skeptical users. Education seems to fly out the window when an erection or free music is involved, which is why 90% of what we see is porn seekers downloading whatever they think will be porn (and obviously wasn't) and teens who grab LimeWire and proceed to download every virus known to man in the process. Computers and their software stopped being the weakest link over a decade ago. The most commonly exploited security hole on a computer is the device which sits between the keyboard and the chair, not the IP stack or WMF rendering libraries.
0 Votes
+ -
Infected MP3's
Joe_Raby 14th Jul 2009
I see the same thing in MP3's on Limewire all the time.

The most common virus is an ASF script in an MP3 ID3 tag that goes my the name "Troj/WiMad". Microsoft's AV software picks it up. So does Norton. AVG doesn't. Avast doesn't either.
0 Votes
+ -
are infected now and growing. I and my clients catch more drive by attempts of legitimate web sites than any that I used to do on my porno virus honeypot in the lab.

I no longer bother to surf porno for virus/malware action as it is the shopping and regular sights that are the truly dangerous threats now.

I've been able to keep up with it using (as you say) a good hardware firewall and a good software utility in depth defense. All you have to do is go by the high user ratings on CNET and use utilities that have varied technology in their real time protections to avoid conflicts, and you can pretty well thwart, most if not all attacks.

Keeping applications up to date is paramount, even if you operate as a restricted user.
0 Votes
+ -
On Firewalls
voska1 13th Nov 2009
Even a hardware fire wall won't help you if you get infected from something you download and run. Most consumer firewall allow any outgoing connections and block any incoming connections. While this is good for automated attacks that are incoming it does no good if you run the malware yourself. So software or hardware firewall both fail when malware gets triggered internally on your network.

Now if you take the time to configure a hardware firewall to block all outgoing connections then allow only specific connection that outgoing to known IP addresses that makes you a lot more secure. So if you only allow HTTP and HTTPS out going to a ISP provided proxy server for web surfing when that malware scripting on the website tried dowload the payload of the malware from another site over port 80 because it assumes it will be allowed it can't and you don't get infected. You might trigger AV software but nothing is going to happen as you stopped the malware in it's tracks. Do the same thing for your SMTP and POP connections. Still this only reduces the chances of getting an infection because there is proxy aware malware but it's very rare and you really don't see it used for automated attacks on infected websites.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually on topic..
JCitizen 25th Nov 2009
as you can't have a discussion about anti-virus or PC security at all without discussing all aspects of blended in depth defense.
0 Votes
+ -
One more thing I forgot...
cryptikonline 14th Jul 2009
The source for the information in this article is a source which sells paid-for antivirus products. This article reeks of press release derivation. Why trust "facts" put forth by parties financially interested in the matter? Do your own research, people. Don't trust a piece from a vendor that's clearly designed to help them sell more product.
Frankly, I have been using free software (firewall, anti-virus, anti-malware/spyware and registry cleaner)for more than four (4) years after having tried several paid programs. I have not encountered the need to rollback my system due to an infection or security violation. I appreciate the free versions and how they keep the guys at Symantec on thier toes.
0 Votes
+ -
I totally agree...
JCitizen Updated - 22nd Jul 2009
and my three years of testing on an XP lab honeypot, agrees with you as well.

If you do any online shopping with credit cards or check your bank account. I would think some small investment would be called for. But nothing huge.

Small price to pay for avoiding financial ruin.

Buying a good cheap DD-WRT hardware firewall is a good start.
0 Votes
+ -
The only way an MP3 could have a "virus" in it is if (A) it's not really an MP3 file in the first place, (B) the MP3 is specially crafted to exploit a hole in a specific program or library (i.e. WMP), or (C) the "virus" is a false positive. It's the .mp3.exe files I'm more interested in.
NO!!! At least they find imbedded viruses and trojans which McAfee and Symantec?Norton do not. Imbedded unwanteds cost me all my backup disks and months of work to find replacements. I now use AVG and Avast Home.

Long Experienced KIWI
0 Votes
+ -
I'd bet your long experience...
JCitizen 25th Nov 2009
taught you to use Avast's real time protection, and AVG's non-resident scanner.

I imagine folks don't know they can have more than one AV on board as long as only one is resident.(real-time protection enabled - for any newbies who happen to be reading this)
0 Votes
+ -
Normal use vs Security
Tom6 Updated - 16th Jul 2009
We are told to avoid downloading cookies, be wary of email attachments and can see that despite patches ActiveX often features in exploit scare stories.

However, in normal usage almost every website forces you to accept their cookie "Oh, you can trust us - our cookie is safe, honest guv"

My bank will only allow me to access their online banking if i enable my ActiveX controls
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=4921&tag=nl.e550

Doubtless the newly spotted ActiveX vulnerabilities may become patched and we will be reassured that it's nonsense to suggest ActiveX is vulnerable "just update to the latest Windows, everyone knows the old one is full of vulnerabilities". This is said each time but remember "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Each time it is said as though the user is a cheapskate and beneath contempt for not buying the new Windows, and guess what? A few years later people are saying this new one is full of holes too! lol

Several years ago i found a great little firewall. It was extremely light-weight but blocked everything and never needed updating. It still works but the company making it got bought out and the product is no longer available.

People have a vested interest in making sure there are still plenty of threats out there in order to keep selling their product. Maybe they are only "playing catch up" but it's amazing how often a really big malware scare story blows up just ahead of a scheduled release date for some new expensive security toy.

So do i trust free antivirus/anti-malware software to keep my machine safe? No. Do i trust antivirus/anti-malware stuff i have to keep on paying for? No.

People who are serious about avoiding security breaches don't use Windows at all. People who make money out of it encourage us all to stick with Windows *shrugs*
0 Votes
+ -
Offer rejected
Tom6 16th Jul 2009
I think they do offer a false sense of security, just as costly ones do - especially well-known brands. Most sensible users will reject that feeling but not the product.

There are a number of answers to this; such as running at least 2 different products - perhaps one continually scanning and one for occasional scans. Really i think the best plan is to run a dual-boot system (preferably with a completely different OS) and scan from the other OS occasionally
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WindowsDualBoot
This has the advantage that it can scan and fix problems even in system files that might difficult to scan while the whole OS is depending on them - it's better from outside.

I hope this helps!
Good luck and regards from
Tom happy
0 Votes
+ -
What BLATANT misinformation!!
kaninelupus Updated - 16th Jul 2009
a) Running multiple AV's/Anti-malware applications is completely inadvisable, as they tend to cause MASSIVE issues by often cancelling each other out, or blocking each other's critical processes. Using more than one such app/suite is FAR LESS effective than using one of any real quality.

b) You NEVER let an AV suite tamper with a non-active OS, because if you get a false possitive (an all too common problem) and it rips out a perfectly healthy core system file (CA AV did just that recently), the user can find themselve seriously screwed when next trying to load the OS in question.

WHY?? Because the OS in question is not active, meaning you have NO counter-measures and no system protection to replace those files (as Windows does on all its critical system files), as the OS is not active to use System Restore and other methods to record the changes being made and thus supply a return path. It is the same as making changes in Safe Mode operation.... inadvisable unless you actually know what the hell you are doing. Unfortunately this often isn't the case with badly coded/informed AV clients, or the general end-user.


To advise the user to use multiple apps, or to advise letting ANY AV check through a non-active OS environ like this is both an IGNORANT and FOOLISH set of advisement points.. but then being a user of "the poor-man's OS X", it really doesn't surprise me!!
0 Votes
+ -
So you're running an antivirus that you need to protect yourself from, on an OS that needs antivirus because it's so often proven quite vulnerable?

Is it better to keep running an OS with infected system-files or to find a way to replace/repair those files? If system-files are infected is it important to keep running the machine with the infected OS and spread the virus/malware or to be able to continue using the machine with a different OS?

It is wise to run antivirus on linux too of course but just a lot less necessary.
0 Votes
+ -
Not blatant!...
JCitizen Updated - 22nd Jul 2009
maybe inadvisable without training the client first!

If you pick your in depth defense thoughtfully enough, you will NOT get ANY conflict at all. There are many ways to get real time protection for a Windows PC.

Most of the freeware still works better than the slow bloated paid for suites. Rapid response is paramount for todays threats, and most of the paid for utilities I've tested in the last 2 years have failed miserably!

I do encourage donations to many of them, but Comodo has mostly free solutions that you can't even donate to!

I mix and match all the time, and then watch the logs to see if their are any conflicts, and their are a few good combos that are real winners.

I pass drive by test sites with flying colors, so I know I'm not totally wrong on this. Many techniques are completely silent and you would never know if they really worked, like registry hacks for active x protection and host files to block malicious servers.

It doesn't take much to train my clients on their use, I have one that has just started computing, and is picking things up very rapidly!
Hi, ok I have to tell you that I just read this article and I felt like it was written in a different language. So please, in lamens term. Or better yet, I'll ask, What is the best free AV & AS and if buying commercial, what is the best AV & AS for Windows XP SP3 Home Edition with IE7?
0 Votes
+ -
First, post your specs..
JCitizen Updated - 22nd Jul 2009
as you need Internet Explorer 8 for the security. If you do not have at least 2Gbs of RAM and a fast processor, you may not be able to run IE 8. Bear in mind if you don't do online shopping or checking your bank account online, this may be over the top. If you have NEVER typed personal information or downloaded a document with it on the page, then you might get away with less.

Here is my recommended list:


1. SpywareBlaster - for those that refuse to use NoSript. Host files also helps protect against bad servers that inject malware thru previously legit web-pages. AdBlock Plus a must for FireFox too.

2. A good malware scanner like MalwareBytes,anti-malware, AdAware, A-squared(64 bit), or SuperAnti-spyware. MBAM's real time protection is worth paying $24 for lifetime license.

3. Comodo Verification Engine - help identify sites with poor SSL encryption or other problems, including phishing or bad practice in settup.

4. Password vault - to protect passwords, credit card numbers, personal ID, ect. Keyscrambler Personal 2.4.1.1 is free.

5. For XP got to have SnoopFree Privacy Shield - A fantastic I/O firewall to keep unknown keyloggers and spys from seeing your video image login snapshots.

Too bad Vista doesn't have this, as spyware doesn't have to necessarily install to get this information. Or if there isn't a definition out yet, they can do a lot of damage in the mean time. Some of the new threats are reportedly cross platform capable, so nobody is necessarily safe, esp. from root kits; some of which can remain resident during reboot and install their own kernel.

6. Identity Finder can help mitigate this as a criminal cracker doen't nessessarily need to read your inputs, (s)he can get it from the hard drive if you don't use a vault. Its a good idea to run ID Finder on your hard drive after installing a password vault to remove any social security numbers, credit cards or saved passwords that may be left behind. You must unistall after use; a good ROM USB would be a good way to use it. Don't want to make the cracker's job easy and leave any code left behind that he can use against you.

7. CCleaner and Revo uninstaller - either of which can surprise you when you find out what kind of crap is actually installed without your permission or knowledge. CCleaner can help mitigate some of the malware that may be resident in the hidden temp files, but it can't get them all.

8. Site Advisor - it may be three months behind in site evaluations, but it is better than nothing. NIS 2009 has a better paid one(Symantec)FireFox has a better free one as a plug-in.

Symantec was a total failure until NIS 2009, but I'm running it on a x64 machine with dual quad cpu(2.66Mhz) machine with 6Gbs of RAM. I don't know if I can recommend it for older PCs.

Also - I always make sure Comodo firewall is on DSL clients and SMBs that have more than one computer on their LAN. Even the new Windows firewall has been compromised on some of my clients networks. Including my sister.

9. Rootkit detector - Ice Sword is best if you can trust the Chinese originator of this ingenious root kit detector; I use GMER, not so much that I trust the author, but it has a good track record that is trustworthy. Most clients like BlackLight. You have to drill down on the F-Secure site to find the free one.

10. Comodo with only the firewall enabled, Defense+, which was part of it, will no longer work with IE 8 on the PC. I have not yet found a work around. Comodo may have an update by now.

11. Avast - still the only free anti-virus worth having on the PC at all. I have yet to see it loose a battle on a PC with in depth defenses. I rarely have to scan with it, as it always reacts as soon as the virus tries to establish itself on the machine.

12. Last but not least is Secunia PSI - this helps the client patch the myriad of applications that can leave even a good secure operating system wide open. Patching applications can almost make anti-malware obsolete if you run regularly as a restricted user on a Windows system.(Y2K or newer)
Thanks to all of the contributors as they have provided an insight of what other users do to protect themselves! It is just for this reason that I consider forums like this to helpful.

Thanks again!
0 Votes
+ -
but not because it is free, but as the article states, only an in-depth defense can hope to curtail the threat. I use various free ware that use different technologies and approaches to help in this defense.

You can pile on a lot of real time protection without using a stitch of RAM or CPU processing time more than ordinary if you approach it this way.

Having a quick reaction time for the system helps fight malware almost as much as anything.

I am finally going back to some paid utilities as they are finally doing the job better. But I may let some of my clients try Windows Essentials since it seems to get such good ratings. Many of my clients are on a budget and don't have any choice in the matter.
0 Votes
+ -
No more free solutions for me..
janiesmiling 28th Jul 2009
Been there, done that! I thought my computer was protected, but when I scanned it with Quick Scan from BitDefender, I discovered it wasn't!! That's when I switched to a paid solution - one month free trial from BitDefender Internet Security 2009. Soon I'll get a license too.
0 Votes
+ -
Free Solutions Fine for Me
blegs38552@... 30th Jul 2009
I am running a dual boot laptop. One partition has Vista Home Premium, the other, Windows 7 RC. The Vista partition has NIS 2009. Since all my licenses are in use for NIS, I decided to use free defensive software for Win 7. I use Microsoft Essentials as my Malware blocker/detector, and the Windows 7 firewall and my router hardware firewall for additional security. I also use Vista Firewall Control, which enables me to allow or block incoming or outgoing internet traffic (any time I install a new application, I get a prompt asking me to configure the firewall for it). The firewall control is a bit of a pain at first, but once a user gets over the initial setup, it rarely shows itself.

I run anti virus scans on both partitions weekly. The only thing that Norton finds and MS doesn't is an occasional tracking cookie. One virus that I did get through a phony Flash download was quickly caught and eliminated by MS Essentials.

From what I can see, Norton is more user friends than my Win 7 "suite", but no more effective at the end of the day.
0 Votes
+ -
I didn't trust NIS 2009 at first...
JCitizen Updated - 1st Aug 2009
as I'd had terrible experience with it in the past, but HP forced me to buy it with the machine. I decided to get my money's worth,and keep it, but back it up with AdAware Plus, which is a paid solution, but not terribly expensive.

At first I thought some of what Lavasoft's virus scanner found were false positives, and some probably were. But most did turn out to be malicious through information and help from the threatwork community I cooperate with.

I can't run AdWatch, because you can't have two AVs running at the same time, of course - but I like having that backup defense scanner!

Malwarebyte's anti-malware has been a proven defense, for my clients, so I also adopted it as my malware real time defense.This only costs $24 for LIFETIME defense!

Surprisingly the MBAM real time protection process does NOT clash with any good AV out there;free or not. This all is only part of the picture, but hopefully I've related my position on the subject. Everything else I use is freeware but my gateway service. It is all proven in my lab, and my clients have all proven that a complete in-depth-defense with free ware is possible. In fact, I can lock down XP in certain ways that I can't with Vista.

NIS 2009 has surprised me with the attack vectors it has stopped coming from numerous sources - so for folks who have the money, and a really modern PC, and want a suite to do almost everything for them, I guess I can recommend it.

My only gripe is it seems to subtitute back ground scanning for hueristics, and I'm not sure I like that yet. I predict I will have short hard drive life in any machine with Norton installed on it. I may be wrong, but with Symantec's sorrid past, it is going to take a LOT of effort to dispel that!
0 Votes
+ -
BitDefender is pretty good...
JCitizen Updated - 25th Nov 2009
but it is not necessarily the fact that something is free that makes it substandard. I only recommend SOME paid solutions because you just can't go online with your credit card and look at your bank account with purely free solutions. I don't think so on Vista anyway.

On XP, I can just about guarantee I can lock it down - but if the client won't bother to update the security utilities, operating system, and applications - then even paid solutions will have limited success. For SOHOs that can afford the yearly fees, I just opt for a good gateway service. Although it is expensive, it is not more than you could end up spending with a good conglomeration of other paid, on board services, and utilities.

(edited) Relying on any anti-virus alone, paid or not is folly in the least. Only an in-depth defense will give you a tinkers-ghost chance in hell.

Oh! And I hear G-DATA which pretty much cleaned up AV Comparatives test series this year, combines BitDefender's scanner with Avast's heuristic engine! I'm evaluating it on one of my clients right now, so far so good.
0 Votes
+ -
Symantec Products are Compromised Regularly
pc_techs_ct@... 4th Aug 2009
I have personally seen many computers running Symantec Anti-Virus/Security products (with up-to-date datafiles) that had been completely compromised. Talk about a false sense of security!

Also, the bloatware of Symantec products is becoming legendary. Let's not even get into the myriad problems associated with getting legitimate programs to play nice with Symantec products.

Trend Micro products have also been compromised. All the while, like their Symantec brethren, the security software is "unaware" of the problem(s).

So far, my best defense of customers' systems has been to install Avast Professional coupled with SuperAntiSpyware Professional (both paid versions).

And my best advice is to use Linux or MacOSX, it has just become an unwinnable war out there in the Windows world.
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds good to me..
JCitizen 5th Aug 2009
and maybe MBAM, but I haven't tested that with the paid for version of Avast.

I haven't had much luck selling folks on FOSS, but I'm not going to quit trying.
People need to stop preaching A/V as a security solution. I cannot believe something that has so often failed to protect people continues to be pushed by so many. And it often causes more problems than it solves.
0 Votes
+ -
This includes not so free AV..
JCitizen 6th Nov 2009
in my experience. The paid for varieties are worse than the freebees.
0 Votes
+ -
every AV offer a false sense of security
ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 6th Nov 2009
you cannot secure windows


use linux.
0 Votes
+ -
No one antivirus catches all malware
Pyrotech_z 6th Nov 2009
Hi, for some reason my post was not posted. Here it is again. No one malware program will detect all malware. The general rule is 1 AV and 3 AS. I use AVG, Adaware, Microsoft Defender and sometimes Microsoft Security Essentials. They don't expire they are all free. Still sometimes something new slips through but gets detected in a few days. AVG is particular good because of its link scanner, and search scanner. For the record I am a computer reseller and NASA sytem integrator so you know my qualifications.
0 Votes
+ -
MSE is an anti-virus solution..
JCitizen Updated - 7th Nov 2009
so you have two AV on that PC. I hope you have one or the other of the real time protections disabled on one or the other of those AV!

You can get into trouble doing that!
0 Votes
+ -
We have one type of AV software on the PC, another on the proxy server and file server, and two on two different Email server. So an email coming in passes through 3 scans. A file downloaded by the user passes 3 scans. Quite often one AV software will catch something the other two missed and it's not the same AV software always catching the virus.
Well, I have to ask you this:

Does corporate and/or paid antivirus software give a false sense of security?

The only reason why I ask is virus writers specifically target those that are easy to target. Since dumping the symantec product for the AVG products - guess what? We have had ZERO problems with viruses. A few malware issues - but that is it.

So you tell me. Who is giving who a false sense of security.
0 Votes
+ -
That's what I ask my clients!...
JCitizen 7th Nov 2009
But I still recommend gateway services for those the need it and can afford it. MSE is still free for SMBs. That makes a good interior AV, to augment the gateway AV service.
0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
seslisohbet seslichat

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix