Symantec Launches Anti-Spyware Beta

daria42 writes "Symantec has launched the beta test version of its anti-spyware application, which will be sold from June as part of Norton Internet Security 2005. The company's Norman Kohlberger said the main aim of the new combined product was to make PC security as easy as possible for the end user. 'The computer is not a toy anymore. It has turned into a toaster and microwave -- it has become an integral part of the home environment,' he said. 'We have to reduce the complexity. People do not want privacy software, firewall, antivirus, spyware, adware and blended threats. The average individual is saying I don't want this anymore. Just fix it. What we are doing is reducing the complexity.'"

Comments

Challenge

[mfh]

Here is what I want to know: Why is Symantec forking their projects into Spyware on one side, virus protection on the other, firewall on the other, subscription on the other? Why don't they have these services in one package?

I'll tell you why. They want to make more money off of this. Each and every service that Symantec provides is a de facto necessity to windows users, whether they get the services from Symantec or from some other company.

My challege to a startup out there: Create a complete Windows package that protects users, AND charge very little money for it.

Re:Challenge

[AviLazar]

I used to use Symantec - for many years...even before when it was Dr. Nortons. Now it just plain sucks. It kept crashing on my XP laptop. Crashed ony my parents laptop. That and even before then, Norton Antivirus would not always turn on when the computer powered up...and everything would turn it off. My cousin just got McAfee internet security - came with virus, spameware, adblock, and more.

Right now I use CA eTrust virus and MS AntiSpyware.

Re:Challenge

[hendridm]

I don't think they need to charge "very little money," but $64 is a little steep for me considering it comes with only a year of updates.

I'd pay $64 for protection for the lifetime of the OS (which is what, ~4 years?) or a pure subscription of say ~$15/year.

I, too, don't like the separate products. And I don't understand what took them so damn long to include protection from spyware and other malware. I want it a part of Norton anti-virus - one program running that protects me, as you said. I think Symantec is late in the game on this, and they're entering a market that has free alternatives in it. I say add the functionality to NAV for free so your core product doesn't become irrelevant. To me, spyware should be treated as a virus (with the exception of maybe asking me if I want it quarantined instead of doing it automatically as with viruses).

Re:Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Zonealarm
2) Ad-aware
3) Spybot
4) AVG Free edition

Never had a virus or spyware problem.

Re:Challenge

[Errtu76]

Why don't they have these services in one package?

I'll tell you why. They want to make more money off of this.

No way! Really? Wow, yeah you're right. Everything falls into place now. No wonder MS didn't bundle Office with their OS. It's all some devilish scheme to create profit!

Re:Challenge

[dlZ]

I see a lot of machines come in without Internet access and Symantec's firewall offering on the machine. Can't uninstall any of the Norton products, so have to remove them by hand. Magically, the wonderful wide Interweb comes back for the customer to install spyware till their heart is complete. Install Zonealarm or enable the Windows built in firewall, no issues.

Run Antivir or ClamAV, find way too many copies of Klez or something else Norton AV should have caught.

Customer goes home, immediatly installs Norton again even though we warn them not to, machine is back in the shop two days later because it's broken again.

I can only wonder what their anti-spyware software will do.

Re:Challenge

[lanswitch]

the fact that symantec wants to earn money by selling products is inherent to them being a company. so what's your point?

Re:Challenge

[Anarke_Incarnate]

No ability to tell if there was an underlying security risk either. Saying you just use common sense is covering up for macho bravado about your own foolishness. Get an antivirus and a firewall before you infect all the other nits out there who don't know any better. You should, you are just being lazy about it.

Re:Challenge

[AviLazar]

Norton probably has few problems on most computers except:

The disabling of Norton is a known issue. Many viruses target Norton first.

This affected one Dell Inspiron 9100, another Dell (i forget the model, but it was bought in October 2004, same as the Inspiron 9100), a Toshiba S901, and a AMD 2200 Desktop. My co-worker (a very bright systems engineer) also has seen Norton deteriorate over the years. I used to love Norton, used it for years. I would recommend it to everyone - and on occasion when it was disabeled I figured "oh some virus got me" or some such thing. But eventually it got to be too much. It was so bad that right after installation, after each boot-up i would get crazy errors due to Norton.

Re:Challenge

[kenthorvath]

How the hell do you KNOW if you don't use any of those???

I've got a Mac ;-)

Ok, so the virus thing is a minor threat, but seriously - I live within an acceptable level of risk, all things considered.

Why?

[alexandreracine]

Why they did not simply have put that in Norton Antivirus a long time ago? They sure have all the scanning tools!

Re:Why?

[DrStrange66]

Well Norton Antivirus does pick up a lot of spyware objects already. Of course that is not its primary purpose so it doesn't catch everything like other programs. Pest Patrol, Microsoft Antivirus, and Ad-Aware all do a decent job of catching the spyware but each one of them seems to find spyware objects that the other doesn't. It would be nice if there was a collaboration to have one program that catches everything.

Not a Toy

[jobsy]

" It has turned into a toaster and microwave "

Between the heatsink and the wifi card.. hes not wrong y'know!

R

One big problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that it keeps detecting itself as spyware and removing itself.

Differences with corporate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Symantec has had spyware scanning and removal built into itscorporate version of Symantev AV for almost a year now. In my experience it has been fairly effective and its effectiveness has been increasing with every update.

I'd like to know if anyone can explain the difference between this new product and the corporate version that's been around for a while.

Too late to the game

[PenguinBoyDave]

With all of the Spyware utilities out there, I am surprised that Symmantec would waste their time with this one. They ought to worry about what they are going to do with three backup products now that they own Veritas.

Re:Too late to the game

[michael path]

There still needs to be a major player in the spyware market. Microsoft's Antispyware is the closest we have, but it's hardly more than the Giant product they rebranded.

Names like "Lavasoft" and "Spybot" don't inspire corporate confidence, even if the products are very, very good at what they do.

Symantec makes sense, but I don't like their products. My experience is they create more problems than they solve.

Re:Too late to the game

[cuzality]

Parent is right on. PHBs everywhere will glom onto the new Symentec product simply because it is Symantec. Meanwhile I have to suffer through parsing the entire Spybot Search and Destroy EULA every time someone else has a question about my using a "non-approved" piece of software on my machine. ("Freeware. It means I can use it for free. No restrictions. Even on a business machine. Read what it says!")

My experience is they create more problems than they solve.

I can't add to this from my own experience, but from what I hear from others, the Symantec suite can cause a lot of problems. My boss has had huge problems with it -- it dug itself in to the OS so deep that when it went, it took Windows with it, and even after multiple expensive calls to both Symantec and Microsoft his computer was still in tatters (so much for the "open source is no good because you must have commercial support!" argument -- haven't heard that one since). And I'm using separate free anti-virus and anti-spyware products (no suite!) and have never had a problem.

LOL

[Quasar1999]

What we are doing is reducing the complexity.

And what the rest of the industry is doing, is fixing the problem instead. I just love marketing BS... Consumer says fix it, company says we've reduced the complexity, customer still sitting waiting for fix.

Missing the point

[archen]

Just fix it. ... with baindaids.

Sorry to say, but most people seem to be missing the point. Most people have been brainwashed to think they need anti-virus programs, they need spyware removal apps... they really don't. They just need a secure enviornment - web browser, OS, etc. Even windows can be secured to the point where you don't need antivirus, it's just not set up that way by default and is of course "inconvinient"

Re:Missing the point

[WD_40]

They also need to use their brain. A cow-irker of mine was baffled when I said that I don't run any antivirus or antispyware products on my home PC, and I don't have problems with said threats.

They said, "How do you keep from getting infected?"
To which I replied, "I don't use IE, I don't go places I shouldn't and I don't run suspicious programs."

Protection programs are all well and good, but users need to also learn proper usage techniques.

Re:Missing the point

[Daedala]

I work in security. I have heard far, far too many of my coworkers joke about how much spyware they have on their computers. They are in the field; some of them are brain dead, but some of them are quite good. If security wonks can't keep Windows clean, I don't think normal users should be expected to.

Whatever happened to Norton?

[Anonymous Coward]

The man, not the company. I saw him on TV when I was a kid, probably about 15-20 years ago, and he seemed like a real nerd's nerd. Now he's like Betty Crocker, just a brand name.

Re:Whatever happened to Norton?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read about him in Fortune a year or two ago. He sold Norton to Symantec but licensed his likeness for a few years (hence why his picture was/is on all the boxes). The article estimated his net worth at $400 million and his main focus was in fine art these days.

Effectiveness?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Just how effective is anti-spyware software made by anti-virus companies, anyway? It seems to me that 'malware' (spyware, adware, etc.) is much more sophisticated than their viral counterparts, especially when they enlist user interaction as part of their process. After all, all a user need do is click on a link, open an attachment, look an an email or a webpage, etc., and they have implicitly given their permission for this malware to do its thing. The only way for software to protect you against such things is to either warn you that what you are doing may be dangerous (most users just click past that anyway) or flat-out stop the user from doing certain things, which reduces utility. It seems to me that any attempt to tackle the malware problem from a viral viewpoint is doomed to fail. Our company recently installed the McAfee anti-spyware add-on to our corporate anti-virus solution. My recommendation: don't waste your money...it's worthless.

Windows that protects users

[Werrismys]

Create a complete Windows package that protects users, AND charge very little money for it.

Sounds like a great idea!
Windows with all network code removed.
Windows XP NN?

Re:Windows that protects users

[Frymaster]

Create a complete Windows package that protects users, AND charge very little money for it.

uh, fdisk?

convenient for Symantec, too

[bodrell]

I briefly worked for a Symantec call center in the anti-virus division, and very often the call would consist of me telling people: "Go to lavasoft and download AdAware" because we refused to try and fix a computer loaded with spyware. Now, the call center people (relocated to India since two years ago) can tell the customers to buy Norton Anti-Spyware instead.

Re:convenient for Symantec, too

[baddu]

yeah.. but we Indians, not being racists, will buy Coke, Pepsi and what not. I was planning to go to Pizza Hut for a bite and saw this. I am now going to a South Indian food court. Thanks for the not-so-racist BS.

Symantec ain't all that....

[Himring]

I'm rather confused by their claims of anti-spyware incorporation. They stated to have it in SAV9.x and indeed I saw it finding spyware on machines -- and it did a poor job. Adaware and spybot always found more. Now, their marketing is like, "now with anti-spyware!" Uh huh, you've said that already.

Also, their installs are some of the worst to deal with. Their auto-uninstalls of their old products -- which occurs prior to upgrading -- is horrible. We had to spend tons of time writing our own scripts. We finally tried out Trend Micro and found that it did a better job of auto-uninstalling Symantec's products than Symantec did.

I'm still talking enterprise here, but Trend has a far better admin console than Symantec. Trend gives tons of information on each system. Symantec is childish by comparison. Trend reporting is far better too. Trend has more of a "build your own wheel" feel to it, but for sys admins it rocks. Symantec's roots are from the single, desktop computer and that's the feel you get for it as an admin. Administration is an afterthought. Trend seems to be built by administrators for administrators and I like it.

Besides all that, the answer to spyware isn't what Symantec would have you think -- namely, *them*. The answer is first: install Firefox (install it fool!) and ban IE. Second, make patch management a priority. After that, you can put gravy on it by removing root off workstations for users, but FF and PM are key. As a matter of fact, I argue that if you do those two things you just about don't even need AV -- especially doing Firefox. Hey, can you tell I like Firefox?...

If it runs as slow as ...

[LemonFire]

If it runs as slow as their dog-slow antivirus solution, then their anti-spyware solution bundled together with their existing antivirus software would create one of the best anti-spyware/antivirus solutions out on the market.

You don't believe me?

Running both tools on the same box would lead to absolutely no CPU cycles left over for either virus or spyware to run...

Symantec Effectiveness

[wcitech]

When I got into the computer repair business, I installed Symantec products on almost every machine that came through my doors (if they weren't already equipped already). Now I am a strong advocate of AVG antivirus. I can't tell you how many times I've seen computers with Norton Antivirus that had a) up to date subscriptions b) up to date definitions and c) reported that the system was clean after scanning. Then, I'd uninstall Norton and install AVG, bamf, 6 viruses found.

If their spyware removal is as effective as their virus removal (lately), you'll equal luck trying to remove those rogue search toolbars with a blender.

Re:Symantec Effectiveness

[DanoTime]

I agree, the marketing and "household name" aspect is carrying them. The tools are ineffective and bloated, in addition you actually need to use a separate tool to completely uninstall the product. This should not be allowed to continue, but people still buy the products because that's the first name they know.

I make sure every friend I help out, and every user I work with, hears the simple command
"Don't use Symantec products!"

How about fixing Norton Firewall first

[deaddrunk]

I was shocked to find out that it doesn't drop ICMP requests. Every other firewall I've ever used can do that even the Windows XP one.

I'm sorry, the computer is *NOT* a Toaster!

[ShinSugoi]

It just isn't. Computers are complex things, and it is both logical and more importantly, reasonable to expect people to do a minor amount of work to maintain them, the same way you do a automobile. Surely, any motorist knows how to check his tire pressure, oil, and can replace a flat when necessary. A car is an investment, and people who do not treat one as such do so to their detriment. A computer is no different.

Similarly, anyone using a computer should be able to understand and implement basic security practices and do minor OS and hardware maintenance and repairs. The fundamental problem is that people are just too damn lazy to learn how to do these simple things, and Symantec is capitalizing on that.

Re:I'm sorry, the computer is *NOT* a Toaster!

[Valacosa]

Actually, I flinch any time I see computers becoming more like cars.

I'm not going to claim that the automobile used to be an "open standard", but look at what's happened to them over the last century. They've gotten more complicated, but that complexity is hidden from the end user. It's created this culture that one shouldn't understand how their car works, and the knee-jerk reaction when something goes wrong is to take it to the dealership. As a result, dealerships get to charge hundreds of dollars for a bit of labour and $20 worth of metal in replacement parts. Want to fix it yourself? You still need their parts. Should have gotten an "open-source" car. Oh wait...

Whenever I see something like this, I worry that the same thing will eventually happen to the computing world. I don't think it's likely, I don't think it's impossible either.

Re:I'm sorry, the computer is *NOT* a Toaster!

[gavD]

I can see your point, but I'm not sure laziness is entirely the problem is most cases; most people I know are simply bewildered by the whole thing and don't have a clue where to start.

I guess it's like sitting me down in front of a nuclear reactor and suggesting that I'm lazy because I can't figure out how to flush the coolant... I'm not trying things because I know I could blow everything up. A lot of people feel like this about their computer.

Tradeoff

[British]

What would you rather have your Windows box devote most of its resources doing?

1. spyware/malware/adaware
2. Excessive amount of utilities from various vendors to prevent spyware/malware/adaware.

Oh that's how it works! The anti-spyware TSRs take up so much memory there's no room left for teh evil sofwtare to get a foot in!

Norton Antivirus does

[osssmkatz]

Spyware programs access the Internet a lot, and frequently via low-level calls. By monitoring what programs access the Internet, they can indeed know what spyware is on your computer faster than by scanning.

Their virus package does include support for 'expanded threats' including spyware.

But their antivirus engine is designed to assume 'all viruses are bad.' This new product can --and does-- tread more carefully. It tells you what programs will stop functioning if a given adware module is removed. (according to Symantec.) I do not touch Symantec's products, though it is getting more and more tempting.

If a company does good research, you think they could write good, lean, code without dependencies on TCP/IP. Uninstalling the program is a pain (for some), and manually uninstalling it without removing the TCP/IP dependency.. results in no Internet connection.

With XP's system restore, I would be willing to take more risks, and this is a 'beta' product, but still..

Hmm, an advert masquerading as news...

[Colin Smith]

There are lots of spyware detection and removal applications out there for Windows. They're even pretty simple to install, use and are even fairly effective. This is product placement, not news.

Simplicity is not always good

[Max_Abernethy]

Their idea of simplicity was in my case just deleting my entire thunderbird mail archive because there was a viral attachment in some piece of mail it had junked. This was after I told it -not- to look at my mail because I was sick of getting notified about the 50 or so of those I receive daily. After that incident, I just uninstalled the damn thing - I've yet to catch any virii as far as I know.

Norton is useless

[Sonar]

Norton is not even that good at detecting Viruses on a computer, how are we supposed to think that it will actually detect Adware also? I highly doubt it. I, like many others on this forum have found that AVG and Trendmicro do a much better job at finding viruses than Norton. I will also stick with Lavasoft's adaware and Microsoft's (Giant) Antispyware to tackle my customer's computer problems.

I work at a "mom and pop" type computer store. 80% of these computers that come in had Norton Systemworks installed, with the latest definitions. Yet still they are full of viruses that both AVG and Trendmicro's Housecall detects. The sad part is, the sales of Symantec's products are driven by the need for Best Buy employees to sell more product. So with every new PC they are telling customers to spend money on useless virus scanning software.

The fact is, the best virus scanning and adware scanning software is completely free. Without any hitches. So why would I want to pay for anything when the free product is better in almost every way?

I have also found that Norton fails to uninstall properly in many comptuers. They even have removal utilities to remove their software. I think that this is completely rediculous. If software can't be removed properly from a machine, I dictate that this is no better than Malware. So in essence, installing Norton on your computer is no better than installing Bargian Buddy.

Re:Norton is useless

[BCW2]

When Peter Norton ran it, it was the best there was. Unfortunately it has been on a down hill slide since Symantec bought it. I clean more virii off computers that have Norton installed than any other AV product.

What I use in the white box store I work in is Ad-Aware & Spybot for ad/spy/malware and Trend for virus cleanups. I have found that McAfee is also very good at clean up. Fprot seems to be the best at prevention, we have used it on everything in the store for over 3 years and I have had it at home for 2+ years and no virus has ever made it in. I switched at home when Norton let one in. It was the only one ever to get in one of my boxes in 15 years, I was seriously pissed.

Bullshit!

[af_robot]

We do run Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition 9 in our company and it hadn't detected a SINGLE spyware!
You'd better use Microsoft Antispyware/Spybot/Adaware because Symantec's offering for corporate market is still lacking decent antispyware protection, although it is a great antivirus, much better that a Nortor Antivirus.

Re:Bullshit!

[vandon]

9.0 didn't catch spy/adware very well. However, v10(corporate edition) does an excellent job. I've visited certain non-work related webpages and it has popped up warnings about some script or activeX control or a program trying to install.
It also has detected spyware during a system scan. It's nowhere near as good as spybot, adaware, and MS anti-spyware...but it blocks the worst stuff and with each definition and engine update, it's getting better.

Re:I call bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Viruses now download spyware onto your computer. The majority of spyware doesn't come bundled with some crappy application anymore - they'll put it on your computer by any means necessary.

There are plenty of browser exploits out there too. Try getting a no-CD crack off a dodgy website with IE. I've seen someone snared that way (WITHOUT downloading the crack) in couple of minutes.

And in general it's a good idea to scan something that you're not sure about anyway.

While I agree that Windows firewall is sufficient, anti-spyware and anti-virus are not a bad idea.

Company Issues Press Release

[Proteus]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

According to popular Internet news/blog site Slashdot (http://slasshdot.org/), well-known companty Symantec has, in an unprecedented act, issued a press release in order to promote its products.

"This is truly a breakthrough in marketing approaches," said a Slashdot employee who asked not to be identified, "never before has a company gone to such lengths to promote a product. Slashdot is proud to break the news of this historic event." While some believe that this was an inevitable extension of current marketing approaches, many more are stunned by the sudden change in tactics.

Mary Weatherspoon, a seasoned marketing consultant, is one of those surprised by Symantec's sudden release. "The whole industry has been turned upside-down. We'd heard inklings of using mass-media to promote products, but none of us had ever thought about treating new products -- especially products that aren't really groundbreaking -- as actual, hand-to-god news," she said.

Slashdot management did not respond to requests for comment before deadline.

Panda AV best in my lab

[woodsrunner]

I have had the opportunity to test AV in my lab, okay I worked in a computer shop... but I was able to crack some really infected machines..

Far and away, the best at finding viruses is Panda. Not only does it find on average two to three viruses that Norton's and Mcafee will miss, but it also doesn't bog down your system.

It used to be the lowest priced AV, and while this is no longer the case (probably due to the drop in the dollar -- they are Spanish, er Basque) it is worth the price. Their latest product -- Panda Platinum outscans most products for spyware: even webroot, Spybot and adaware. It also head and shoulders above any anti virus and includes a nice firewall (which I haven't tested, but if it is like their other products, it's the best)

I highly recommend their free online scan and would also recommend downloading a free trial of their software.

http://www.pandasoftware.com/home/default.asp

consumers think spyware = virus, and they're right

[SuperBanana]

Consumer says fix it, company says we've reduced the complexity, customer still sitting waiting for fix.

The customer is sitting there wondering why their "antivirus" (or worse, "internet security"...I love that one) software isn't protecting them from a self-installing, replicating program they didn't want installed, which crashes their system and/or slows it down. I've seen spyware/adware/malware act like viruses (modifying/inserting itself into DLLs and whatnot) and worms (searching for other systems to infect) and trojans (how some of them "hide" from the user in plain sight). Snooty computer scientists get all huffy when you call a spyware program a "virus", but let's be completely upfront here- spyware/adware is just a trojan/worm/virus with commercial purpose.

Every uneducated computer user whose system I've fixed for spyware has asked the same two questions: "why doesn't my antivirus software protect me from this?" (and indeed, the software is installed, definitions are current) and "isn't this spyware stuff a virus?"

Fact remains that for all the crap hype- in at least a decade, "antivirus" technology hasn't improved. Much/all of it is based off the good old standby- definition files. Those worked when viruses took weeks to spread. Now they spread in hours- or less.

My favorite story about how useless antivirus software can be comes from 2000, when one of the worms going around got right past our antivirus software on our mail server. We looked at the one that got quarantined, and the one that didn't- and for an hour or two, we couldn't find any differences. Only when I loaded both onto my powerbook and opened them in BBedit, turning on "show all hidden characters", did I see that one had carriage returns and line feeds- the other only had one (CR's, I think). Because of this very simple change, the worm got right past our antivirus software. How idiotic is that?

What a POS

[dgos78]

I just installed this to test it out, and it ran very slow. The spyware protection is nothing more than what is included in the latest versions of NAV. What a gyp. It is now uninstalled. AVG, Firefox, and Spyware Guard and Blaster do me just fine.

Re:Or buy an OS that isn't subject to this bullshi

[TripMaster Monkey]

Wow...that was fun...

Maniacal raving flames aside, I'll be the first to agree with you. As an I.T. guy (not former), I readily admit that the piss-poor state of M$ operating systems keep food on my table.

I LOVE spyware...spyware alone pays my mortgage.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's a joke

[delus10n0]

Just look online for the plethora of previews and beta reviews, such as this one from PCWorld. Sorry, Symantec, I don't want to install 314MB of files, 11 services, 3 startup items, 2 toolbars, and 2 BHOs (Browser Helper Objects) just to "prevent spyware".

Symantec lost the game a long time ago-- there are much better (and cheaper) ways to keep your PC afloat.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wait...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Yup...just follow this simple guide:

1.) Place bread (or bagel, or english muffin) on top rear of system (just above power supply).
2.) Insert foreign object into power supply fan opening until fan noise stops.
3.) Wait until bread is toasted adequately.
4.) Turn over and toast other side to same degree of preferred toastiness.
(Toasters of bagels or english muffins may omit this step.)
5.) IMPORTANT! Remove foreign object from power supply fan opening, verify proper operation of fan.
6.) Enjoy hot toasty goodness!

Timetraveller's Trouble

[woodsrunner]

Yeah, I doublechecked too (because you're post made me think I was turning into a bot), the only thing I posted more than once(and I wrote both posts separately) was my testing of search engines that found Yahoo to be the best at finding answers for VB and Access... I get hyper-puppy when I find things that go against the status quo. I apologize.

For full disclosure, while I used to sell a lot of Panda when I worked in a comuter shop, I wasn't on commission -- I sold it because it worked and I wouldn't have to fix their computer again. I haven't sold the stuff in about two years. Additionally, I don't use Antivirus software except at work where we have enterprise Norton's >> which isn't as bad as personal edition. Still, I'd rather use Panda's Enterprise, but I am just a coder not an admin.

I have downloaded the trial version of Platinum to fix a friend's computer and was impressed how it did what adaware, spybot and spysweeper couldn't.

Sorry about the sales pitch, but I am amazed that Panda is so unknown and I figured where better than an slashvert for Norton's to spout about!? It's a good tool for any tech.

See you at the MIT meeting.

Re:Money?

[vandon]

The corporate version can be controlled with the Symantec system console.
The updated virus defs can be tested on a single machine before being released to the whole company. You can start scans of individual computers or for fun, start the whole company on a full system scan at once. It has a centralized quarantine and all alerts are logged in one place, so you can see when Mr.CEO clicks on that attachment you told the whole company not to click on. It seems to take up less memory probably because it doesn't have the fancy pretty foo-foo web page graphics looking front end. It just has a functional everything where you can find it interface.

Every time this subject comes up ...

[khasim]

... someone has to make the claim that he runs Windows without anti-virus/anti-spyware and doesn't have any problems.

First off, if your router has a DMZ, then you are running a firewall.

As for the rest, without running current anti-virus software, you won't know if you have a virus.

The same with spyware.

The fact is, "common sense" will not prevent you from accidentally typing in a wrong URL and ending up at a site that would exploit IE.

The same with Outlook Express. There is nothing stopping someone else from sending you email with a virus that would exploit an auto-run sequence.

"Common sense" is knowing that Windows is vulnerable and needs to be protected.

"Common sense" is running the necessary protections and keeping them updated.

Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls

[Xtravar]

Apparently, inciting fear and blowing things out of proportion is what gets people mod points.

The only real threats to Windows users are: Internet Explorer, Outlook Express, and whatever server packages Microsoft makes.

The only time a Windows user needs a firewall is right after installation to quickly get the Windows Updates. A third party software firewall isn't going to help in that case, but a router or hardware firewall will.

The only time a Windows user needs virus protection is when they are downloading pr0n.vbs off of Kazaa or using Outlook Express. I've yet to see a 'real' virus in Windows; their prevalence has been blown out of proportion by antivirus companies to make a buck.

The only time a Windows user needs anti-spyware tools is when they install freeware/shareware left and right without research or thinking, or when they're using Internet Explorer.

There are tons of people who have used Windows without any protection whatsoever, but because of their expertise in managing their system, they haven't had a problem.

I ran Windows for 10 years, and never had one of these 'real' problems. I only ran trusted binaries, and binaries I didn't trust, well, I disassembled them and saw for myself.

Look, if you're stupid enough to use Internet Explorer, Outlook, or any other retarded Microsoft product that is not an operating system, yeah, use every protection resource you have. If you're stupid enough to run all sorts of files from untrusted sources, or if you're stupid enough to think a 5kb script file is that hot mp3 you want, then yes, you need protection. If you don't understand how to disable system services and startup applications, then yes, you need protection. If you're stupid enough, if you're stupid enough, if you're stupid enough. Get the point?

It's like TLC says: don't go chasing waterfalls, please stick to the lakes and rivers that you are used to.

And for the record, I now use Linux, but not for security reasons. It Just Works. There's none of the ass-backwards tweaking that Windows needs to work properly.

It's not obvious when one is infected

[braindead]

You say: Of course a knowledgable user can tell if they have been infected with a virus or spyware!

Certainly. The last time I was infected (stoned? jerusalem? I don't remember). I could totally tell that I was infected. I mean, who could possibly miss the extra 25 cycles it took to start a program? And the extra 2k of RAM that had gone away?

That was a while ago, but I believe that there is still malware today (botnets come to mind) that are designed to not be visible. And it is certainly possible to write software that remains nicely hidden.

So unless you're running tripwire from a clean boot CD or something equivalent, I really don't think it's a matter of course that you can tell whether you're infected. Just because many trojans are badly done does not mean that all are.