Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free Antivirus
thefickler writes "Clearly, the rise of free antivirus is starting to worry Symantec, with one of their top executives warning consumers not to rely on free antivirus software (including Microsoft's Security Essentials). 'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,' said David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec. According to Hall, there is a widening gap between people's understanding of what protection they need and the threats they're actually facing."
"IT admins across the globe are letting out a collective groan after servers and PCs running McAfee VirusScan were brought down when the anti-virus program attack their core system files. In some cases, this caused the machines to display the dreaded blue screen of death"
If there were any high-quality for-pay alternatives, I'd say he might have a point.
Unfortunately, most antivirus software sucks, with Symantec more or less epitomizing how good ideas on paper can turn into terrible/buggy/bloated security software that actually increases your exposure since it adds another node malicious code can attack. Symantec's argument-from-assertion notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between antivirus software being for-pay and higher quality.
From my experience, there's really bad antivirus software (such as Norton, which I have zero confidence in and would never let touch my machine), and slightly less bad antivirus software. What went wrong? Why does this industry suck so badly? Anyone have any insight?
except the one at www.virustotal.com when on rare occasion I encounter a suspicious file
Of course they say that. They are in the business of scaring people into buying their crap so they think they are safe -- when in actuality their vict^Wcostumers get pwned by exploitable holes in IE anydangway.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
Free of free antivirus, paid antivirus and viruses, because I want my computer's CPU to do something useful.
Microsoft warns against free operating systems. "They're so inferior! Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait."
--
BMO
If Symantec's "security" security programs were worth a damn, the "free" products wouldn't stand a chance. So far, that hasn't been the case eh?
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
they would know since they are the major malware authors. Duh.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
During my windows time, I stopped using Norton because it was useless and bloated. In fact, anti-virus was the reason I ditch windows.
Math is beautiful... e^(pi*i)+1=0
If there choice were only: install Symantec or get a virus, then that's a really difficult choice. I'd be inclined to risk the virus, since Symantec invades and slows your system in a worse way than many infections.
Fortunately, there are many free anti-virus products that work better than Symantec. It's a no-brainer choice. Free is cheaper and better.
I have no understanding of how Symantec remains in business. There's something deeply wrong with that.
Why should I buy something that locks me down in my own system. It's safe alright, but so is pulling the plug on the internet.
And Symantec's product does this? A good 1/2 of the people i have to go clean messes up are running that damned Norton.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If I grew bananas, I would warn everyone that free bananas could be detrimental to their health. After all, consumers have no idea how hard it is to grow good bananas. Free bananas could leave them lacking in any number of impossible to define vitamins and minerals.
I haven't run an active Anti-Virus software once in all my years of computing (over 20) and the only virus I have ever contracted on Windows was the Blaster worm that relied on a publicly unknown (at the time) bug in one of Microsoft's DLL.
How did I do this for so long? Awareness, Patching and Prudence.
On the other hand, I know plenty of people running active commercial anti-virus software that's been plagued with virii.
The reason?
1. No Awareness.
2. No Patching.
3. No Prudence.
Worm/Virus are spread so fast these days, the AV software just can't catch up in time to prevent the infection and in quite a few cases, the Worm/Virus disables the AV software, making it more difficult (in some cases impossible) to remove the infection without booting to another OS (Live OS from a CD/USB Drive).
That's why I use ClamWin for occasional scanning.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
I prefer writing viruses to steal information. It's just so hard to get someone to fill out those damn Paypal lookalike forms.....
As a software author, I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty good, given my understanding of computers, email, spam, and security threats. Symantec are just creating FUD. I used to use Norton Security software, but found that it just slows down a Windows XP machine far too much, guesstimate 15 to 20%. The UI would take ages to load. Symantec might be good for the peons, but for experts the performance hit is too much. Expert users can find better, cheaper, and faster working solutions.
I quit using Norton anything many years ago as they became bloated and seemed to be the cause of more problems for my wife's PC than she had without it. At the time it seemed impossible to remove Norton AV after it had been installed. Just like malware. This really annoys me as Norton Antivirus often comes on new PC's as a 6 month free trial. Even if Norton was free I would not use them.
With Firefox, No Script and Adblock Plus my wife has not had any problems with viruses/malware/trojans. I do have Avast on her computer which does not seem bloated and stays out of the way.
Free works just fine with some common sense.
What's the matter, boy?
I bet you squeal.
I bet you can squeal like a pig.
Let's squeal. Squeal now.
Squeal.
Squeal.
Squeal louder. Louder.
Louder.
Louder.
Louder!
Louder! Get down now, boy!
There, get them britches down. That's that.
You can do better than that, boy.
Come on, squeal. Squeal!
What's you wanna do with him?
He got a real pretty mouth, ain't he?
That's the truth.
You're gonna do some prayin' for me, boy.
And you better pray good.
zosxavius photography
Dear Symantec,
The reason you are steadily losing market share has less to do with the availability of reasonably good antivirus software for free, and more to do with the staggeringly awful quality of your own products. Norton Internet Security was so completely terrible, that not only did it fail to stop critical attacks, but it slowed down systems more than the worst available spyware infections. Removing those spyware infections was also easier than removing your software, because the uninstaller would fail more often than it would function. I began to keep the latest version of the Symantec removal tool in my kit because it was better to assume the uninstall would fail, and not bother to use it. Until I managed to get a significant portion of my clients away from your products, they paid me to fix problems with your software more often than any other single product by a factor of 10. At this point, even if your company came out with the perfect security product, I would advise my clients not to buy it purely based on past experience, because you do not deserve their money.
I'm just saying... From what I hear from pretty much everything and every test, is that they have the worst piece of shit of a useless resource hog with no detection rate in the whole industry, including free solutions.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Symantec seem to be scared, nothing more. Irritatingly it's comments like this that seem to get picked up by the mainstream media and not the results of the independent tests that show Symantec's AV to be roughly as competant as some of these free ones.
He doesn't provide any references or even made up numbers. As far as I know, his speech is completely worthless.
The most effective antivirus is common sense.
against poor design then they would not exist. I suppose that the gross profit of all the anti-virus companies combined are a quick glance at what a poorly designed operating system costs it's users.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
In my experience (which is fixing other peoples Windows infested crap) the most reliable way of detecting a virus is to run from a Linux livecd.
Download clamav, then check the drive.
The reason I say it is better is because many virus/malware disable AV features in Windows so you can never be 100% sure - I know you can get clamwin but again some 'bad thing' could have disabled some it it's features...and linux allows you to write to folders that would be normally projected by the system (i know there is any obvious danger to this)
There has been at least 2 cases in the last month where a vista machine (one had norten and signed up to onecare,,,) which had av protection was not able to completely get rid of a trojan - even using clamwin - clamav in linux sorted it.
http://www.virus.gr/portal/en/content/2008-06%2C-1-21-june
avg
antivir
avast
all free all ranked high and above norton:)
By staying away from M$ Windoze, the biggest virus of all time, one does not need any anti-malware software. M$ junk has so many security holes as opposed to GNU/Linux and free software. M$ addicts deserve to receive malware as well as having their identities stolen for using M$ junk.
--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.
...just download the software from free.avg.com, and then make sure your built-in windows firewall is working. The advantages of having updates without a serial number blacklisting are too big to ignore.
1. I really don't care to pay an antivirus tax on my computer.
2. All anti-virus software tends to suck. (If they all suck, may as well use a free one.)
3. I kind of like the Ubuntu flavor of Linux, but the only thing keeping me from switching over is my game and multimedia software. If everything would work and without a noticable performance hit, I'd have switched already.
Their latest product is much improved: http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/index.php/GadgetBlog/comments/symantec_norton_internet_security_2009_to_install_in_under_1_minute/
Another vote for ESET. No vendor is perfect, but ESET has been pretty solid for me for several years.
You people running naked and smug on linux and apple are going to get a wakeup call sooner or later when someone exploits an adobe or java product and jacks your machine.
When I used Windows XP Pro (I now use CentOS and Debian), I set the system up such that I didn't need AV...I basically applied what I learned from Linux.
That is...
(1) Set up a Limited User Account (LUA)
(2) Software Restriction Policy (OR if you're using XP Home; use => http://www.beyondlogic.org/solutions/trust-no-exe/trust-no-exe.htm instead)
(3) Install only the apps you need.
(4) Online Armor Free Edition. (Software Firewall with HIPS...ie: It warns you something is trying to execute or "dial out", and gives you the option to stop it.)
(5) Removed or disabled Services, etc you know you'll never use.
Of course, the "Cons" to this approach is that XP isn't forgiving when it comes to using LUA...So you have to use something like SuRUN to allow certain apps to run with Admin privileges. A little testing is required before putting it into "production use".
Complement the above with "security aware" computing habits, and you're largely fine. (I used AutoPatcher to pull down updates).
I set this approach up for my dad's XP box and spent a few hours with him on correcting his poor computing habits. This was in early 2008. Its been a year. No infection or complaints from him. He can still use his PC, but he's now much better off than most people.
I don't trust AV implementations for 3 reasons:
(1) AV companies use FUD because most people are ignorant on computer security matters.
(2) AV apps are cures to a problem, not prevention. As long as people continue with cures, AV companies remain profitable.
(3) They have been proven unreliable in the real world. (You are reacting to threats! You are already at a tactical disadvantage!)
So, they want us to believe that to be fully protected, we need to shell out some money.
I have Avast! Anti-virus, Spybot s&d, and Zonealarm firewall. I think I am pretty well safeguarded.
i havnt used antivirus software in over 7 years now, simple common sense with emails and completely disabling every "feature" in IE that i can, then proceeding to not use it at all for browsing has resulted in a virus free computer.
i see antivirus as the computer equivalent of over the top health and safety policies. They make stupid lazy people feel safe but dont actualy achieve much.
It takes up no RAM.
It requires not a single CPU cycle.
It can run on produce.
It's called common sense and discretion.
Although using a *nix system can most certainly help.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Put yourself in the shoes of a virus writer: do you want to infect as many computers as possible? Yes. So are you going to test your software against the most widely-used AV? You better believe you will. Norton and McAfee offer almost unbeatable vulnerability to newly-written malware. It's simple common sense. Also, do you want to attack the reputation of big, money-hoarding corporations or well-meaning people giving away software they've written? I think that's an easy one. The difference is that when an AV program is actively targeted, the protection you're getting is mostly against past exploits rather than future ones.
Subjective, anecdotal evidence: My dad was running McAfee until it was brought down by the AntiVirusXP2008 or whatever it was called. Since then, AVG on the Windows computers has been perfect protection (although it hasn't been there long enough for that to be meaningful) and substantially less crippling and annoying, which is always meaningful.
Of course, as the nerd in the family, I avoid the hornet's nest with free OS's...
--
You know what is really a non-protection in AV? Products from large companies. No, really.
Malware is today routinely tested against the big players before it's leaving the door. More and more often, you also see protection against specific AV suits (Norton, McAfee, Kaspersky are amongst the top on that list), where the malware specifically tries to disable those AV suits or at least blocks updates.
Malware protecting against smaller players in the AV field is rare. Market dictates that. It does not pay to protect your malware against an AV suit the market share or which is less than 5 percent.
So, I essentially agree with him: MS Antivirus will offer ... well, let me say not the best protection, because EVERY piece of malware will be tested and hardened against it. But, and I guess Mr. Hall will not enjoy that, Symantec doesn't offer protection any better, because, since they're big enough with a big enough market share, they, too, are on the malware writer's radar.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
does Linux count as free antivirus software?
I prefer AVG. I've been using it now for awhile, and I have most of my family + friends on it. When people ask me what to use, I recommend it. Doesn't bloat my system and it actually finds threats.
I agree, all free antivirus sucks, so does all paid for software. However there is a magical amulet which will protect you from all computer attacks, I happen to be selling these items for a very reasonable price.
between Symantec software or a virus, I'd take the virus any day. Removing any Symantec software is the first thing that is done after unpacking a new PC in our company.
Enter "symantec" in google with google suggestion feature on and the first two results are "symantec antivirus" and "symantec removal tool"
'If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft,'
If you remove the word 'free' this statement is still correct
I've been using computers for 20 years and have never been infected. Could someone please explain how exactly does it happen? Do people click on those "You've won!" pop-ups, then proceed to download and run some executable?
Captain Hammer will save us.
I just had to install ClamAV on a few hundred Linux servers just to satisfy PCI-DSS requirement. Before PCI v1.2 it explicitly stated that AVs might no be necessary on Unix systems. Now it doesn't; it just needs to be installed "where applicable" or somesuch. ... mostly for windows viruses. Awesome. Especially considering that it's on a completely isolated network with 0 Windows client.
My guess is that they had been lobbied by the scumbags at Microsoft or Symantec.
Evidently, it's completely pointless. But the scumbags will point you to a few POCs that have never been *seen* in the wild.
The problem is that all AVs have vulnerabilities at one point or another, and that they could be used to gain access to elevate privileges, while giving absolutely NO, ZERO, NADA benefit for Linux servers.
And btw: I'm talking about VIRUSES. Not other forms of malware. There is malware on Linux. Just viruses. We do scan for rootkits with Ossec; but since it's not an "antivirus," we can't check the goddamn box.
So we check our Linux servers
Most people have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with common sense and no anti virus at all. In fact most people with no common sense have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with no software at all. Is identity theft a problem yes? Is saying people will have their indetity stolen without using pay software disingenuous and bordering on fraudulent absolutely.
Why do we have an FTC if not to lock up people like this? If he is not inside a jail cell in 6 months, the commission should be disbanded.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I am relying on no virus protection at all.
I am getting my software from trusted sources.
I am not running Windows.
So should I install Symantec?
For the average home user I would say that AVG Free or one of the other more innovative, free or low cost antivirus programs is going to give you as good or better protection than symantec, but the real advantage you'll see is that most of symantec's consumer products are overbearing and use far too many system resources - they really slow your system down, they can be a real pain in the ass to remove, and they have a history of conflicting with other software - and they know people know this, it took them a while to realize it and I think they finally noticed how successful AVG has become since about 2004 at attracting users with a free product that offered decent A/V protection without crippling their machines - I have noticed that they are now marketing "norton classic" (at least I think it's symantec,unless they have sold the rights to norton) for $14.99 per year as an "anti-virus that uses few system resources."
The only symantec A/V product I have used that hasn't been annoying and counter-productive is their corporate version (at least in the early 00s); one of the ISPs I used to to run/manage used it on all of their servers and workstations and it seemed to not have the problems that their consumer offerings do. Once I became familiar with AVG's free options and it came time to protect a smal to medium sized corporate network I decided to go with AVG's network edition - the cost was reasonable comparatively, I think it was around $1k for 40 workstations and a server - the basic deal is that symantec's products just suck.
Most consumer anti virus software sucks. It's bloated and interferes with your computer usage. On my Windows machine I use Kaspersky which performs better but it was a bit of a pain to install and required that I remove Spy-bot which is a load of rubbish.
If people stopped paying for Norton, how will they be able to keep up the under-the-table payments to virus writers?
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I'd have to say that the commercial home user grade AV products I've seen haven't been any great shakes. I have seen customer's computers thoroughly infested with crap, to the extent that I had to pull their hard disks and scan them with a clean machine, that were running fully up to date Norton and McAfee home user security products.
...
On the other hand, I know plenty of people running active commercial anti-virus software that's been plagued with virii.
The reason?
1. No Awareness.
2. No Patching.
3. No Prudence.
4. Running Windows
There. Fixed that for you.
Worm/Virus are spread so fast these days, the AV software just can't catch up in time to prevent the infection and in quite a few cases, the Worm/Virus disables the AV software, making it more difficult (in some cases impossible) to remove the infection without booting to another OS (Live OS from a CD/USB Drive).
Except that spreading fast is nothing new. Most worms hit peak a few hours sooner than the average time it takes for the AV makers to create and push out a new profile.
That's why I use ClamWin for occasional scanning.
ClamWin, ClamAV are fine for remedial action. The best remedy, as in all things, is prevention and that can be accomplished by moving to systems that are resistant to malware. Here even the consumer unions fall flat on their faces and fail to mention the Linux distros. Most mainstream distros are years ahead of Windows as far as ease of use, maintenance and speed. The main weakness of real systems (non-M$) is that Web 2.0 script crap.
If someone wanted to make a really hardened desktop or netbook appliance, the following steps can be taken:
I wrote the word appliance above, because with extreme settings like that, you are not going to want to try to add, remove or radically reconfigure any packages.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
That they say this right after McAfee VirusScan turned a lot of PC's into bricks.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/03/mcafee_false_positive_glitch/
Symantec is fumbling big time. I know where I work (large government organization), Symantec (and its new bride, Veritas) are seriously on the outs. Too expensive, doesn't work well, and doesn't provide protection to meet regulatory mandates.
Furthermore, my home ISP reached a deal with McAfee. I can download McAfee for up to three PCs, just because I pay the bill for my cable modem. The last two PCs I bought also came bundled with something other than Symantec.
Market share dropping? Crank up the FUD machine, boys!
I recently replaced the Sophos virus scanner software with ClamAV on a fairly busy 4-node virus scanning cluster. The performance is better, and I no longer have to beg the finance department every year to cut a check for new licenses. A win-win situation all around. Well, except maybe for Sophos...
Why, despite all the problems, we continue to use Microsoft?
What feature of Windows makes it OK to spend millions getting rid of Conficker, as they did in Britian at the metro bus system?
What functionality makes it worth getting your life savings stolen by the Russian Mob, and then spending 5-6 years fighting with your bank to get it back?
For how many more years will we continue to use a product that can't make it through the day without someone else's helper-program?
Linux is _complete_, free, and maintained by people who give a damn.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Some well meaning person decided to get a site license for and install Symantec's anti-virus software on my school's networks. It was pulled off of the machines within a week. In a couple of cases, removal meant restoring the system from an image because their product refused to uninstall. The reason for the fuss is simple: their product was causing problems on a continuous basis, adding hours of work per day to my workload and making it impossible to use critical software.
A simple cost-benefit analysis showed that our systems could be destroyed every other week by the latest virus or worm then the systems could be restored from an image, and it would still involve less lost productivity than running their fine product. But the network doesn't get blasted by a virus that often. Probably because things have changed considerably over the past few years, ranging from user habits to the built-in security of Windows to hardware managing the network.
So what this means is that the McAfee antivirus is so thorough it even finds trojans and viruses that MS ships. Symantec's product manager is right!
Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
A quick Google search shows Symantec products are not much different: Norton - From Symantec - Problems, Problems, Problems..
Or, Multiple serious problems with symantec endpoint 11 - Please help.
Or, Norton Internet Security 2009 has caused me problems. (Norton.com is owned by Symantec, of course.)
You know there are problems when Symantec provides a Removal Tool.
Symantec has cleaned up their performance and bloat issues in internet security 2009. I have some machines running Norton, some running McAfee, using freeware stuff like Spybot, AVG and NoScript as additional lines of defense. Norton is definitely faster and smaller than McAfee this year and doesn't put perceptible overhead on any of the machines where I have it installed, including the old Athlon single core. McAfee chews up a full core of a CPU for a minute or so when it installs updates and the full scan can take days.
The detection rates for both are still mediocre, but those vary from month to month and vendor to vendor so much that I accept anything in the 95-99% detection range. There are too many new threats to rely on reported detection rates that are more than a couple of months old. The only major vendor that I've completely ruled out for a while is CA, and a few years ago they had the best detection rates in the (pay) industry. Compensate for mediocre detection by multi-layer defenses: NoScript to prevent website attacks, Spybot to provide a cross-check against spyware (especially "commercial" spyware that commercial vendors turn a blind eye to) and so on.
On the other hand, the Symantec exec IS spreading FUD saying that the free stuff can't do the job. I just ignore that kind of crap, it's endemic to the industry. The main reason I pay for commercial products is convenience (all other things being equal on the quality front). The free stuff is either nagware that wants you to upgrade to a pay version or it isn't an integrated suite, so I have to monitor separate installations for Antivirus, Anti-spyware, Intrusion Detection, Firewall and so on.
We are the 198 proof..
It ran a scan in 45 seconds? Maybe the reason it uses under 7MB of memory is that it isn't actually doing anything.
Which would be an improvement, actually, so I guess you're right.
And *that* is a crap statistic; it does nothing to describe the severities of the vulnerabilities, the vendor response, or the amount of time each was left unpatched. Who cares if FF had 184 vulnerabilities and IE 1, if the FF ones were hard to exploit and patched within a few days and the IE one was left open all year and readily attackable by script kiddies?
I don't think Norton is crying foul over loosing market share to freebie software. Free software gives you some protection which is better than nothing but its a lot like having a monkey instead of having a kid. Do you stay up with reviews on the latest graphics card and CPU benchmarks? Why wouldn't you do the same with software? Norton seams to be much faster and less bloated now days. Free AV software doesn't offer tech support and you dont get frequent virus definition updates. Norton gives you an update every 5 min. Nothing will completely protect you against everything. Users are delusional to believe this. Feel free to quote the fanboys law at anytime. Windows is the #1 target due to popularity. A few things you should have to stay "safe" - Practice safe browsing - Have real time virus protection - Robust Firewall - Password protect your password.. don't just let firefox save them for you. - Run a full scan once a week. - Don't use multiple virus scanners as they will conflict with each other. As an IT professional I'm just shocked by many of the previous comments. Do your home work.
Well, that explains why a significant amount of machines at work suspiciously fall apart this week. We had Windows core-files like uxtheme.dll go missing and a range of other BSODs. I actually have more faith in the upcoming Microsoft Security Essentials than I do with VSE at this point in time. It will surely be easier to administer across the domain than VSE is now.
Though Microsoft Security Essentials isn't currently available for additional participants. The wife and I got it when it first came available for my XP Pro and her Vista PC. We have found it to be quite good on both computers. In my opinion, Free software does not mean inferior anymore than Pay software means superior? I'm a firm believer in what works - free or not. I also run free antivirus on my Apple computers - iAntiVirus on my iMac, and ClamXav on my iBook - free is good but if I didn't think they did as good a job, I wouldn't use them. Since I DO think they do as good a job, in some cases better, free is good :).
In a time and place where things rarely simply work - thank Heaven for Apple, Mac and OS X.
I once wrote a program to allocate every byte of free memory and consume every CPU cycle and I got a cease and desist letter from Symantec. Apparently I was infringing on a patent in NAV...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Isn't this the same company that just recently claimed to have detected a bot-net running from infected Apple OSX systems?
Don't they also have a product for smart phones?
I'm waiting for them to recommend Norton Antivirus for LINUX.
This will be followed by Norton Antivirus for shoes.
It's funny because at work the corporate big boys force Symantec on us, and I got infected with a virus once because it wouldn't even detect the virus. I installed AVG, which promptly detected and cleaned the virus. Good thing I wasn't depending on some free anti virus huh?
Thanks to its arrogant success Windows attracted a large number of parasites eager to get a piece of the gold cake, and some security software companies (eg Symantec) concluded deals with well-known computer brands to become an unconditional part of the machine package (along with Windows). Those deals must have been rewarding: despite the many complaints (slow system, reboots, special devices failures, detection errors etc...) the parasite software is currently still "offered" with Windows (via subscription or free 6 months...) from the makers. The endless easy-money situation was not an incentive for security soft companies to make any effort towards improvements, and their poor quality software had an obvious negative impact on the Windows image. Microsoft had to react. Hopefully this will mark the end of a parasite anti-virus software epoch - if Microsoft performs better...
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Context Go straight to 5:46.
AV detections for the latest Waledac malware instances being served from its July 4th propagation campaign:
http://www.virustotal.com/analisis/d39f115b47ed7476c12c05ddec744b44c01b75d81ae1d5f73f03b0792eb130ef-1246719772
Detections by Symantec, McAfee, or Trend? No. Detections by Microsoft? Yes.
The only time my computers have ever been infected with malware was when I was relying upon Symantec's Corporate AV software for protection. The only way I could clean my computers was to download the FREE AVG which detected the malware that Symantec couldn't during the AVG installation. It cleaned it right then. Symantec tech support denied any knowledge of the malware I found, blaming me for not configuring their software correctly. However, 2 weeks after I sent them the malware file, they issued an update to add that malware to their database. So much for their great support. I've depended on the FREE AV solutions ever since and have not been disappointed.
I doubt Symantec's warning was geared to a Slashdot audience, but towards those Neanderthal carbon interface devices that refuse to pay for an AV service or application. Usually, I just want to slap users (twice) and then ask what problem their having with their system. MS didn't develop free AV software to compete with other AV companies, but to protect their OS against negligent, recalcitrant, cheapskate, or just plain ignorant users.
It can also be said the AV manufactures over-priced their products, putting AV protection out-of-reach for some, regardless of their intellect.
For security, you need a program that starts up at least 10 processes. If your computer is running so slow, it is harder for bad things to happen.
One of the lessons of the semi-weekly SANS NewsBites is that security and privilege must be designed into the original specs, not added as an afterthought. Put the mechanisms in place, and mandate their use. If a privilege-check call is accidentally omitted during coding, it should be trivial to add it as a bugfix.
Microsoft did not follow this design philosophy, and now the world pays the price in monthly subscriptions to Symantec and McAfee to cover Microsoft's kiester. And they don't, they only give their subscribers a false sense of security. Who remembers the Sony rootkit? Symantec turned a blind eye until they got caught. Yet we're supposed to pay money to these people?
No wonder Microsoft is so afraid of Linux.
I had to do the same on our outside facing development/testing servers. We just used Kapersky since it was already there with Plesk and easy. I wasn't too concerned with performance. We crash or have to reboot those boxes at least once a week in development.
All our Production systems are either OpenBSD (httpd) or FreeBSD (mail & database servers). We did install Clam on the mail servers.
Frankly, I'm more worried about cracking attempts on those servers than viruses.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Who cares if it is free or you pay a subscription. I use Nod32, and pay for it, but I know many people who are happy with AVG, which is free. If you read places like the VB100 list, you'll see Symantec would be better served by beefing up their product, instead of poo-poo'ing the competition.
If you "anti-microsoft/pro-*NIX" people can't stand when anything Microsoft-based does well, and all you have is your "mod downs" - which aren't worth a heck of a lot when testimonials from those doing well using MS wares are the counter-point to your silly little "mod downs".
APK
I'd just like to point out this quote from the article.
"We've made more virus definitions last year than we have in the last 10 years."
This is a physical and logical impossibility. It makes me wonder what else is made up in there.
Well, that explains why a significant amount of machines at work suspiciously fall apart this week
Do your duty and sue them. Someone needs too.
I saw hundreds of computers with McAfee and Norton antivirus pass through the computer store I once worked at. It's really sad when people tell you they installed something to protect their computer but it instantly nuked it.. McAfee always seemed worse as Norton just wouldn't run right until you uninstalled it and ran the cleanup tool and then manually made sure every possible file and registry item was really gone and then reinstalled... Ugh... If you make a product and then make a new version how can the new version freakout and break because you once had the older version made by the same company?
O and no refunds on opened software! o and it wasn't our software that broke your computer even though it was... ... damn dirty lies ....
I work with anti-virus solutions for 10 years now. I used everything, but for professional environment mostly Trend-Micro. Probably it is the best choice, but I will never install this piece of crap on my home pc.
Most of the anti-viruses are bloat crap, doing 100 not needed tasks and eating memory in the spare time. Often their needed crap will shut down a machine quite often, be it an unnecessary and unplanned scan while the server is under load or by triggering something in the network code to make the network card stop working.
Even when they work, they can remove the old viruses at best and maybe warn you when you get infected by a new one. Of course if it is any good, you will have to clean it manually.
The last time I checked the anti-virus client it was eating more RAM then a clean Windows XP installation, stop this crap.
Sorry for my rant, I guess if they worked as they should they would never need me, so in a sort of ironic way, I'm glad we have a fucked up situation.
P.S: Symantec is the worst of all, they were crap with their first product and they never managed to give us one product not pulled from a CEO ass.
P.S.S: The last time I installed XP was in 2004 and is still running now, I never used anti-viruses, because I never trusted M$ to handle my security in the first place.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
stopped using anti-virus software years ago, because I've discovered in all reality it's for idiots who don't know how to use a computer... i haven't ever had a virus (end of story).
Here's a problem with ESET's Nod32 discussed on March 9, 2009: NOD32 was deleting very critical and required Windows files.
."
... the gripe is that you can't opt out of this during the purchase. OneCare is the most difficult of the three to opt out of. In fact, you can't. Instead you must must cancel your subscription altogether by calling 866-663-2273."
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft makes more money if there are security problems in Windows.
OpenBSD doesn't require anti-virus and anti-spyware programs partly because it was written to be secure. Apple's Mac OS X is based on BSD, and users rarely have problems with that operating system being insecure.
Amazingly, Microsoft is not only supplying insecure software, it is charging for programs to fix the insecurities!!! See Windows Live OneCare.
Microsoft charges Microsoft Windows users $50 for software to fix problems in Windows! Windows Live OneCare has "Antivirus and antispyware all in one". More: "Two-way firewall helps stop hackers in their tracks". Hmmm, Microsoft, if Windows needs a "Two-way firewall", and it certainly does, why do you supply a one-way firewall with Windows???
See Windows Live OneCare Gripes. Quote: "Create the problem, then charge people money to solve it." Another quote: "Why should Microsoft profit from the plague of viruses and Spyware? Shouldn't it have designed Windows better to begin with? And if it has indeed found a way to protect Windows, isn't it a tad exploitative to charge for it? Microsoft has no convincing answer for these questions . .
Another quote: "McAfee, Symantec and Microsoft (with Windows Live OneCare) all set your credit card up for automatic renewals when you purchase their security software on-line.
To me, it seems like this: Testing... Testing... How much abuse will computer users accept?
I stopped trusting Symantec/Norton for much of anything when one of my customers couldn't resolve names because Norton had decided that outbound DNS queries (or the responses to them) were malicious and needed to be blocked.
There may be a widening gap between what people understand and what they're facing, but I didn't see any sign that Norton was addressing that gap appropriately.
fencepost
just a little off
If you make a product and then make a new version how can the new version freakout and break because you once had the older version made by the same company?
That's a pretty easy question. You skip the regression testing phase. Or maybe they trusted the OS too much, moved a function from one dll to another, changed how the function worked, and forgot to have the update script remove the dll from the OS. If the program gets the invalid response from the older function, it might cause problems. Anyway you work this, it all comes down to them not testing enough.
LOL:
"... let me assure you that Symantec Endpoint Protection still does this shit."
"... when it crashes, it will take down the entire Windows network stack. And when the Windows network stack goes down, the computer becomes unusable and you have to cut the power."
I don't know... Something about that article, and that whole site in general just seems fishy.
Perhaps what we need is to dilute a very small virus into a 120 gigabyte text file, over and over and over, and then run it in AUTOEXEC.BAT, that should solve it
With the recent problems being encountered by Windows users all across the country, people are begin to ask themselves if windows is a virus. In response to the high demand for an answer to that question a study was done and concluded the following.
1. Viruses replicate quickly.
Windows does this.
2. Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so.
Windows does this.
3. Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk.
Windows does this.
4. Viruses are usually carried, unkown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems.
Windows does that too.
5. Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware.
Same with Windows, yet again.
Maybe Windows really is a virus.
Nope! There is a difference!
Viruses are well supported by their authors, are frequently updated, and tend to become more sophisticated as they mature. So there! Windows is not a virus.
-- Stolen from Aha! Jokes
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
More LOL:
"I've seen a number of computers that appear to be setup right but will not work until you uninstall Norton.."
Symantec is worried about Microsoft Security Essentials and not other third party vendors offering free solutions. Most of those vendors offering free options also offer subscription based models as well. Even Symantec offers a free scanning tool.
The concern about MSSE is because with this tool there will be no real need to install a third party solution at all. The Windows Firewall is just as good, if not better than vendor solutions. Security Essentials is in the same playing field scoring good on detection and removal and very good on real time detection and prevention. The other tools such as disk defrag, registry defrag, and backup utilities aren't needed from security vendors. These are either built in to Windows or there are free solutions such as CCleaner that render this fluff in security suites a no-seller. This is why Symantec is starting their early marketing campaign. I expect to see other vendors jump in on this as well.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
Antivirus software would be required on WHATEVER was the popular platform, because not being able to run code makes a computer worthless and sheeple can easily be tricked into running bad code.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
"... it's lowering the cost of using the platform without lowering the income of Microsoft."
Microsoft charges for protection against problems in Microsoft sofware: Microsoft Windows Live OneCare.
I'm one of those guys that used to walk around with a boot diskette that had the original scan and clean on them.
There is no question that I'd use either Symantec's product or McAfee's product if they were actually better in my opinion. I find other products much better choices -- the free ones in particular. It isn't just price. The performance and the intrusiveness of those commercial programs is abysmal. They cram themselves into your systems so intricately to "defend themselves" that if anything goes wrong you have to blow away the whole stack and start over. Most viruses and spyware is easier to get rid of than the anti-malware software.
How many times have you found users unable to connect to the net, only to discover they (horror of horrors) they've installed a SECOND anti-virus without removing the first? Now the whole thing comes uncu__ed.
Look, I love linux for my servers, but at the desktop I still use Windoze. If there's one thing that will eventually drive me to switch, it's the way Microsoft and (and as a result all the others) have gone and built the thing in such a byzantine way. There's no way to even really know what needs to be fixed in Vista when something breaks -- and if it did, you don't have "root" access to go and do it. That means the problems caused by these anti-virus packages will now be all but irreparable.
We'll see. For now, desktops around here are xp with avast anti-virus and running quite well. If windows 7 doesn't turn out to be much better than vista for an ability to fix as much as for useability, it will finally push me to move to a linux desktop as well.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
If you are only relying on free antivirus to offer you protection in this modern age, you are not getting the protection you need to be able to stay clean and have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft
If I'm relying only on free antivirus to keep my system clean, then I have no business running a computer, and I need to learn more.
Good thing I also have basic skills like not downloading shady attachments, not executing random executables, and double-checking through web research whether a certain app that I'm interested will actually do what I want to to do. Because good grief, if I'm invariably going to destroy my OS if I don't have an antivirus, maybe my habits need to be changed instead of my application. I'll stick with my Firefox and my Ubuntu and my knowledge of how to refrain from destroying my OS to begin with.
I realize that I'm not exactly target audience (having, y'know, a few brain cells dedicated to computer competency), but hey, if Symantec wants to try to sell me their software, they can go right ahead and try.
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Some of the free ones are home only and they have pro ver's as well that you can also use at home. Avast! is good and it works with vista 64 as well.
Anyway you work this, it all comes down to them not testing enough.
But.... isn't it their desire to keep their existing customers base? How can they do so this way?
And they already have a special clean tool you can download online so why not just include that in their installer to begin with? Its never seemed to screw up anything more than the normal installer does and at at minimum it could run after the install has failed since it's almost always apparent there is a problem on first boot when Norton screams about being broken...
Maybe I shouldn't give them free advise...
We are a small school with about 250 desktops and 30 servers. We finally said goodbye to Symantec Corporate AV after repeated failures by the product to do anything useful.
We looked at free alternatives, but settled on Sophos AV for its Mac and PC support in one admin console.
Educational pricing was quite good, and the support (the few times we needed it) has been good also.
I haven't had as much luck getting rid of Backup Exec - everything I've tried has been worse that BE. So, for now, BE stays.
Symantec, you are losing market share not due to free alternatives, but because you SUCK.
-ted
"Everything Symantec touches turns to crap..."
That's my experience, also. In the grandparent post, a new verb: "encrapified".
Is the warm fuzzy feeling I get when it runs a scan and says at the end, "No immediate threats found". I am left with a feeling of satisfaction knowing the annoyingly persistent pop-up WinAntiVirus is wrong and my computer really is clean. Nevermind the win system files Nort didn't check b/c access was denied, that's just micro-details that doesn't concern the end user.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
It's been getting harder and harder for me to distinguish Symantec and McAfee software from malware.
Oddly enough the CEO of Ford warned people against using free cars. Evidently they have something to sell.
I personally am very vocal about my hate of purchased anti-viruses for end users.
Most of the home user computers I've seen use some kind of outdated anti-virus technology that wasn't updated in ages. They purchase the computer, they got a 90 days free AV deal, then weeks before it ends up, they are asked to subscribe to this crap for some kind of amount, they say "later", next reboot "later", next reboot "later", next reboot GAAAH "never! there!", and they are stuck with that piece of crap that slows down their computer than gives them a false impression of security "because they got Norton installed", even if they totally forgot they even had to subscribe.
Even worse are the computers with some outdated version of the software that isn't even updated anymore, like they got this 3 year old version of (example) Symantec they purchased, asked for the year update, then got a message about that brand new (shiny) version with more features. They said no because they aren't doing anything fancy with their computers. Now they are stuck with some 3 year old solution that isn't updated anymore. How appropriate.
So my suggestion for all the computer users: don't use a bundled anti-virus unless you get explained what's the deal pay their due diligence everytime they are asking for it. Then, they are very good (usually vastly superior) products. -- Instead, use some free anti-virus, like AVG, that will automatically update everyday, and won't become outdated, and you won't have a popup message asking for money or else... Use spybot for the lesser evils. There, you are free of pains.
Too bad Hall got it all wrong. The way I see it, the three primary reasons anti-malware programs are needed:
1. Stupidity. For every smartass there are 999 fucktards that routinely click, download, and execute malware payloads disguised as Word documents and JPG pictures. These fucktards also have no idea why their systems are overheating and failing because of excessive dust buildup.
2. Windows. Worldwide market dominance guarantees a virtually unlimited supply of fucktards.
3. Internet Explorer. IE + ActiveX always enabled and running = malware jackpot.
There really is only one way to secure a computer from malware - do not connect to a network, do not get exposed to the internet. The next best way is to run Linux. Failing that, use OS X instead of Windows.
Rather than advocating a specific anti-virus product, I feel that the question is how do you know you need anti-virus. I would recommend choosing two anti-virus product and keep them up to date for the shortest subscription period allowed. During this time, work as usual, and take note of any virus alert you get, and how that happens. Get rid of one of the anti-virus that doesn't appear to be as effective (and recommend the remaining one to other people). Also adjust your computer using habit until you get no virus alerts. Then make sure you keep your habit within the confines of rules you find working well for you, so you don't get virus alert. Then get rid of the anti-virus software altogether.
I regard anti-virus software as some sort of potty training. You only need it until you find out what behavior will get you into trouble.
I once had a signature.
Uhm. All news is like water. Consider the source. If you want real protection, use someone else's computer or a use daily re-image. Otherwise keep a copy of your essential data offline including hard copies if possible and pray daily.
Signed,
Anonymous Coward
Oh, right. This is coming from the creators of Norton...which is the biggest laughing stock of an antivirus? When people write trojans for botnets, it's always a given that the last antivirus that will catch on will be Norton, meaning months before their definitions catch on.
I've used a private personal free AV software for over 10 years. I have yet to be infected by 1 trojan, virus or mailware.
"Your computer is only as safe as the user who is using it."
-Neruos, 1999
I'm not convinced. You'd need to point me to examples of actual working viruses for Linux or BSD (i.e., for a live Unix variant. [I'm including Linux here despite it's independent origins.]) If it were only, say, AIX or HPUX that was immune then I might buy your argument, and I could buy the argument if it were only that there were many fewer viruses on Linux. But the Linux/BSD Unix systems are changed frequently to remove any known security vulnerabilities, so viruses, and even trojans, have a very difficult time. (Note that there ARE trojans for Linux and BSD, but they don't have a long life-span or wide distribution, because the systems are variable, and tend to get patched to make them not work.) There have also been worms on Unix style systems, and various other security vulnerabilities. But security vulnerabilities aren't seen as profit centers by the FOSS software vendors, so they don't hang around.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I see a global revolt against the mafia style of "protection" that in most cases doesn't work. Antivirus software has a vested interest in having malware to defend against, otherwise there would be no need for them. If the ISP's and govenments of the world were monitarily liable for malware it would stop tommorow. But the billion dollar industry of malware protection doesn't want that.
I have for the last several years run both free antivirus software and security suits for company provided hardware. I ahve never had a problem but 3 out of 4 laptops turned to brick or needed fresh installs. What say you McAfee?
No, no, no. You've got it all wrong.
Once you switch on the Reality Distortion Field, no Linux or *BSD system (including OS X) is capable of doing anything wrong. Ever. Additionally, as long as the Reality Distortion Field remains on, users of those systems become infallible.
It's just how it is.
Kid-proof tablet..
Symantec is taking a page right out of the republican/democrat "anti (not for profit) universal health care" hand book. Instead of having universal single payer health care that would cover us all, for the good of man kind... the special interest groups are spreading FUD because they would lose profit and power.
Same thing with Symantec. They would have you believe that Free AV would destroy humanity itself and leave you unprotected. Symantec would have you believe that only they can protect you properly.
The reality is free AV will help prevent the spread of virii thanks to more people having anti virus software.
Apparently Symantec doesnt really care about protecting users... they just want a profit.
Fire hot, water wet.
Do any knowledgeable Windows users ever actually get viruses?
I haven't seen one for years. I've only seen one security threat try to attack me since I started using Vista... and it asked UAC for permission to access my system. I denied it and deleted it.
I am seriously asking. All these linux chumps act like the Virus situation in Windows is dire... but I've not really had this experience since the 90's. It was the same with Mac back then, too, though.
Am I just excessively lucky? Am I bizarrely wise for being careful about what downloaded files I allow to privilege escalate?
I've used free AV for three or four years now, and the only computer problems I've never gotten a single virus. ...)
I think they're just trying to get people to buy their product. (... Yes, I know -_-
For people who has a clue about the jungle out there, a free AV may really work except some tools like Microsoft's shameless thing. I wouldn't choose it just for the sole reason of protesting that OS vendor who STILL doesn't warn user about empty pwd, even on Win 7 RC. There are way more advanced tools out there free for home use and they are really fine. For example Avast antivirus.
Issue begins when you deal with people who has no clue about the jungle out there and always happy to enter it, without any kind of clue. The ''click happy'' people. For that, you need remote management, advanced heuristics engine and really low CPU and memory load, reporting etc. I keep installing/buying Kaspersky for that purpose.
If you are ready to give up some convenience and ease of use, a secured Windows and something like clamav-daemon which will just watch mail and browser downloads will be more than enough. In these times when companies will happily distribute trojans and viruses with USB keys and even digital photo frames, 'no antivirus' is not really a solution.
I wished someone other than Symantec, no matter whoever they are told about the distinction between free and paid software regarding security. As it is the Symantec, no matter what they say will be ignored and flamed. Similar thing on OS X AV scene which Symantec, even if they try to code a real mac product these days, generally ignored.
They "sell" over 125 'security products'. Not including the other 30 Altiris downloads, and likely others.
Personally I have little faith that Symantec can securely maintain their insanely fragmented product lines.
And they all look so good... I do wonder how a business/server would run if every single applicable one was installed.
so i worked for tech support, and here are the facts. I dealt with more spyware issues that norton didnt catch and adaware did then anything else, on another note, another large problem was norton/mcafee taking down computers cause its so bloated and full of worthless shit to give the illusion of security.
seriously, they should be worried, cause there product sucks
Well, there are lots of other companies who offers a dedicated removal tool for their product especially in AV scene which is very important that you don't run 2 things doing same thing by principle.
Forums, removal tool etc. doesn't matter. I would test the product myself and see what it does and what it doesn't.
I decided to act that way especially after Kaspersky products which are always said to be ''too heavy'' ended up saving a 512MB RAM having Celeron like low end CPU. It turns out, the ''people'' had problem with it, not us.
It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who has recognized the modern trend of people being verbally conservative here on nannydot.
I don't fucking get it, though. Between "sh*t", "fark", and other playground words, and everyone pissing up a storm whenever someone posts a link to something with a picture of either nakedness or deathliness because it's "not safe for work," I find myself appalled at a lot of what I see here.
So, everyone, listen here:
Grow up, kids. If you want to use a word, then use it. If you're too much of a spineless prude to use a word like "shit" without censoring yourself with poor grammar, then perhaps you should try being more creative by using a different word altogether.
For instance: Instead of "shit," as a noun, you could use "stuff" or "things." And instead of "shit" or "shitty" as adjectives, you could use "lousy" or "broken." And instead of "shit" as a verb, you could just say "defecate," "erupt," or "explode."
If you want to work at a place where you could get in trouble for clicking on a random link, then please stop clicking on random links. And if that makes your job unenjoyable, then either find a different fucking job or learn to tolerate being joyless! Don't come here whining about things being "not safe for work."
Leave me, and my uncivilized, freewheeling Intarweb alone -- and go fuck yourselves.
Kid-proof tablet..
Peter Norton should sue Symantec for defamation of character.
The original Norton Utilities were everything that Symantec's Norton $WHATEVER isn't.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Maybe its because Linux and BSD aren't popular platforms for most home users. OSX is 8% - which is large, but considering the rest of that is Windows (most people pin Linux at around 1% on the desktop it seems).
Even then - there are viruses for the Mac
There's also plenty of evidence to suggest OSX really isn't all that secure.
Yeah and car manufacturers charge for extra warranty time. Big fucking deal.
because of course, free OS's are very unsecure than Windows. No? lol
Vista and onward come with a two-way firewall. (Start -> run -> wf.msc) The XP firewall (that they added in a service pack!) is just fine unless you're hosting internet services on you box. In which case, wtf are you doing.
As long as you let users run arbitrary code, you are always going to have virus problems. Last semester I removed DNS hijackers from 3 Mac OS X laptops at my college's help desk, despite how awesome BSD is.
I'd be more worried about Microsoft "charging for programs to fix the insecurities" if they didn't already:
I used Windows Live OneCare for a while, and it seemed to work OK. But, it didn't really provide much above and beyond what the free stuff provides, and it would freak out if you didn't have automatic updates turned on (I prefer to screen my updates).
DATABASE WOW WOW
It's a sad, sad world when someone says this: "The detection rates for both [Symantec and McAfee] are still mediocre, ... I accept anything in the 95-99% detection range."
So that's what the extra $$$ buys you. Yes, more malware is detected.
But more legitimate stuff is wrongly detected as malware too?
You'd think they could get it right, understand the special, sensitive nature of system drivers, and tell the user about the problem.
Rather than pulling loaded drivers out of the system and risking a bricking.
Last time I installed Symantec (work system, not my idea, and very much protested) it slowed my system down significantly. 2.8GHz dual-core system running XP was noticeably slower, especially running the core application, which was an assembler (sort of like a compiler but for assembly language -- and generally very fast and much simpler than a compiler). It easily took 10 times as long.
So whenever I hear somebody from Symantec whining self-serving marketing drek like this my only reaction is to reply with certain Anglo-Saxon expletives and related gestures.
Er zol vaksen vi a tsibeleh, mit dem kop in drerd.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
"The XP firewall is just fine unless you're hosting internet services on your box."
..."
I don't agree with that. If you have malware, the Microsoft Windows XP firewall allows the malware to communicate with the outside world with complete freedom.
"I used Windows Live OneCare for a while, and it seemed to work OK. But, it didn't really provide much above and beyond what the free stuff provides,
Another poor-quality product from Microsoft? As many others have said, Microsoft makes more money if the malware is not actually removed.
Also: "Last semester I removed DNS hijackers from 3 Mac OS X laptops at my college's help desk, despite how awesome BSD is."
I'm guessing that the cost of just installing and maintaining Windows anti-virus and anti-spyware software is more than 100 times the cost of removing problems from Mac OS X. That doesn't count the cost of having spyware and virus problems in Microsoft Windows, which is certainly more than 100 times more expensive than that. That is an estimate that reflects our experience. If that estimate is accurate, the cost of maintaining Microsoft Windows XP against malware is more than 10,000 times the cost of maintaining Mac OS X against malware.
Before AVG 8. Now AVG doesn't even seem to remove viruses, it just tells you they are there. Also, their new 'feature' of having AVG search EVERY SINGLE HIT you have in a google search is RETARDED.
Its sounds like Consumers dont need less protection, they need more was stolen from a presidential speech. Politics aside I let an antivirus on that a: can prove it can do its job. B: have a small footprint (avast has 6 programs in residence. They take less than 20% of total CPU cycles) c: will auto update without me having to do it manually. Mcaffee has never passed this. Norton did until WinXP. I regularly have people remove either and replace them with something else ESET, AVG, avast. I use avast because: it auto updates daily. It blocks drive bys, its scans downloads, it blocks malicious website connections. And it has never failed to help kill an actual virus. (i get one per OS). I saw a recent version of Symantec on a friends computer who was complaining it has slowed down in the 3 months since he bought it and installed it. So after a Hijaack this run, I killed off symnatec, gutted all of it and its bloated 10 programs eating 50%, and installed Avast. No viruses on the system at all. It was symantec that slowed it down.
So at what point does McAffee declare WindowsAntiVirus a virus, and start the OSWARs?
One of my clients bought a new Dell Inspiron notebook with an integrated Verizon cellular card. He wound up needing my help getting the Verizon card set up, because every time he ran the Dell utility to manage the card, it just hour-glassed the PC for about 30 seconds, and finally returned an error message about being unable to connect to one of its components.
I fought and fought with it, checking to see if the cellular card might be disabled at the BIOS level, or if a Windows service was incorrectly set to "disabled" or something.... nope.
I finally gave up and called Dell tech support, to see if they knew anything about the issue. The tech had no clue, other than suggesting steps I already tried, and seeing if I could launch the configuration program from the START menu, as opposed to from its system tray icon (same result).
Then, on a "shot in the dark" troubleshooting step, I did a full uninstall of the McAfee Security Suite provided with the machine (with 1 year subscription). That did the trick! McAfee was blocking the cellular card utility from launching, despite its firewall not even listing it as a blocked executable or anything! Nice.....
Here's a problem with ESET's Nod32 discussed on March 9, 2009: NOD32 was deleting very critical and required Windows files.
10 minute fix time (and then automated repair) seems quite good. My experience with Norton was way worse - but I haven't used them in a half-decade.
Yes yes, flame Microsoft all you want. I disagree with them charging for a solution to their own problem, but you seem overzealously hateful towards them, and not Apple.
Let me ask you - what is the primary way an OSX box gets hacked? Answer: Safari. Sound familiar? See: Microsoft + IE
What's got me worried is that the same guy keeps winning pwn2own with Safari exploits, year after year. He probably has a pile of exploits up his sleeve, as do other people. It's only a matter of time before Mac users get hosed by their browser, just like Windows users once did. (and probably still do)
I wonder how people at Symantec feel about "David Hall, a Product Manager for Symantec" getting himself on Slashdot, where everyone can discuss how unpleasant their involvement with Symantec has been?
I suppose he was not smart enough to see that coming.
If Symantec wants management consulting, I volunteer: Futurepower Technological Due Diligence. But that's just volunteering some time. I wouldn't work for them unless they wanted a full re-organization of management.
Since I'm not a citizen of the Windows world, but frequently get called in to troubleshoot, I tend to pull down AVG when the situation requires an anti-virus program. Does anyone here have any thoughts about this? If I am pissing into the wind, let me know. I won't pay dollars and cents of my own for a product I'll never use, but good advice for those who need it is a Good Thing.
You haven't written a complete sentence.
The most recent versions of AVG have been a tad too aggressive in my experience. I keep a little set of binaries around called ps.exe and kill.exe. They are win32 utilties from way-back-when (I think from the NT 3.51 era) that work essentially like their UNIX counterparts. They will run on any Win32 platform including 95 and 98. AVG decides on it's own that kill.exe is 'malware' and deletes it, with no announcement.
These little binaries, btw, seem to be increasingly harder to find as time goes on. You can still download them here: ftp://ftp.uni-potsdam.de/pub/systems/winnt/WINNT/littles.zip .
> Maybe its because Linux and BSD aren't popular platforms for most home users.
But gnu/linux, unix dominate the server market!!! Would you prefer to own a botnet of laptops and desktops connected part time through adsl or worse, running a bloated OS between game sessions or one made of always available servers with fast connection and a fast OS full of tools for remote admin and networking?
As long as free antivirus and patching exist, there is way less money to be done with viruses. Thats a good thing no matter what you think about the cybersecurity market.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
In the meantime i'm spending hours fixing PCs with OEM windows, while a install of linux+config files+all programs takes 15 minutes and one reboot. But if you prefer to keep clicking on windows update icons, licenses, and rebooting, well, your choice.
Your facts are so bizzarely wrong its hilarious.
OneCare has been discontinued. The scanning engine it was based on, along with definition updates, are now available free. If you'd even bothered to read *anything* about the product related to this article, you'd know that.
Windows does ship with a two-way firewall, and it's remarkably powerful and versatile. OneCare was basically a giant patch for those fools still running an 8-year-old OS.
"designed Windows better..." You can't fix stupid. The OS itself is pretty damn secure these days, much more so than (for example) OS X - see the Pwn2Own contests and the competitor's comments for an interesting case study. Actually exploiting Windows pretty much requires third-party software, and even then you have to deal with security features that no other os *except* OpenBSD has fully implemented (DEP, ASLR, etc.). What most malware for Windows (and usually for other platforms too) is, these days, is Trojans. Not a lot your OS can do to protect you from those. See the Dancing Pigs (or Bunnies) Problem. Pop up a warning dialog? Users will click right through it. Make them run as non-Administrators? They'll gain whatever rights the program says it needs (in the case of Trojan-infected installers, you would probably need admin rights anyhow). Antivirus provides only a very small amount of protection against this, but I suppose if you're going to have that kind of person online anyhow they should have that protection. If a company wants to charge more to protect against that stupidity, though, I don't see that as being so evil.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You are such a stupid dumb fuck M$ shill that I doubt you can find your own arse.
Linux and Unix systems do not get viri because they are, unlike Windows, __NOT__ totally broken to start with and they get fixed when needed, for free.
Most people are still silly enough to use a broken system that NEEDS an antivirus. If they had chosen a system that wasn't susceptible due to better security practises by default, and that it was extremely difficult to get a virus on, (such as a system with clean repositories that requires you to be a normal user, not an admin) the problem would largely solve itself. And these systems are often available for free! What gives?
> Grow up, kids. If you want to use a word, then use it
Until you get so used to blurt out whatever passes on your mind that you do it in the wrong occasion and look like a... kid.
Write whatever you want, but offensive words written with no purpose on a public forum are a sign of disrespect.
The above statement and common hearsay about computer vulnerability remind me of the color-coded terror alert level here in the USA, where many people seem to best respond to fear and absurd simplification. And statements like this really only serve 1) The profits of the fear-mongering executive's company, and 2) To misinform the layperson.
A favorite bit of comedy has been to ask people to imagine a virus that slows down boot time considerably, constantly runs in the background eating an inordinate amount of memory, besieges the user with incessant pop-ups about updates, interferes with the use of some software and games, and most of all, charges you REAL MONEY on a regular basis (what is the interval 6-12 months?). This has been my experience with McAfee and Norton (on other people's PCs). Also, as some have mentioned, they are impossible for the average user to uninstall (and residual junk can still annoy or sit in one's registry). The point is that the solution is worse than the problem.
Anytime I've helped someone clear a virus, the absolute worst it's come to has been reformatting the hard drive. Responsible computer users know to back up their data, so no sweat.
Along the lines of responsibility, a lot of the mess can be avoided by simple things like:
- Not using IE
- Avoiding porn, warez, illegal video streaming sites
- Not using Limewire ("Wow! This file matches my search exactly! And it's only 700kb! Pretty small for a movie....")
I personally am puzzled, since as a decade+ windows user (whose computer use has veered into the dreaded realms of online piracy and elsewhere), I have never gotten a virus using free to no antivirus software. Avast is nice though, especially if you turn off the goofy audio notifications, set it to update automatically, and hide it in the tray.
OpenBSD doesn't require anti-virus and anti-spyware programs partly because it was written to be secure. Apple's Mac OS X is based on BSD, and users rarely have problems with that operating system being insecure.
Can you specifically explain what features do OpenBSD and OS X have that Vista does not that make them more secure and invulnerable to viruses?
I see this point raised often, but not once there was a coherent explanation. At best, people think in Win9x terms, and say stupid things like "Windows does not have filesystem security".
I test security software for a national computer magazine in the UK. I've found that AVG detects most of the major threats; but if you know what you're doing Avira does a better job of alerting you to everything you might want to extirpate. The free version nags you every day, and you're not supposed to use it for commercial purposes; but if all you want is a one-time check I don't think there's anything stopping you installing the 30-day trial of the full package, running one full scan then removing it...
Not which brand of add-on bloat 'scanner' that you use with it, free or otherwise.
Pre 4.x AIX used to ship with an antivirus utility. However, the utility was mainly to find MS-DOS viruses and stomp them, as opposed to anything UNIX related.
There is one thing in general UNIX variants tend to have over Windows, and this has little to do with the OS:
In general, for a UNIX variant, a user explicitly chooses to use it. They choose to go to an Apple shop. They choose to download the latest ISO for a distribution and install it. Usually because of this, this shows that the user has some computer experience, is able to deal with basic maintenance tasks, and knows the basics of keeping their computer secured.
Windows (and this isn't MS's failing) is usually the default choice. Someone with no computer experience goes to some big box computer place, buys a box off the shelf with a monitor and computer, and Windows will be the default OS out of the box. They unpack it, plug it in, perhaps call for some help to get some type of Internet connection going. They usually don't know the difference between "foobar.jpg" and "foobar.jpg .exe", and will click on either because they have the same icon. So, Windows has to have mechanisms in place to at least nudge the gun away from critical tendons and bone structure when an inexperienced user shoots themselves in the foot. Of course because the user doesn't know better and mindlessly clicks on allow [1], pretty much they get boned in a couple of hours, especially if someone wants to see the dancing bunnies.
[1]: UAC has been hotly debated, but I've found the best compromise is to have an Administrative command prompt minimized so when I'm doing something that requires elevation, I run the commands from that, as opposed to having to elevate stuff through a UAC prompt. Its the same thing (and the same security risks apply) as keeping a root shell hanging about in an xterm.
are you fucking kidding me? getting offended at something so simple as a word is childish beyond belief. oh no! the bad words make me feel not good.
The fundamental problem is that Microsoft makes more money if there are security problems in Windows.
Most viruses (and malicious code in general) exploit the user or applications, not the OS.
Would you prefer to own a botnet of laptops and desktops connected part time through adsl or worse, running a bloated OS between game sessions or one made of always available servers with fast connection and a fast OS full of tools for remote admin and networking?
Would you prefer to own a few dozen machines run by professionals, who will almost certainly notice their machines have been penetrated, or a few thousand machines owned by ignorant end users who still wouldn't be sure their machine was 0wned if it popped up a dialog box saying so ?
An executive warning against the lower priced and free products of competitors is not surprising to anyone. As one who has been paid to REMOVE Symantec products from customer machines because of the huge performance hit I do not havegood comments to say about the actual security products. I do use AVAST and find that it works really well. My own belief continues to be that the best defenses against the bad guys are to avoid working as an Administrator and to use THE HUMAN BRAIN to avoid opening unsolicited/unexpected attachments. Using Firefox and Linus helps also. Speaking of Linux and other open source platforms.... In spite of all of the real good Microsoft has produced in the software realm I am a firm believer that they should focus on creating SOFTWARE and leave platform development in terms of servers and clients to community efforts. If a virus/malware author attacks Windows then we are dependent on Microsoft and Vendors like Symantec to develop solutions. If there is an attack against Linus, for instance, the author is instantly outnumbered and outclassed by the army of community talent which would act to stop them. On my Windows XP system, NO ONE including me runs as Admin. NO ONE is allowed to use Internet Explorer until I observe better security against Malware. NO ONE is allowed to download or open any email attachments which are unexpected or are programs without consulting me first. On my Linux system I have almost nothing to worry about......
They have endpoint protection for Linux actually. From their website, SEP 10 supports:
Linux Operating Systems (32-bit and 64-bit versions)
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3.x, 4.x, 5.x
* SuSE Linux Enterprise (server/desktop) 9.x, 10.x
* Novell Open Enterprise Server (OES/OES2)
* VMWare ESX 2.5, 3.x
* Ubuntu 7.x, 8.x
* Debian 4.x
Funny thing is that I have used both this and McAfee (McAfee has had antivirus software for Linux, Solaris, and AIX for more than a decade now.) I used to run the McAfee version at home not because of UNIX based threats, but to nab anything on my samba server that is Windows based.
In businesses, often times a contract has a stipulation that all computers have antivirus software on them. Yes, even the Solaris boxes which are running the large Oracle databases, or the AIX boxes being used for CATIA. So, AV software goes on those machines, not because it does anything other than fire off a scan from a crontab every so often, but because it satisfies that contractual checkbox.
As more security breaches hit the news, having an antivirus software on the UNIX machines will likely become a requirement more often. Even though most UNIX boxes need AV software like a fish needs a bicycle, it's present so management can say that every box on their network is protected.
I find it funny how two (out of five possible) of the related stories in the article are about Systematec's software destroying user's files.
And one about a worm exploiting their software.
Well, I was already giggling aloud from the GP post, and PP you replied to...then I got to your reply, and proceeded to snort vodka out of my nose.
No pain, no gain! as they say...at least when I finish wiping the vodka off of the keyboard it will be somewhat cleaner, maybe even disinfected to a smaller degree!
But Damn! that burns the nasal passages!!!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
They are crappy products that have been historically disbled with relative easy by viruses and trojans.
I used to use DOS FPROT with pre-2k systems because I could boot to a 98se startup disk and repair stuff under windows.
However, now the only option is to use Avast, which has a boot time scheduler. I have yet to find anything that Avast can't tackle.
And for consumer use, it's free.
But Symantec and Macaffee make too much money on viruses to actually be good at securing your computer against viruses.
There may be other programs with boot time scheduler and real time scanning agents, but I've never found an antivirus as good as avast.
While (ironically) Symantec's products aren't much better, I wouldn't rely on a free antivirus product either. Especially AVG *shiver*. Right now Kaspersky seems to be doing a very good job, but I find relying on one brand / product when it comes to utility software is a little foolish. Too often the product gets bloated or the developers stop investing as much into development or something better comes along. I pay for my antivirus and every year I do a little research before buying another subscription. Just as it is true that opensource and freeware softwares are not inherently worse or less powerful than software you have to pay for, it is also true that they are not inherently better or more powerful either, and I don't understand how this statement by a software company CEO is deemed newsworthy.
I was in a hurry, so, on not posting fully? I admit that, & apologize... but, that "good stuff" I was noting in my subject-line above? Here tis!
Mod me a "troll", all you like boys!
That doesn't DO "too well", vs. some proofs/evidences, especially of companies (with larger "tpm"/transaction-per-minute or per day than NASDAQ even has etc. et al, no less) that are doing GREAT using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, LAST BUT NOT LEAST? NASDAQ EVIDENCE (finally) of 99.999% uptime (for MDDS):
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:MjTjqPVpm5YJ:https://partner.microsoft.com/download/spain/40059115+%22Trusted+Platform%22+and+%22SQL+Server%22+and+%2299.999%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Trusted Platform Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs / second, 100K queries / day, running on SQL Server 2005
Fixed Income Trade and Positioning
System running on SQL Server 2005
30% performance increase,capacity to process 1,000 trades / second
5TB of data on SQL Server 2005
99.999% uptime, scalability for 30% annual growth
AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999% uptime):
----
"The move from larg
I'm surprised that there's been hardly any mention of the ZoneAlarm firewall in this topic.
I've used it for quite some time, and I've never had a problem with it. I've seen AVG, Avast, etc.. installed on personal computers and they all look completely insecure.
But they don't in BSD, Mac OS X, and Linux, which is the point.
Viruses are a user idiocy problem. The only protection is to not let idiots use computers. Who is going to protect us from the drain and data loss caused bye the anti[sic]-virus programs?
Fuck you Symantec.
Your shit is just as bad as the free stuff. It gives me a false sense of hope, makes me feel I'm safe when I'm not.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I don't know about anyone else but if I were to rely on Symantec's on advice normally, I'd be deleting files left, right and centre because of it's false positive rate.... not sure why I'm going to believe them now.
Title says it all. I use avg, and it has not failed me. And I use another free version for linux. Both work great. So Symantec is trying the FUD factor, as Microsoft does, to retain their market. Too bad MS has dropped to 87% for desktops and is continuing to drop. Horrah for the alternatives.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
In fact most people with no common sense have a reasonable chance of avoiding identity theft with no software at all.
[my emphasis]
How true, how true!
Joe(clueless home user) Sixpack will see the POST error message on boot-up that 'no bootable drive was found: Press any key to continue' and be confused, but completely safe from Identity theft online! Wake On LAN/Alert won't even help an attack here!
After futilely looking for the 'Any' key for 10 ms, they will repeatedly hit the 'reset switch' a dozen times.(it may need to warm up), who knows? Maybe the elves will reconfigure the deflector shield after reversing the polarity on the tachyon field of the warp-core matrix, and then it will 'just work', finally this time.
Having this fail, they will then try for 20 minutes to find the magic 'Any' key, then call tech support in an irate and un-cooperative mood.
Depending on the specifics, Hilarity ensues from here, accompanied by chaos and confusion.
Nero:"Let the games begin!"
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Look at Symantec -- their software constantly nags you with popup messages AND it makes sport of demanding money to protect your computer. Symantec is WORSE than getting a virus.
Does something like AVG or Clam provide perfect protection? No.
But, if the AV'ss going to miss the mark, it's nice to not have to pay ransom money to Symantec.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
I will share a short story of why this announcement isn't worth anything to me. Its purely based on my experience and may or may not be indicative of the software as a whole.
I started a new system admin job around 12 months ago now. All of the servers were up and running happily when I started and I had little to no documentation (its always the case).
2 weeks after I start and im still trying to figure out how all the systems have been setup. I'm playing around on the file server trying to work out the file permissions or something equally as boring when I start to receive some calls saying the email isn't working. My email is working fine so I immediately try and work out what on the users machines is causing this. After a few hours it becomes evident that its effecting anyone that logged in to their system after about 9am, but the people already logged in to the before them are still working fine.
I figure its got to be something on the server end and im getting put under the pump to try and fix it, so I try a magic reboot of the exchange server. This makes it worse as now no one can log in at all. After some digging around I work out that somehow the firewall in Symantec Endpoint that has been installed on the exchange server has decided that its under a DDOS attack and is blocking all the exchange traffic thinking its part of that attack. I disable the firewall and all comes good.
Now it stays like this in its disabled state for a few weeks and I forget that it even had an issue as i battle with the network config (trying to work out whats what). Patch day comes around and exchange gets a patch that requires a reboot. System gos down overnight and when i come back in the morning, no email for everyone again. The firewall had turned its self back on after the reboot and gone back to blocking everything again. This time I uninstall it.
A short while after when doing a system audit I remember that the exchange server no longer has a firewall or antivirus on it, so being the good little system admin I attempt to reinstall endpoint. It refuses to reinstall.
I spend more hours digging around for a solution and I try the removal tool, but nothing I can do will get the system to a state when endpoint will reinstall.. So that is the state our exchange server is now it and has been in for a little under 12 months. I cant afford to rebuild the server, or even reboot it that often. Everything is working and I spend all day hoping that the remnants of endpoint don't suddenly decide to hose the system.
Now this would sound like a nice little isolated issue, however in the following 3 months I have had exactly the same thing happen to at least 3 more servers. All problems were solved by removing endpoint and then I could not reinstall it.
We are just starting the process of a server refresh (new hardware and a new version of windows to boot) and im not planing on running any antivirus on any of them, its just not worth the problems.
Symantec Exec to board members: "Holy underwear! Free Antivirus! From Microsoft! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
i use in this order. Antivir,Mbam and Avg. I fix puters daily with norton on them so in my opinion this guy is full of bs. first smart computing vs grandma dumb computing is the real fault for viruses. if i down load a virus its a false positive because it a keygenartor of something of that ilk. also who can believe a guy who it is in his interest to say such things.
And we have lots of cause heads on here. They are the "OSS is bettar than all t3h time!" kind of people. They also don't have a real good understanding of what the commercial alternatives do. So whenever there's an OSS program in the market, they recommend it as the best for the reason that it is OSS, not because they have any actual evidence to support this fact.
Personally when I tried it I was amazed at how bad it was, not just in terms of detection but in terms of interface. It's chunkiness reminded me of Sophos (one of the few I hate more than Symantec and unfortunately what work has licensed).
All I've got to say is anyone who says it is superior to NOD32 needs their head checked. Yes, it's free, however this really seems to be a case of getting what you pay for.
PsTools is XP and above only, but it covers all that stuff.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The questions needed to be asked... "So who spawns the viruses or supports the creation of viruses to begin with?" "How is it the anti-virus companies just conveniently happen to have the fix for the latest viruses?" "How is it a whole anti-virus industry that supports many multi-megalopolis corporations could be developed simultaneously?" Curious isn't it?
...because I hope it doesn't become common.
We have found it to be fast and reliable, and because it is less popular I believe it is less likely virus writers write their viruses to avoid detection by NOD32.
Happy moony
Symantec Exec to board members: "Holy underwear! Free Antivirus! From Microsoft! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
Actually that probably is how it went but if I remember correctly the reason that Microsoft did not provide free Anti Virus software was due to the fact that the other Anti Virus software vendors threatened to take Microsoft to court over antitrust practices especially since they were convicted of being a monopoly.
Actually the way Microsoft can possibly get around antitrust practices is to make sure that their Anti-Virus software is only available as a download that the user must initiate (massive advertising does not count). If Microsoft forced the download via an update then they could be litigated against. Again Microsoft has to tread carefully otherwise (from my reference).
Antitrust regulators in the U.S. have tended to focus on harm to consumers as opposed to competitors. Authorities in Europe and Korea have taken a broader view, taking action against Microsoft for actions deemed to hurt competitors, such as bundling its media player into Windows.
The above can easily apply to free Anti-Virus software as well.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
I have used Avant in a company, and although it was irritating (does it really HAVE to tell you it's updating) it did the job.
I use Kaspersky for my own company. Does the job. Simple.
Every single new system and laptop I come across is either infested with Symantec or Norton, and in my opinion they're both about the most useless solution available - I think they have gotten lazy off the profits they make from pre-installs. They are resource hogs, expensive and don't appear to add that much value for the constant pain in the rear end they are to maintain, so those products are almost banned by default. As is MS Office now - we get on fine with OOo.
All I need now is a DECENT Outlook replacement. Not to say that Outlook itself is decent, but it's unfortunately the only program mobile phone suppliers feel like integrating with for contact and diary management which is VERY annoying, and has already led to research which makes will no longer be accepted for corpoate use.
Meanwhile, the trend appears to be that we'll switch to Apple with Linux back ends. I know that's switching one monopoly for another, but it appears to make sense for us (so far, still researching).
Insert
Sounds like a threat to me. I don't take kindly to threats. To me it's an admission they fund if not personally help write the crap we are trying to stop in the first place. Go to hell.
Avast anyone?
pure astroturf
THe last time I had malware on a computer I used was back in the early '90s... a DOS-based boot sector virus picked up from a co-worker's floppy disk. Since then my primary antivirus has been "don't be stupid, and don't use internet explorer". Periodic checks have shown no viruses, nothing worse than cookies from websites the antivirus and antispyware mob consider dodgy.
So, yes, I would say that there's a huge disconnect between the risks people face and the tools they need to use... starting with Symantec.
This is such a clear case of if you can't win on your own merits, try FUD!!! I have watched the quality of Symantec Antivirus products steadily decline in quality while rising in price ever since the first Norton Antivirus (I'd be upset if I were Peter Norton, to have my name dragged through the mud like that). It's a trend I've seen among service tech's out there. "Problems on your PC? Oh, let's start by removing Norton..."
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
What? W^X doesn't have anything to do with partitions. And W^X is a software way of doing what is done in windows now with NX bit in hardware. It's not 2006 anymore.
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing. M$ must be running out of money for real trolls.
The correct answer was: partition mount options include a choice of read-only or read-write, and exec or noexec. So, you can make a partion with executables that is read-only. Or you can make a data partition that is read-write but disallows execution of programs. nodev is another useful option to be aware of.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
ClamWin, ClamAV are fine for remedial action. The best remedy, as in all things, is prevention and that can be accomplished by moving to systems that are resistant to malware. Here even the consumer unions fall flat on their faces and fail to mention the Linux distros. Most mainstream distros are years ahead of Windows as far as ease of use, maintenance and speed. The main weakness of real systems (non-M$) is that Web 2.0 script crap.
Here you sound like a troll. There are no sources for any of your claims and they are false.
Here are the sources, try any one of them:
XSS? Search Google.
Note, different than Windows, easier to use and worlds easier to modify and customize. KDE passed XP in usability years ago. It's not 1996 anymore.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Now I have seen paid for anti-virus that is VERY effective. Some of the good ones find most of the viruses and malware, and don't take up too many resources. I have also seen paid anti-virus software that sucks, finds little and clogs your system. On the free end, I have seen some excellent programs, and many that do either nothing, or worse, actually harm your system. Norton is taking this tack because this is the tack that everyone takes when free software gets to the point that you start losing money. They attack, and they lie. WHat they SHOULD be doing is offering features no one else has, and being innovative. I mean, I wouldn't trust Microsoft's anti-malware products either, but there certainly ARE free products I would trust! For the average user, I still recommend paid anti-virus. Heck, I still use the paid version of Zone Alarm on my Windows machines, and I have their secure router. For more knowledgeable, or advanced users that insist on running Windows, there are a number of free programs out there I recommend to them. Heck, I know people that don't even use anti-virus. They never get viruses, but they are also careful what they do online.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
If a proprietary operating system is susceptible to malicious software the company producing it should, for free of charge, provide measures to protect the customer. Failure to do so is proof to the consumer the company producing the operating system has no respect for its customers.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I don't need your bullshit software.
If you're done frothing at the mouth...
It's a computer. It just runs programs. It will do whatever the user tells it to do, even if it's wrong.
A malware program is just that - a program. Typically in my experience these days, it's a program installed by the user themselves.
There's nary a bit of difference between a Vista user downloading and running the "OMG! Ponies!!!" screensaver and having it take over the system, and an Ubuntu user doing the same.
In both cases -- and without additional permission -- the program will be free to run amok and trash whatever files the user has access to.
If "OMG! Ponies!!!" wants to do more than that, all it has to do is ask the user for admin rights. In Vista, this is in the form of a UAC prompt, while in Ubuntu, gksudo accomplishes the same thing.
And then, it's malware party time. The gates are open, the fence is torn down, and "OMG! Ponies!!!" is inviting all of its friends, all of which get to have administrator/root privileges without additional prompting.
All because a user wanted a new screensaver.
As long as the system is capable of running arbitrary programs, and the user still has control of the helm, this will continue to be a problem -- on any OS.
Get your head out of the sand.
Kid-proof tablet..
The first thing I do with any system is dump any product that has 'Norton' on it. Give me a 'free' anti virus any day over Symantec malware. Manufacturers please please please! take note... stop 'preinstalling' symantec crapware on your systems!
I get paid by the hour to do what folks want me to do.
Kid-proof tablet..
I earn more cleaning trial or outdated versions of Norton and its associated hijackware from my customers PCs, than most malware. I also replace with a free AV with far lower resource requirements and better detection rates.
In these difficult economic times I would like to thank David Hall and co for putting food on my table. Keep it up guys!
this is more in ref to a conversation we had last week about hydrogen vs ultracapacitors. I found an article you might find interesting.
HERE.
cheers!
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Heh, PsTools used to run just fine on systems from NT 3.51/95 forward right until Microsoft bought them...
See subject-line above, & this data:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271
As far as the word "PERFECT"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect [merriam-webster.com]
perfect
Main Entry:
1perfect
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect
----
The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY? They BOTH equate to 99.999% (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!
APK
P.S.=> Enoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, & completely legitimate + verifiable... apk
"OneCare has been discontinued. The scanning engine it was based on, along with definition updates, are now available free."
OneCare Live costs $50, according to Microsoft. Didn't you read what I wrote?
In one way, Windows 98 had better file system security. You could set permissions so that access required entry of another password besides the log-on password.
In my opinion, the big advantage of BSD and OS X over Windows is that BSD and OS X were written to be secure. In contrast, Microsoft manages development in such a way that the programmers are not allowed to finish their work. That makes Microsoft a lot of money, since it creates a market for another, supposedly fixed, operating system. This works only because most purchasers have little technical knowledge.
Here are some articles about that: 63,000 known bugs in Windows 2000. Microsoft's explanation: Microsoft disputes reports of 63,000 bugs in Windows 2000.
Here is a sarcastic story about Windows XP: Windows XP Beta 02. Only 106,500 Bugs.
The discussions at the time led to the impression that there is a huge amount of sloppiness. I don't have time to provide more information.
Here is a quote from a comment in the Slashdot story, "Explaining The Windows/UNIX Cultural Divide": 'Each Microsoft application is written "to the metal", reimplementing huge pieces of code that should be abstracted into layers.'
See subject-line above, & this data:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:7u5zusUtjUIJ:https://thesource.ofallevil.com/presspass/events/novlaunch/events.mspx+%2299.999%22+and+%22NASDAQ%22+and+%22Ken+Richmond%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
NASDAQ
Spokesperson: Ken Richmond, Vice President of Software Engineering
Situation:
Largest U.S. electronic stock market
Replacing aging Tandem systems
Wanted to update system for real-time trade summary, risk management and broker clearing
Solution:
MDDS: Market Data Dissemination System (composed of Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005)
5K txs/second, 100K queries/day
Running on SQL Server 2005 with database mirroring for high availability
Benefits:
Enterprise availability
Scalability to handle 8 million new rows of data per day
Lower total cost of ownership
Real-time reporting
Developer agility
KEYWORD, LISTED AS A BENEFIT NO LESS, is "Enterprise Availability", by Ken Richmond of NASDAQ no less (who also was quoted as saying Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 did the job for NASDAQ PERFECTLY) here:
WIKIPEDIA "HIGH AVAILABILITY" DEFINITION PAGE (which lists 99.999% no less) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
Need more?
"ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY"/"HIGH AVAILABILITY" definitions (from various sources):
"for the high availability enterprise servers (99.999% availability)" -> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/omar-gadir/8/162/219
"Device techniques for high availability For years, enterprise network equipment providers strived to deliver 99.999% availability which is the standard major telecommunications companies deliver. This type of reliability is desirable and it s expected when it comes to phone service. If enterprise networks are to support IP phones, they too must deliver similar availability" -> http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:kMTHFHnbIpwJ:www.alcatel-lucentbusinessportal.com/support/includes/doclink.cfm%3Fid%3D7369+%22Enterprise+Availability%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
----
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
FROM -> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49271 [microsoft.com]
As far as the word "PERFECT"?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect [merriam-webster.com] [merriam-webster.com]
perfect
Main Entry:
1perfect
1 a: being entirely without fault or defect
----
The terms PERFECTLY and ENTERPRISE AVAILABILITY? They BOTH equate to 99.999% uptime (the "Fabled '5-9's'" , of uptime)... period!
APK
P.S.=> Enjoy... the proof's all here, as well as in my other postings on this subject, & completely legitimate + verifiable... apk
Witness some proofs/evidences, vs. the "-1 Troll mod-down" I received for posting the truth (vs. the "Pro-*NIX crowd's b.s, they're the TRUE trolls around this website which is sadly INFESTED by them & their false propoganda) especially of companies (with larger "tpm"/transaction-per-minute or per day than NASDAQ even has etc. et al, no less) that are doing GREAT using Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005:
----
FUJIFILM = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:YsNIT18PBTEJ:download.microsoft.com/download/e/5/6/e561fdf6-0f4b-46c2-bd02-389643cbc53f/Fujifilm_SQLServerCaseStudy.doc+%22SQL+Server+2005%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=64&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"This is a mission-critical project, which needs to keep running on 99.999 percent availability. Stoppages are just not acceptable. SQL Server 2005 gives us the reliability we require." - Michito Watanabe, President and Managing Director, Fujifilm Computer System Company
----
XEROX = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=49133 [microsoft.com]
"SQL Server 2005 is mission critical to the Xerox Office Services application. To achieve the 99.999 percent uptime required by the application, we rely on SQL Server 2005 clustering capabilities." - Kirk Pothos Software Development Manager, Xerox Global Services
----
ANTHONY MARANO COMPANY = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer 2005:
http://www.cwhonors.org/viewCaseStudy2008.asp?NominationID=789 [cwhonors.org]
"By migrating to the Fujitsu platform, Anthony Marano has gone from 95 percent system availability to 99.999 percent availability"
----
MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY: = 99.999% uptime on SQLServer:
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VgxcewyAjkgJ:download.microsoft.com/download/F/D/5/FD568D9A-F2A1-4CCF-B087-2C88EE7BE917/MSC.pdf+%22SQLServer%22+and+%2299.999%25%22&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.47.132]
"MSCLinkis anapplication that must be available without fail24hours-a-day,seven day seachweek, and 365 days a year",says Catassi. "WithSQLServer 2005 weve
enjoyed 99.999 percentavailability"
----
AND, Here is a rating of "does the job PERFECTLY" by Ken Richmond, the guy who RUNS THE SHOW IN IS/IT @ NASDAQ FOR YOUR FURTHER REFERENCE (& perfect? MEANS PERFECT - 99.999% uptime):
----
"The move from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers is something of a milestone in the industry. For years, we used large mainframe computers because of their reputation for reliability" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"The fact that we can move mission-critical applications from large mainframe computers to SQL Server 2005 and Intel-based servers shows how both Microsoft and Intel are creating enterprise-grade solutions." - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
"We saw an early demonstration of Snapshot Isolation and knew this was the solution we needed to run queries against real-time data without slowing the delivery of trading data. It has worked perfectly for us" - Ken Richmond, vice president for software engineering, market information systems at NASDAQ.
----
It's not designed for end users. It's designed for power users; for people who know what they are doing.
I don't think you understand the term "end user".
Not to mention the fact that if you paid me had a dollar for every time over the past twenty five years I've had to pull some so-called "power user's" ass out of the fire because he didn't know said ass from his elbow I'd be able to buy myself a nice "power user" computer system with the proceeds.
If Zone Alarm only sold their product to people who *actually* knew what they were doing, they would have gone out of business years ago.
Linux has 4.5-5% of the desktop. This is well established by metering organizations which measure activity over long periods of time on over 20,000 highly visible web sites. Osx has about 2-3% of the market. Even Microsoft acknowledges that Linux has a greater market share than osx.
Only people that don't use and understand Linux believe it it prone to the same issues as windows. Let me say this clearly. Windows is a magnificent clusterfuck of security. It is so bad that it is a Swiss cheese OS. There are so many ways to exploit it, even a patched system, that you are irresponsible for using windows.
The beta of win 7 was nothing more than vista with most of the security removed, a few extra features, and a refined (with stolen ideas and concepts) taskbar. Pcmag.com reports that the RC of win 7 is only 5% faster than vista and all of that is imperceptible to the end user.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I wish I had the mod points to vote you down. You're spouting the same false bullshit people have been saying for years. The only thing you left out was the standard "BSOD" jab.
Windows NT was build to be secure, and actually had a better permissions system than unix. Windows Live OneCare is being discontinued, and is being re-released (for free) to Windows Vista and Win7 as Security Essentials.
You can't stop users running shitty software (like toolbars and desktop buddies), and MS already does everything practical to stop users running every damn thing that gets emailed to them.
Your whinge is stupid and outdated. I may as well complain Macs are insecure because they don't have protected memory and use co-operative multitasking.