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"
except the one at www.virustotal.com when on rare occasion I encounter a suspicious file
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.
I won't run Symantec on my network. When I first took over, everything was Symantec 11, and it was just horrifyingly bad. Pretty much every time I logged into my workstation, I had to kill the rtvscan process, and users were always complaining. When the license renewal came in, I just crumpled it up and through it in the garbage. I had had some experience with F-Prot from when I was working at a small ISP, and decided "what the hell". The licenses were cheap (I did forty computers for $200 a year), it's very lightweight and while I can't do remote scans and the like, the LAN version is dead-dog simple, it just copies the definitions from the server. Even then, it still screws up on occasion, but a helluva lot less than Symantec ever did.
All in all, however, I despise AV products.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I wouldn't count E-SET out so quickly.
They are priced competitively and have boxed software available at Best Buy and a few other retail outlets. I don't believe I have ever seen them at wally world unfortunately.
I think they really shine in multi-installation licensing and I'm not sure if any other vendors are really discounting heavily in that area.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
I wish they were as good at creating AV software as they were at FUD. Symantec is an industry-wide joke, and the only reason I know of that it's still used is because of its management tools.
I was looking at the email server security plugin for Exchange, and was just amazed at what a shitty product it was. It was like a brain-dead version of Postfix. It's very clear that whoever wrote it had little understanding of email security beyond scanning email for viruses. It was just a joke, but an incredibly expensive joke. I tried to sell the guy on the idea of taking one of the Pentium III's he had on a shelf, building a Postfix relay proxy that would be easier to administrate (I never saw a more UI-tarded application than this Symantec one) and considerably more efficient, effective and functional.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I work for technical support for a telephone company ISP. One of my trouble shooting steps (of course when the modem is up and signal good) is to uninstall Norton if system restore does not work. That often fixes the problem. I'm sure there is a use for it out there, but why would you allow a simple home user to disable their internet connection and NOT be able to enable it without uninstalling the program?
Enter "symantec" in google with google suggestion feature on and the first two results are "symantec antivirus" and "symantec removal tool"
Virus Bulletin unbiased enough?
Dunno if they have a more recent test, that's the one I had bookmarked. I get about the same results in my tests, btw.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unfortunately, your post is terribly worded. There haven't been as many holes in IE over the years as some other browsers.
FF3.5: 0, currently (it just came out 2 days ago)
FF3.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/19089/ 81 vulnerabilities
FF2.0: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12434/ 154 vulnerabilities
IE6: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/11/ 154 vulnerabilities
IE7: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/12366/ 84 vulnerabilities
IE8: http://secunia.com/advisories/product/21625/ 8 vulnerabilities
It's clear that IE and FF have the same general history with vulnerabilities, with the earlier products being much less safer than the newer products. Combine IE7/8 with Vista's UAC Protected Mode and you have further protection against system destruction due to a vulnerability.
I've found that free anti-virus, like Avira and Avast, pretty good
I can second this whole-heartedly. I work in a computer shop, and I can personally testify that these two products catch more infections than anything Symantec, McAffee, or Trend Micro EVER came out with. I still recommend Malwarebytes Antimalware as a supplementary spyware scanner, but Avast and Avira are definitely my favorite for main protection.
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.
-i think the two of -us differ in opinion. Look it up, it's viruses.
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?
uninstall Norton
I've seen a number of computers that appear to be setup right but will not work until you uninstall Norton.. I'm not really sure how/why that could happen but it's not a settings problem.
O and if that doesn't work, lspfix found here http://www.cexx.org/lspfix.htm if you don't already know as it will save you a lot of time and I know in your type of job your boss is up your ass about getting people off the line but the problem is though you are trying to fix it over the phone so how do you get the program to them... DOH... sorry...
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.
I used Norton Antivirus for a while (made by Symantec).
number of times it stopped me from getting a virus: 1
Number of false positives: 7 (security tools and a Y2K joke program)
Number of times it screwed up my computer: 2 (Once randomly and once when I went to uninstall that piece of crap)
honestly Id be better off with no protection than with their product.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
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.
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 called ESET (US) to buy their product, they couldn't sell it to me. Pretty typical, they referred me to some shitty online retailer. I called my CDW rep (as I often do spending larger $ amounts), and I actually had to introduce him to their product. They got it worked out, and now CDW sells ESET products. Anyway, it was ridiculous... CDW has pretty much everything, (they're just usually not the cheapest), but they had nothing for ESET in the DB, which I found amazing.
In the end I'm really happy that I chose their AV solution. The distribution and management server and console are fantastic. I have zero problems with the client and it has a small footprint. I don't miss Symantec one f'ing iota.