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."

Comments

McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwide

[viralMeme]

"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"

Re:Meh

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Symantec is saying this?

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:Meh

[lytithwyn]

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.

Symantec products are apparently the same.

[Futurepower(R)]

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.

Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.

[thejynxed]

Symantec provided a removal tool because their idiot programmers couldn't be assed to write a proper uninstaller for their shite product.

Re:Symantec products are apparently the same.

[vux984]

Unless, of course, you make the antivirus itself pop up a simple "Yes/No" dialog when its attempted to be uninstalled, warning that malware could be the one behind it. That's what Avast! did last time I uninstalled it, its simple, efficient, and the antivirus app doesn't get classified by *me* as malware unlike dear old Norton.

Right. because there is no way malware could click 'yes'. Hate to break it to you, but there is all kinds of software out there to do this.

Its one of the reasons Vista's UAC prompts are so 'intrusive', because it tries to shunt the dialog box into a 'secure safe mode'... specifically so that other programs, services, etc can't send windows messages, keystrokes, etc to the dialog box and press "allow" for you.

Re:Symantec is saying this?

[dna_(c)(tm)(r)]

-i think the two of -us differ in opinion. Look it up, it's viruses.

The fundamental problem is sloppy code in Windows.

[Futurepower(R)]

Here's a problem with ESET's Nod32 discussed on March 9, 2009: NOD32 was deleting very critical and required Windows files.

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. ... 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."

To me, it seems like this: Testing... Testing... How much abuse will computer users accept?