Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Symantec Exec Warns Against Relying On Free Antivirus

Posted by Soulskill on from the totally-unbiased-no-really dept.

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."

25 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. McAfee false-positive glitch fells PCs worldwide by viralMeme · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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"

  2. Symantec is saying this? by Raindance · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Symantec is saying this? by DavidR1991 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally I have a lot of respect for ESET's AV (specifically NOD32) because it's fast and does the job.

      But since they don't target consumers so aggressively (unlike Symantec with Norton, who manage to get difficult-to-remove trial version on tons of laptops at the point of sale) they don't exactly have a very big following. In fact, outside of business and tech circles, I assume they're completely unknown. So I suppose what went wrong, is that AV companies had to dump ethics to get well known. The decent ones who respect the end user and state of the machine (as opposed to "sticky" trial software and the like) end up at the bottom of the barrel. The industry is "upside down"

    2. Re:Symantec is saying this? by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree that most for-pay software sucks in this regard, just look at any corporate network. Most computers have terrible performance and still wind up spreading worms and viruses.

      I think the key here is that the company is telling us we need his product. In other news, a consultant came to the conclusion that we need more consulting, GM told me I need a new car, and McDonald's told me I need a McBurger. No shit, a company telling me I need their products? Nothing to see here, move along, look for an unbiased neutral party.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    3. Re:Symantec is saying this? by S77IM · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not just AV software. The entire software industry operates this way.

      1. Shovel feature-rich bug-ware onto unsuspecting schlubs to build "brand" (especially in the enterprise/IT market where the person purchasing the software is often not the person who has to use it, so they make decisions based on feature list and brand name rather than quality)
      2. Wait for hobbyists, researchers, or smaller companies to figure out how to do it right
      3. Buy their companies
      4. Repeat

      Remember when Norton was actually decent? It was before Symantec bought them. After the acquisition, Symantec went back to Step 1 and gradually bloated and encrapified the antivirus. Now they are on Step 2. I wouldn't be surprised if they bought up someone like TrendMicro soon, spouting promises of a glorious and euphoria-inducing Norton/PC-cillin integration.

        -- 77IM

      --
      Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
      Master: Well, yes and no.
  3. Predictable much? by Inf0phreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ^_^
    1. Re:Predictable much? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And you just hit right on the head the biggest security measure you can do-get them off IE! I have found by getting them off IE, either with FF, Seamonkey(the older folks seem to prefer its Netscape style layout to FF), Kmeleon(for older machines) or Flock(for those into social networking) the rate of infection goes WAY down with my users.

      The second biggest security advice I can give is don't make your users think. I have Comodo set to auto scan nightly based on their usage patterns, Spybot set to do the same, Foxit does its own updates, Windows set to autoupdate, etc. I have found that by relying on the user as little as possible it helps to keep the system up to date and less of a target. Relying on the user is how so many end up with a four year old out of date Symantec "product" as the only AV on a users machine.

      But I personally think it is funny that the head of Symantec is warning about free AVs, when oftentimes his "product" will drag a machine to its knees worse than any malware infection! When I hand the customer a box that previously had Symantec their machine with something like Comodo installed the first thing they comment on is how much faster their machine is, which is kinda sad, as once upon a time (during the days of DOS and Win9X) Norton was a sign of quality. But like most things Symantec touches Norton turned to crap. BTW, is there any product the Symantec bought that hasn't turned to crap?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  4. In other news by bmo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft warns against free operating systems. "They're so inferior! Look at ours, it runs the London Stock Exchange...oh wait."

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:In other news by sirroc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some sources say that over 80% of desktop computers are infected with a virus called Windows.

      It was 90% ten years ago. Virus removal takes a very long time. Just ask Symantec

  5. Be Afraid! Buy Our Product! by rbochan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Be Afraid! Buy Our Product! by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 5, Funny
      When you decide to choose one AV program over another, what metrics do you use?

      two criteria:

      a) If made by Norton, Symantec, or is sold at PC World, I wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole.

      b) If it costs money, I won't touch it with a barge-pole.

      c) It I install it, and it sucks, it goes out.

      I have a large stock of unused barge-poles, please see my e-bay shop.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  6. Rock and hard place by owlnation · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. You get what you pay for. by dcray2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Meh by achowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Anything is better than Norton by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  10. Not QUITE right by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  11. Symantec products are apparently the same. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by thejynxed · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    2. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by MBaldelli · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      So basically what you're saying is that the idiot programmers used their ass to write a shoddy piece of code that you need a third party uninstaller to remove?

      Yeah that sounds about right actually. And I'm finding the whole of the article, including Hall's bullshit spew to be absolutely hysterical, given that their product runs like a 5,000 pound pig in a 300 pound pig pen. Perhaps if they weren't so bloody quick to obsolete their products on a year to year basis, and trying to push out a new version every year that has even more bloat in it than the last year -- perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to rely on "free" anti-virus solutions as an alternative

      --
      "The truth points to itself." - Kosh, Babylon5
    3. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most of those posts aren't current, but let me assure you that Symantec Endpoint Protection still does this shit.

      We use it at work, and I've discovered the suite does something really retarded:
      There's a part of it they call "network threat protection"; because of the overblown name, it took me a bit of googling to figure out that the thing is literally nothing more than a cheap little firewall. However, unlike real firewalls, if you do something it doesn't like - run the FTP client that comes with Windows, run the Windows wget binary, try to install a program over the network, try to use certain software - it will crash. And 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.

      Note that this isn't some sort of retarded blocking behavior; although NTP is installed, the traffic rules are set to basically "block two or three inconsequential things, allow otherwise". We ended up having to uninstall it on the computers of the people who were most affected.

    4. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have to admit that taking down the Windows network stack does mean your endpoints are indeed protected. At least the ones on your PC.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by blahplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      Symantec products used to be good in the DOS early windows 95 days, now they are just garbage and add no real value, I could never defrag my hard drive in XP using later versions of norton defrag, etc, because of hard disk locking issues because the way their clueless programmers could not figure out NTFS.

      I also hate what they did to partition magic when they bought out powerquest. It seems to me anything that gets aquired by symantec turns to shit.

      They used to be a good company, now one only uses their products "at arms length" I hate installing their anti virus software and usually only run it from CD/DVD.

      They had a few good programs: Their old dos norton utilities and the DOS versions of Ghost - quick, clean simple utilities, what I wouldn't give for someone to make good utilities again.

    6. Re:Symantec products are apparently the same. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  12. Lies, damned lies, and statistics by pelrun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  13. The fundamental problem is sloppy code in Windows. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?